The Assumption of Mary: Protestant Critique
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2024
- The Bodily Assumption of Mary is an infallible dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the Eastern traditions hold to a similar view. In this video I offer a historical critique of the assumption from a Protestant perspective.
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 BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
00:00 - Introduction
01:26 - 1. Why It's Important
06:10 - 2. Summary of Scholarship
12:20 - 3. Historical Overview
28:37 - 4. What About Revelation 12?
31:04 - Final Appeal
As a very young kid from a Protestant family, I used to think that the word "Assumption" meant that Catholics "assumed" things about Mary that they didn't actually know.😂
I love it. Catholics have assumed a lot about Mary.
That is still a correct assessment
😂 This made me smile. I think you are correct and using the word in context.
Protestantism is essentially based on a man-made construction in the 16th century. So you can make your jokes, but Protestantism hinges on faulty "assumptions" to begin with. Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are closer to the truth than any Protestant church.
Made my day dude hahaha
I appreciate these insights so much. These are not blind, half-hearted attempts at disproving another belief system. They are careful, well studied, open-minded, eye-opening truths that have been weighed against history and God’s word. Well done and thank you.
If you're right about this, it's actually the Protestants preserving the tradition of the apostles and the early church, and Catholicism distorting it.
Protestantism and sola scriptura has divided and confused Christendom for 500 years paving the way for false secular ideologies such as secularism, communism, fascism, socialism etc etc that is played a crucial role in the decline of western civilization, stop posting protestant delusion. Protestantism is a bottomless pit of heresies, division and chaos.
For me the clearest condemnation of this dogma is the following: It is not either very well supported, nor relevant to the christian faith. Making it a dogma and, therefore, a necessity for salvation is just an addition to the gospel and it is clearly a sectarian behavior. I don't see any way around it.
For me, it's the fact that despite my investigation into the Church Fathers and apostolic writings, the doctrine is complete absent.
That's why Romanists shouldn't be called "Catholic", sectarian behavior shouldn't be called Catholic. Just like Independent Fundamentalists shouldn't be called Catholic.
perfect, what's worse is that that would make Christians/Catholics especially before 1850 heretics/anathema...
Learned elder pastors like John McArthur don't soft peddle RCC teaching, like Mariology in it's extremes (and only getting moreso). He calls it another gospel. I've put it on the shelf in agreeing w/ him. I think @Dani just slammed home for me w/ clarity. To put Mary worship on par w/ the gospel essentials we can agree w/ is definitely another gospel, other than the one the apostles preached. There is no hint, not a whisper in Acts or any epistles of RCC claims about her. I'm surprised it hurts me so much to say that.
What I hear all protestants say for me for me for me I am I am me me me.Protestants stops saying what they are protestants,but started to say Christians,just little bit of time and protestants will say what they are real catholic church.
Tens of thousands spirits in protestants denominations,they they can live with that to be “righteous “?
I don’t think it matters whether Mary stayed a virgin or not, died or not, but I do think it matters if Catholics say you have to believe this to be saved. John 3:16 is all about belief in Jesus not Mary. And we should all recognize she is extra special.
As an ex-Catholic, fully trained in liturgical Latin as a child, your pronunciation of "Munificentissimus Deus" ('scuse me while I untie my fingers after typing that) is spot on...took me a month to learn how to sing similar Latin words when I was a kid!
As a believer in God's sovereignty, I also agree that these Marian dogmas, these doctrines of Marian veneration, are cause to abandon faith in the Roman Catholic Church as the single church for Christians established by Christ. When a church puts a woman, no matter how amazing a woman she was, in a position to mediate/advocate for lost sinners on par with, and sometimes in front of, Christ Himself, there are other aberrant things that need to be addressed for that church to come back into alignment with that we are taught in the NT.
We have one advocate to the Father, and Christ Jesus, God the Son, IS that Advocate who declares us "not guilty" in the presence of the Father (1 John 2:1).
"As a believer in God's sovereignty, I also agree that these Marian dogmas, these doctrines of Marian veneration, are cause to abandon faith in the Roman Catholic Church as the single church for Christians established by Christ" - Nonsense.
"no matter how amazing a woman she was, in a position to mediate/advocate for lost sinners on par with, and sometimes in front of, Christ Himself" - completely untrue. Mary is not on "par" with Jesus Christ. Spoken like a true nominalist.
So you have an advocate in Jesus Christ right and you saying he will not find you guilty ?? K … so what you have broken all the 10 commandments…. How he find you not guilty ? When no one with sim can enter heaven ? When you face the judgment is not Jesus who will say you’re guilty it will you yourself without speaking a word that you will know where you belong wheather is heaven or hell … right away all your life will flash before your very ayes and then Jesus will say pass judgment
@@bobaphat3676 Thank you for your response.
To speak to your first comment, why would I attend a church that anathematizes me for taking the portrayal of Mary in all of the gospels as fact? In the NT, Mary was never portrayed as some sort of a mediator to Jesus...Mary, His (then) disciples and the scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees spoke directly to Him with no mediation. Why not follow this same example today and pray directly to the Son for our needs, without sacrament or other mediations?
Your second point: if Mary is not a mediatrix and if my statement is "completely untrue," then why dogmatize the Marian doctrines?
@@juliolopez5630 Thanks for your questions. As I understand them, I'll clarify as best I can.
The fact that I sin (I do, every nanosecond of every day) doesn't mean that I suffer no consequences of my sin. I continue to sin, even after repentance. The difference between my sin before salvation and my sin after salvation is that now, I confess/repent from sin as soon as the Holy Spirit convicts me. Salvation doesn't rid me of sin, it rids me of the desire to sin.
I will be judged of my sin, by Christ Himself. I'll be declared "not guilty" by virtue of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Only by His work am I saved/healed, not by any work done by me toward this salvation.
The work is His. My "work" is to repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:14-15).
@@brianetheredge7323Greetings. If you truly love my God you will also obey his commandments (plural). What is believing in the gospel comprised of? God bless you.
This guy is an absolute treasure! So charitable and kind in presenting his position, and so willing to dig, dig, dig to buttress it. A gentle and generous spirit matched by a beautiful mind. Thank you so much for sharing yourself, Dr Ortlund!
I went to a Catholic wedding and when i hear the priest instruct the couple to go pray to Mary during one part of the ceremony it hit me like a ton of bricks. That was when I realized this stuff was very strange. Bowing and praying to a statue of Mary at the wedding. Just was strange.
I'm out of Catholicism and that never happened in churches I attended. However, ppl DO kneel, give flowers and light candles to Marian statues. I tried that as a Catholic and never felt I was being heard. I gradually stopped the Rosary or substituted a Jesus prayer instead of Hail Mary. I also hated the Regina prayer especially. I warned Catholics not to venerate her. Also is strange that ppl said she was conceived without sin. Growing up these teachings weren't taught a lot to me in CCD. What's scarier is in 1950 they declared Mary a Co-Redemptrix for salvation! I didn't know this until I researched this as an adult. Mother Theresa encouraged Hindus to not convert and be better Hindus. She had a Mary statue Hindus worshipped. If you've been in a Hindu home, many have tons of statues, pictures, Bramin leaders, etc. My Hindu friend said our religions were alike because of Catholic images and paintings. It helped start me on my path out of Catholicism.
@@KM-zn3lx "What's scarier is in 1950 they declared Mary a Co-Redemptrix for salvation" - WRONG! Mary as Co-Redemptrix IS NOT a dogma of the Catholic Church and no Catholic is obligated to believe this.
Prayer is not worship. I’m sorry that Anglos decided to inflate a word for their own biases.
@@anthonycorsi810can you tell me why then that I know so many Catholics who insist on putting statues of Mary up in and around their homes? Or why she is referee to as “our light” and “our hope” in songs? Let alone the inferences mentioned in this video which are not scriptural in the slightest but are all meant to exalt her?
@@flavadave3943 I’m not going to go deep into this because I think the simply answer suffices. If you have a loved one that has died a picture of them can easily put your priorities in order and refocus your inner dialogue of what is really important in life. An image of Mary does the same, so it’s good to have one that is easily visible.
This was such a helpful review of the historical evidence!! I admire how you are able to bring a critique in such a loving and respectful way while not shying away from the seriousness of the concerns. Your channel has really helped me to understand some of the core issues that divide Roman Catholics from other Christian traditions so that I can discuss the subjects with others in a more informed way.
I always chuckle and say that the Assumption of Mary is truly the BIGGEST ASSUMPTION in all of theological history...
Martin Luther had no problem with it!
@@timothyoreilly6675 That I would then change my opinion based on what Luther believed is also a big assumption...
@@sketchbook1 I just read what you wrote and 'assumed' :-)
I've been studying a lot into church history and trying to decipher all these early (or recent in the case) doctrines and I want to say your videos have been helpful in the overwhelming amount of other Catholic and Orthodox videos I've been watching. It's been helpful to hear another outside perspective of why docterines that in theory sounds great and should help the Church, don't actually follow under scrutiny. Honestly, I'd be Catholic right now if it weren’t for the infallibility of the dogmas which were meant to protect and validate the church. If making certain dogma (like the many Marian doctrine) turns out wrong and it's already made infallible, it tears apart all creditbility of the Church, which is kind of unfortunate in my opinion because the RC Church has a lot of good and rich history and if it weren't for certain doctrine like veneration of icons and saints and Mary, among a few, I'd probably be Catholic. Because I agree with a lot of the other core values of Catholicism.
Again, thank you Gavin!
Thanks for sharing, glad my videos have been of use!
@Vanessa-gi3zm - Hi - do yourself a favor and take a look at Miriam's Canticle (Luke 1:46-55) - and discover where she gets this from - in the OT !
Then take that in context with the 7 verses before, and the verse after - and let the Light hit ya! Blessings!
Same. I think I would feel most at home in a Catholic Church. The culture and traddition is rich and beautiful. In fact, I have no problems with icon veneration or saints. I have a massive issue however with the papacy, the sinlessness of Mary, the Catholic definition of purgatory and so on. They don't really hold up to scrutiny and they have tangible negative effects on the church.
@@dokidelta1175the thing though is the RcC is rooted in the papacy. Just because a tradition is old doesn’t make it orthodox.
@@dokidelta1175nice thoughts about the CC, a real home. I understand your reservations about the Papacy, Purgatory and the sinlessness of Mary. All can be rationally explained and biblically demonstrated, suggest you try Catholic Answers that has great resources. Trust your instinct, it is leading to the One True Church that doesn’t compare with any other
The EARLIEST commentaries we have on Revelation 12 all agree that the woman is the Church - no mention of Mary anywhere. That only starts to pop up in the latter half of the millennium when Marian devotion begins to go through the roof.
St. Hippolytus of Rome (170-235)
“By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the CHURCH, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the nations; ”by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations.”
(On the Christ and Antichrist).
St. Victorinus of Pettau (270-303):
“The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient CHURCH of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people.”
(Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John).
St. Methodius of Olympus (died 311)
“The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: Isaiah 60:1-4… It is the CHURCH whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters.”
(Banquet of the Ten Virgins)
Tyconius of Carthage (370-390)
“A woman, he says, clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. Frequently it has been said that the general is divided into many separate particulars, which are one and the same thing.5 For what heaven is, the temple in heaven is, the woman clothed with the sun is, and the moon under her feet is, as if he had said: “a woman clothed with the sun and a woman under her feet,” or “the moon clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet.” For all things are bipartite. He says that the CHURCH has a part of herself that is under her feet.”
(Exposition of the Apocalypse).
Good write up.
Posts like this make me wish I could bookmark comments.
the way catholics get around this is by claiming mary is the mother of the church so somehow that the woman is also her by being virtue of mother?
But then Paul says Sarah is the mother ot the church, so the catholic claim is just a mess...
@@Draezeth YES this, the best I can do is copy and paste it all into a file but my file is getting too big...
Thanks !
Catholic Apologist: Normal Monday.
Gavin: Here is a 30min critique of a Catholic dogma.
Catholic Apologist: Clear my schedule I need to make a 4hr response.
Catholic here! I notice it too, but I’m also glad to see the dialogues and videos and I’m not upset about it haha. I could see how it would be overwhelming for Gavin given this is just a side gig compared to his main job as a pastor and a father of a big family. God bless!
That's so funny. I'm RCC but have noticed this too. Trent will put a 3 hr rebuttle up lol. Gavin does a great job with these. I learn alot from him and really appreciate his approach. He truly lives up to the channel name.
😂😂😂. Good one.
Cough cough* Trent Horn
Facts
It kinda feels like for the (conservative) Protestant side, the Biblical narrative is important because it is an infallible witness to historical realities that are essential to our salvation... the Church receives, guards and transmits this sacred witness, not for its/her own sake but as the guardian of the objective reality outside of her, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and our salvation in Him.
For the Roman Catholic, the sacred deposit of faith seems to be more essential in it's own right rather than the history it reveals objectively... and thus the Roman Catholic position is more open to the idea of the "sacred myth" evolving overtime, not needing to be historically verifiable, etc, because the objective truth of the historical foundation isn't as important as The Church as an institution existing in her current form -- possessing authority over the sacred myth. (This is why Roman Apologists will argue until the cows come home that the Scriptures are unclear and in a sense _unreliable_ apart from the Magisterium).
For Protestants, the sacred history establishes the Church and she serves it, for Roman Catholics, the Church establishes the sacred history and it serves her.
I know that Catholics will balk at that but sometimes that's the way it looks.
Well said.
I think you are spot on.
the Scriptures are so clear that protestants can't even agree on the Trinity
Well, our understanding of history evolves wether we realize it or not. It might be more honest to have an active relationship with how that evolves, than to simply pretend we can somehow stay put in our relationship with the world, our words, what we are conscious of, and a text.
I'm protestant, but if I felt I had to be Roman in order to engage in this way with the history, then Roman I would be.
@@iphidamasfilms1245 really? I’m pretty sure we generally agree on the Trinity. Who holds a different view?
Ohhh I LOVED seeing your son walk in to such a loving greeting! That warmed my heart ❤
I’ve been binging on your videos lately; thank you for all of the research and work that you do and share with us. It’s all immensely valuable! But I have to say, I do wish you would delve into the Marian Apparitions (such as Fatima), and into the Rosary. It all kind of… feeds the Roman Catholic culture AND these Marian Dogmas. Hopefully it’ll become an interest of yours at some point. In any case, thanks again.
thanks for the advice; glad you are enjoying the videos!
@@TruthUnites As an example, the glorious mysteries of the Rosary affirm the Assumption, so Catholics are affirming this dogma every time they pray it. The Marian Apparitions oftentimes request believers to pray the Rosary… it’s an endless loop. This happens with many, if not all of the dogmas. Another example, in the apparitions of Rue de Bac and Lourdes, the Apparitions affirm (indirectly) the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Mary born without sin).
Now, the Catholic Church doesn’t require the faithful to believe in any of the Apparitions; they simply determine if they are “worthy of belief”. However, they are clearly interwoven in Catholic consciousness. It’s almost as if to believe in the Apparitions is to affirm Roman Catholicism.
Personally, I don’t dare judge these things publicly. But the implications of these things being judged true or false by a person or a church are… significant.
@@ninalove6277 In 1854 Pope Pius IX formally defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Four years later, 1858 in Lourdes, Mary identified herself as "I am the Immaculate Conception" to 14 year old St. Bernadette, who couldn't even pronounce "Immaculada Conceptiou". when she told others this was who the Lady said she was.
“Que soy era Immaculada Conceptiou,”
But the priests certainly knew that the Immaculate Conception is the Mother of God. Bernadette did not even know what it meant.
She is one of the incorruptible saints.,
@@ninalove6277 I think there is good reason to believe these apparitions are satanic deception.
@@joekey8464 Nonsense.
Have been waiting for this one for a long time😁great ministry btw
Thanks Dr. Ortland!
Mary plays a major role in Catholic devotion. I work at a Catholic (salesian) school. The kids greet Mary every morning and say the Hail Mary multiple times a day. The staff says the Hail Mary before and after every staff meeting.
When I visited my family in Italy during the feast of the Assumption (mid August), a large statue of Mary adorned with flowers was paraded around the city…. Much like the Japanese Shintoists carrying a Mikoshi during their summer festivals.
I’m surprised How little head scratching it causes.
Being that the Ark of the Covenant was the first icon of the Theotokos, it is really not that surprising.
Marian worship is only getting more and more entrenched. Bowing, kneeling, feet kissing, tossing of flowers to solemn processions w/ statues, a pope having a logo w/ a cross attached to an M. There's just no admission of idolatry in Catholicism. Even the commandment on idolatry is changed in Catholic bibles.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I want to start by saying that being chosen to carry And parent God incarnate must mean that Mary was probably pretty trust worthy.
That being said the ark of the covenant was the place where God’s presence came to rest and interact with his people. God’s interaction with his people came from the holy of holies and through his intermediaries, namely the priests. Multiple chapters in the Torah are dedicated to the ark, the furnishing of the tabernacle and correct ceremony.
Once Jesus came and revealed himself to us, he said, “no one comes to the father, except through me.” No talk of Mary whatsoever.
Upon his death, the veil of the temple was torn. Christ is the vehicle of intercession, allowing us to directly approach the Father. The Spirit of the Lord dwells within us.
None of what I said has been read into the text, I’m paraphrasing scripture. A lot of Catholic and Orthodox theology is read into scripture….
Christ frees us and allows is to directly approach the Father. Why are you trying to go back into the waiting room?
@@MRBosnoyanI understand where you are coming from, but consider this. it's not the waiting room in our minds, it's the fulfillment. We are not gnostics seeking to escape all things material.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology This is a false Catholic argument. God commanded the ark to be made, and He didn't command it to be made for the sake of worshiping it or treating it as if it was inherently holy.
The comments on your videos are always so interesting and I learn from them too... I guess a reflection of a thought provoking video.
Good work, I really appreciate these videos they seem well researched and are honest with the history.
“Can you see the bind you put us in?” The Reformation in a nutshell. Great presentation Dr. Ortlund.
Can you see the individualism and secularism Protestantism has brought us in?
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession [a]for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save [a]to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.. ...
....
.
.
.
A binding of 1500 years was neglected?
Well considering the rise of Marian dogma accelerated nearer the time to, and beyond long after the Reformation, I still think the point stands.
@@samueljennings4809 what do you mean by "rise"? Most marian doctrines were already believed way before the reformation.
In fact, only the assumption was set as a dogma after the reformation.
I LOVE the Virgin Mary...!
Me too.
Great video Gavin 👍
Gavin, I just wanted to Express my gratitude for this video. Thank you very much! You raised so many important questions... and all of them based on a solid research. Congratulations. I felt priviledged to watch this video - and also its continuation in response do Albrecth. As soon as I get time I'll read Shoemaker's works.
Ps: I hope to see you soon in a Christian Conference here in Brazil. 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷 It would be great.
God bless you
23:54 Thomas can’t even catch a break even in apocryphal works haha.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown Gavin .
Love it. So thankful for your ministry.
Check out John chapter 6 about when the would be disciples reject the Eucharist. czcams.com/video/O4AslohZPeg/video.html
There is no biblical evidence for Mary’s Assumption. It requires extreme reaching.
You have no body or grave so you have no evidence she died. You have no evidence she is buried anywhere.
@@MrPeach1 if a dead body is not found, does that mean it ascended?
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia I feel like John the Apostle would have told someone where she was buried at.
@@MrPeach1 fair enough ;)
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia on a side note we say Jesus ascended and Mary was assumed. The difference being that Jesus went up by His own powers and Mary was taken up by God's or Jesus powers.
Great video Gavin!
My issue (and that of the Reformers) is the _dogma_ part of Marian dogmas.
It's only getting more and more entrenched too. Now we have the Assumption of Mary declared in the 50's. As is the immaculate conception of last century hadn't already put her yet another step to divinity and equality w/ Christ.
The principal Catholic dogma is the holy Trinity. Only the Trinity is God and there is no other nor is another person to be declared a part of Him.
The honors and gifts given to the Blessed Virgin Mary were not given to her by the Catholic Church but by God. The Church just recognizes it, defines it, and declares it to the faithful.
If you can accept the Trinity, then the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception should pose no problem. The Church will never declare Mary to be divine.
As far as Mary created sinless, God made his creation good and perfect. Adam and Eve were created sinless. He did the same with Mary.
Eve disobeyed God and thereby brought sin upon the world.
Right there at the fall in Genesis God announced His plan of salvation. He could have just declared that He will send a savior but He began His plan of salvation by announcing the He would put an enmity between the serpent and the woman. The woman whose seed will crush the serpent. As Eve's disobedience brought the fall, Mary's obedience set in motion God's plan of salvation.
Right from the beginning God gave the Blessed Virgin Mary a special role. She's the mother of God and a mother to the Church.
As Jesus is Lord and King of kings, Mary is the gebirah, the queen mother.
@YAJUN YUAN I didn't know Adam and Eve were Gods when they were made.
It's always a pleasure watching your videos Dr. Ortlund. You may have mentioned this book in your video but I simply missed it, but I thought Matthew Levering's book on this subject was worth reading.
What does the wrath of Peter and Paul even mean?
What makes it funnier is that the Roman Church is already under Paul’s anathema in Galatians.
Excellent treatment of a subject of great concern to Protestants, the Marian dogmas are why I could not take part in an ecumenical service in which there was prayer to Mary. Keep up the good work
James, just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, so too even now, for NOT EVEN DEATH CAN SEPARATE US! Especially the Mother of God, she who moved her Son and Lord to perform His public miracle, even though it was not yet His hour, touched by His Mother's compassion for the wedding couple, as the prayers of a righteous person have great power in it's effects! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession [a]for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save [a]to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.
@@mynameis......23 then why do you read Mark and Luke, since they are not Apostles? Paul says Abraham is our FATHER and The Archangel Gabriel said Jesus Christ shall be given the throne of David His FATHER!
Just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, so too even now, for NOT EVEN DEATH CAN SEPARATE US! Especially the Mother of God, she who moved her Son and Lord to perform His public miracle, even though it was not yet His hour, touched by His Mother's compassion for the wedding couple, as the prayers of a righteous person have great power in it's effects!
Paul recommended ordained ministers refrain from marriage. Mary is indeed the Mother of God, more blessed than you and I, as she alone gave birth to the creator of the World, as God regarded Mary for her humility! Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
As a Protestant, I don't have s problem with prayer to Mary, or anyone in heaven for that matter. Just as long as it is no more than one would say to any other brother or sister in Christ. The aim is that we have communion with the eternal choir in heaven. We can pray for the saints, we can ask saints for prayers, etc. What we can't do is ask for special insights, fortune telling, controlling of events, etc.
Now, whether it would be heard is another matter. I don't know about that. But personally I believe my dead relatives can hear me when I think of them, and that they can communicate back, just like you can read this message right now. I see no particular reason that should not be possible, as I think heaven has a different relation to time and space.
But just as with talking to people in temporal existence can be done in the wrong way, and one can start idolising them, or getting them to do bad stuff, it is a danger that people start doing the same with people in heaven.
But it is a general problem. We shouldn't stop interacting just because we could do it badly.
@@MortenBendiksen I totally agree, for just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, so too even now, for NOT EVEN DEATH CAN SEPARATE US! Especially the Mother of God, she who moved her Son and Lord to perform His public miracle, even though it was not yet His hour, touched by His Mother's compassion for the wedding couple, as the prayers of a righteous person have great power in it's effects! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
ALSO Shokemaker: "this earliest evidence for the veneration of Mary appears to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu ... [suggesting] that the cult of the Virgin had its origins somewhere outside of the proto-orthodox stream of early Christianity" (from Wikipedia)
It's important to actually read Shoemaker rather than just the quotes on this video (which are accurate of course) or just read something on Wikipedia. Shoemaker is a little more nuanced. This from his one of his conclusion sections from the 2004 book on page 278:
"The indication of the earliest narratives is that they were
in contact with some sort of gnostic Christianity early in their
development. Nevertheless, it is not at all certain that the traditions
originated in such a milieu: it may be that they merely
passed through such a context at some point in their now
unknown prehistory."
As usual, Gavin presents a quiet, thoughtful summary of the facts. I do admire his charity in the face of some of the comments made against him. God Bless you all my brothers and sisters of whatever side of the fence you are.
Gavin is clueless on how dogmas are defined by the church, he is just a typical fundamentalist that picks and chooses what he wants to make a faulty argument against the church. Protestants cannot even justify their false sola scriptura doctrine, now they are using early church fathers writings for their arguments LOL Can't even accept that The Canon of Scriptures / Holy bible is a doctrine of the church in the 4th century (unbiblical).
hey gavin, im catholic and just today i was actually looking into the bodily assumption to see what the grounds are for it, so pretty cool that i found this vid.
just wanted to say that i think you did very well with your presentation and made good points, as well as coming across very respectfully!
i believe in the dogma, but regardless of our different views, i thoroughly enjoyed what you put on the table, and i enjoyed learning about the more historical aspect through the information you provided!
God bless and have a great day!
What makes you believe in the dogma?
@@CCTOOLE This makes me Believe czcams.com/video/4vOPWJBjAPg/video.html
@@CCTOOLE the fact that it’s true. Gavin like all false teachers, no matter how well meaning or sincere, has fallen into schism and crossed into heretical self-delusion. His anti-Catholic bias has blinded him to the reality of who Mary is (the mother of God and Queen of Heaven) and her importance to salvation history.
Even despite this, I respect that he respects Mary, despite attempting to attack her to support his own ideas and personal “ministry”
It is not Gavin’s conscience, but his ego that prevents him from believing the Assumption. He consistently reads into the text what he wants to see and disregards the rest. I give him credit, though, for his research. There is also an oral tradition about Peter being martyred at Rome, and unlike Mary, we have bodily relics of Peter but not Mary. Gavin at least acknowledges that Mary was sinless, at least as often as he attempts to work it into his own “assumptions” and “presumptions” that he wants to “prove” as opposed to simply find the actual truth.
The real question, why does the Assumption have to have been broadly agreed upon to have been true? The Gnostic texts and other heretical books that Gavin likes to draw from also dispute all of the aspects of Christ that most Protestants have at least at one time or another accepted.
I see the Church as enshrining truth, whether you want to believe the truth or not.
Time-stamps
4:23 - Gavin said:
I’ve heard other people say that Mariology is not this kind of sidebar; it’s interwoven throughout the whole of the Catholic system.
5:05 - Gavin’s point:
We’ve made some ecumenical progress concerning the Eucharist and justification. But with Mariology, the divide between Catholics and Protestants is getting deeper.
7:15 - The year 1950
7:38 - Catholic pushback
9:09 - Shoemaker’s summary
I want to expand upon a good point made by Dr. Ortlund. He brings up the issue of ancient sources discussing assumptions and similar events among other figures (e.g., Enoch) without mentioning Mary in the process. He cites some material from Tertullian as an illustration. Since the nature of the argument is such that it gains significantly more force when more sources are cited, it's important to address a larger number of sources. Many more can be added to Tertullian. For example: Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:5; Origen, in Thomas Scheck, trans., Origen: Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Books 1-5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2001), 5:4:3, p. 340; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 3:2:14; Apostolic Constitutions, 5:7; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:6; John Chrysostom, Homilies On John, 75; Jerome, To Pammachius Against John Of Jerusalem, 29, 32; Faustus, cited in Augustine, Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 26:1; Augustine, On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin, 2:27. Since Roman Catholics have disagreed about whether Mary died prior to being assumed to heaven, the contexts in which Mary could be mentioned will vary somewhat depending on what view of whether she died is held. If we combine both views, think of the contexts in which Mary could be mentioned:
- People who didn't die.
- People who have been raised from the dead.
- People who have experienced resurrection to an immortal body rather than just being raised in the sense of resuscitation.
- People who were bodily taken up to heaven.
- People who are currently living in the afterlife in a bodily state, prior to the general resurrection in the future.
We find these topics discussed in scripture and the patristic literature, frequently in some cases. So, it's not just that Mary's alleged assumption goes unmentioned in one context or on some small handful of occasions. Rather, it's unmentioned across a large number and variety of contexts and occasions for hundreds of years while other figures keep getting mentioned over and over again (e.g., Enoch, Elijah, Paul). And we're often told by Catholics that Mary was held in such high regard by the earliest Christians, that she's the greatest being after God, etc. You'd expect an assumption of Mary to have been prominent in their thinking accordingly if they'd believed in her assumption.
@Bb Dl Whether an argument from silence is valid depends on the context. I've explained why the contexts involved here are significant. You're not interacting with what I said.
Or simply that Mary really wasn’t that interesting outside of her virgin birth and whatever she might’ve done in the New Testament whenever she was mentioned
Marian devotion is a later invention that has no historical basis
here is my nutty idea: Mary actually lost her faith, and like James was later restored. The silence is due to respect, and the later legends due to embarrassment.
My reasons for this are primarily thelogical: Jesus lost everything and everyone. if he always had mom and her understanding, he could have clinged to that in his agony. Why wasn't Mary the first witness to the resurrection? Because God is attracted to the unexpected, to the outcast, to the former demon-possessed.
@@jmorra Mary was mentioned being at Pentecost, I think. Personally, I think she may just have withdrawn from public life once the apostles got going, and took up gardening, or something. 🤷🏽♂️
I think he meant that she probably didn't do much worth noting after Jesus' ministry, and that's the reason for the silence on her later life. Not that she isn't worth commending for her faith.
14min-15min; probably the best point... seriously, if the Mother of God (I say that purely because Christ was fully God and fully Man and Mary gave birth to him) were to have been seen ascending to heaven in the flesh; you'd think that word would spread as fast and as far as the Ascension of the Lord. It's not everyday that you see a woman floating up to the heavens.
Great video brother
I love the ending of the video. Your priorities are great.
I’ve been attending an Orthodox Church for some time. One of the reasons for this is that I have attended Protestant churches faithfully for 30+ years and have come to be very discontent with Protestantism and over that 30+ year period have found the churches I attended very unhelpful overall. These were evangelical churches that affirm inerrancy. All of my spiritual nourishment came via my family, or individual study, or the campus ministry I attended in college (Navigators), or the seminary I attended (DTS). Rarely anything of much use from the church. I served. I did small groups. It all seems very shallow. THEN I visit an Orthodox Church and find it immediately spiritually nourishing from day 1. Too many reasons for this to list - transcendental qualities, history, reverence, etc. Doctrinally I can’t get square with venerating icons (though I appreciate their presence) and Marian doctrines. The question I am asking myself is, “Which is worse - to continue in a tradition I can accept doctrinally but is practically speaking unhelpful or to attend a church where I have doctrinal issues but am nourished?” Also I’ve heard pastor Gavin say, “before you convert learn about your own history”. He’s right - Protestants have amazing history too. The issue is in orthodoxy the richness and history is right there in the service and is set before you. In Protestantism all of the onus has been on me to find it. All respectful perspectives appreciated - please help!!
I feel the exact same way! I found great middle ground in the North American Anglican Church. Also listen to father Thomas McKenzie on Redeemer Cast podcast. He’s since deceased, but his sermons from 2009-2021 are more valuable and balanced than I know what to do with.
Protestantism has lost all sense of wonder and mystery. Anglicanism or Lutheranism may be the only venues left within Protesrantism that can fill the void.
@@eve8977 I had the pleasure of meeting Father Thomas and go to Redeemer a few times a year as my brother is a member there. Fr. Thomas teachings and homilies are invaluable. He is still greatly missed. My brother and I both left the American evangelical church for a more liturgical catholic balanced church. I’m happily Lutheran and my brother is happily Anglican. American evangelicalism needs to die out and it is as well as the liberal mainlines. Everyone is leaving in droves for the ACNA, Lutheranism, Rome and the East. It’s an exciting time in the American church. As a high church Lutheran I am being spiritually nourished like never before it’s almost effortless once you start living through the liturgy and sacraments.
great news, lutheranism is just for you! the Lutheran tradition has the eucharist, liturgy, baptismal regeneration, ancient creeds, mystery, continuity with the fathers (a better one than EO at that), and all without the marian dogmas, veneration of icons, and semi pelagianism. it seems that you are comparing the worst of protestantism with the best of orthodoxy. if you have any questions or concerns, i'd love to set up a correspondence
@@secundemscripturas992 don’t forget one of my Lutheran favorites. Confession and Absolution!
I strongly considered conversion, but looking into the Marian dogmas - it was a show stopper, along with intercessory prayer to deceased-of-this-life saints. There are a lot of beautiful things about the structure of Roman Catholicism. The dogmas can’t be reconciled with Scripture, and yet it must be believed on faith.
Yes, you get everything in the church....Marian apparition - The earliest known claim was from St. James the Greater who saw the Virgin Mary while he was in preaching on the banks of the Ebro River in Saragossa, Spain in 40 A.D.
Some scholars estimate the total number of apparition claims throughout history to be approximately 2,500 (with about 500 of those coming in the 20th century alone). Too many to be ignored.
The Catholic Church has been very cautious to approve purported miraculous events, only 16 of those have been recognized by the Vatican.
In 1858, in Lourdes, Mary, herself said that she was the "Immaculate Conception". This was four years after Pope Pius IX had declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854.
@@joekey8464 yes. My challenge with accepting this is that Scripture is silent about her, completely, after the upper room. Paul doesn’t mention her by name in the instructive Epistles. And John says nothing about her, at all. On the other hand, Satan can appear as an angel of light, to deceive. This most certainly happened to Muhammad, and possibly to Joseph Smith (unless he lied about even that).
@@joekey8464 we can’t trust apparitions. When Christ returned, they could touch him.
Gavin, thanks for this video. I'm an evangelical pastor now, but I was raised Roman Catholic (K-12 Catholic School). In high school and college I was an atheist, and came to faith in Jesus from reading Luke and Acts. When I first started following Jesus, I was totally open to being either Catholic or Protestant (following CS Lewis' advice from Mere Christianity). However, the straw that broke the camel's back for me towards Protestantism as being more biblically and historically faithful, was this doctrine. I still remember reading the book of Acts and thinking "wait, where's the part where Mary is assumed to heaven?" and that's when I started checking out Protestant churches. Thanks for this REALLY important and well-done video!
Hi David, I am glad you returned to Jesus. I hope you will reconsider your heritage as a Catholic. Regardless I consider you a brother in Christ. Kind Regards.
You were assuming what you tried to prove, namely that the entire deposit of the Faith is contained in the Bible. Remember that Catholics, rightly or wrongly, believe that sacred tradition is important as well. Of course, you Protestants could be right and we could be wrong, but if you use Protestant positions to prove Protestantism, you are reasoning in a circle.
I find it comical that there could be an, "oral tradition which no one mentions". I'm not trying to poke fun or anything, but that's hilarious, like something from a Monty Python sketch.
During the time of Christ about 3% of the population of Palestine were literate. Mass literacy only began in the 15th century when Guttenberg (a Catholic) invented the printing press. For the first approximately 1400 years of the Christian religion the vast majority of the people couldn't read the Scriptures as they were illiterate!
This was great. Just watched the Pints With Aquinas debate on this and really wish some of these quotes had come up.... Shoemaker and Daley seemed to be the main scholarly support for the Catholic apologist's case.
This is probably my biggest problem with EO/RC
I enjoyed your research into this issue, and found some great arguments that prompted a thought of oral traditions: in today's world of information technology, one can transmit ideas with 1's and 0's but in the time of Mary's Assumption, ideas were spread at a different pace.
Fair presentation!
Many thanks Gavin
Hi Gavin! Do you have a list of books somewhere that you would recommend a student read to dive deeper into church history? My experience so far stops with Augustine and some of the reformers.
History of the Christian Church Volumes by Phillip Schaff and/or 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power Volumes by Nick Needham.
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils by Leo Davis is very good. For the church fathers A Patristic Treasury by Dr. James Payton is great.
What do you think of Epiphanius's work in Panarian where he references the assumption of Mary in section 79 in the year 350?
Well said! Mary was the most unique woman in history. Total respect, worship no. Worship is appropriate only for the Holy Trinity.
exactly, total respect (veneration). We do not worship Mary, it has been said enough
yes. Prayer to mary is not worship, i am so tored of explaining this, we love and pray to mary but wordhip is for god alone. Pleas why cant people understand this (i am actually soooo tired of people acusing me of mariam worship)
@@hamontequila1104 I agree brother. Many Protestants think praying to someone is full on worshipping. If a prot thinks prayer is worshipping then they should consider getting deeper into their spiritual life. Someone could be an absolutely horrible person and still pray, but they aren’t really worshipping God, they are being hypocrites. Worship is full devotion to someone, not just mere respect. It is giving your life to God, putting him first.
Where did people get the idea that a human being (dead or alive in heaven) is omnipresent and is basically a God who can hear prayers directed to them from all over earth at any time ? if you believe that someone is in heaven, then that's where all his knowledge lies, he does not have any powers outside of heaven and they do not have ears here on earth, people keep saying that they don't consider Mary equal to God yet they take God's divine characteristics and assign them to created limited human being like Mary or any other so called saint and they don't consider that idolatry ?! The bible calls those who are dead in christ as "asleep" but people insist in converting them to Gods after death, Gods who can hear anyone on earth at anytime and take actions, we are indeed in the endtimes
I am Protestant and have never heard this theory of Mary before. It literally sounds completely made up. There is no fact that it’s based on.
Some interesting points. But if I may, I'd like to point out a few biases, both yours and my own. There seems to be a bit of an omission of world history up to the point where we see the discussion of the Assumption becoming a topic of general discussion. The Church generally had periods of persecution and peace, but still remained illegal, and primarily a religion of the poor, and illiterate before the Edict of Toleration. Much of what we read prior to this point was a response to attacks by Pagans, Jewish authorities and heretical sects that were springing up. The Pagans attacking Christians as being Atheists and cannibals, for not worshiping the gods of the Pagan world and the claims that they were eating the flesh of their messiah. The Jews and heretical sects for their mostly Christological teachings or denial of the claims of Jesus' messiahship or divinity. Quite a bit to contend while maintaining a safe distance from the crash of a Roman Centurian through one's door for sedition.
As to the claims of where Mary lived and died, it comes as no surprise to me that different places would claim to have the grave or house that Mary lived, or raised Jesus, all we need to do is look to all the places in New England that used the claims "George Washington slept here" to see what kind of benefit good PR would get you. Christians be they authentic believers or lukewarm adherents who wanted to make a shekel would be able to profit off such claims, we in the 21rst century don't have an exclusive claim to those who call themselves Christians who are seeking to make a good living, rather than living a good life.
While the distractions of persecution, avoiding the tax man (Pagan and Jewish religious authorities were tax exempt at the time, Christianity and other non-recognized religions were not) and a myriad of attacks, as well as time it would seem have kept the development of theological thought from blossoming the way it did after the fourth or fifth centuries, but let's not forget, that over the past 150 years or so the volume of older texts that have been rediscovered in both secular and religious areas has been mind boggling. Books which we only had a few lines of, or mention of in other texts have been found. Examples would be the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have still only been partially examined. Thanks to British explorers in Greece and the Middle East long lost texts were found in ancient monastic libraries, and saved because the monks had not catalogued the holdings, and sold them off, when the visitors to these houses reported that some of them were used by the monks as sources for fires to warm the rooms of the monasteries, these too are still mostly unread or translated waiting for the museum and University curators to preserve and translate or transcribe them. So it seems that discounting the Assumption by the assumption that we don't have earlier sources relies on guesswork more than proof one way or the other.
Then there is the treaties attributed to Melito pf Sardis from circa 180 "The Book of the Passing of the Most Holy Virgin, the Mother of God". That it exists shows that there is not complete silence on the subject. That it was not the primary focus of the early church and would have been of lesser importance that who and what Christ Jesus was does not mean it was not something believed.
Lastly, the focus of the video seems to have been written documents. However when we look at the artistic records of the catacombs and new archeological sites recently found, including a couple of the most ancient Churches in the Middle East, we see depictions of Jesus, OT Saints, NT Saints including Mary. We also see votive offerings, and graffiti petitioning Mary and the Martyrs to pray for both the living and the dead. It would seem that the early Christians did not find the invocation of Mary and the Martyrs to pray for them was something they feared would take anything away from Jesus, or the Faith they learned from the Apostles and their immediate successors.
You are free to disagree, but I think the information you require may be awaiting it's place with Melito's writing. At the very least, your points are quite helpful in inspiring me to continue reading, and looking through some of the books that I've been meaning to sit down and read after I retire, (at least to not put off until retirement pulling a few off the shelves.)
Excellent points and research.
Great points and I must say more in-depth than an argument from silence. Thanks
Well said
Thank you. Excellent post. Christians would quietly practice their faith in homes.
The blood of martyrs and persecuted are our ancestors.
Thanks Gavin for a clear and charitable critique.
Some critiques I have of this:
I wonder if you rely too heavily on Shoemaker. I'm not saying he is wrong, but much of your conclusions from the historical overview is simply agreeing with him. Maybe there is more to back him up.
Regarding Rev 12, one thing to realize is that the chapter divisions are later inventions and the books should be read as though these divisions aren't there. I'd say that a majority of those 10,000 people, will be able to see Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, which is why early Christians quite easily saw it. The parallels between Mary and the Ark is so many, I won't be able to list them all there. People can look it up. Anyhow, reading the end of Rev 11 and then on to the start of Rev 12 would shows a connection between the Ark in 11 and the woman in 12. Rev 11 say the Ark is seen in the temple in heaven, thus indicating God had not allowed it to erode away on earth. Mary, being the new Ark, being the woman in Rev 12, can be see as having similar happen.
Parallels could be made of the Ark being brought in to Jerusalem by David, and Mary being brought in to the new Jerusalem by Jesus (the new David). How many would get that? Maybe not so many, but I could see some getting there.
as a lutheran who prays to saints, thank you for showing mercy, i am so stressed after looking through this comment section, you have actually helped me alot
Do you think it is valid to personally believe any of the early ideas about what happened to Mary? The main issue is saying that someone *must* believe *one specific* idea?
I believe so. In a Protestant context you wouldn’t take any of the catholic Marion ideology for the most part, since a lot is based on tradition. And you’re correct, whichever you do end up falling to, if it’s not the correct dogma you would be excluded altogether from the church.
If you are just talking in general terms, it would depend on what you mean by "valid." Merely _believing_ anything doesn't make it valid, if, by that, you mean true. So let's say you're a Baptist, but you personally believe Mary was taken bodily to heaven. That's fine, I think, but one would have to ask, "Why?" I think the main issue is ALL MARIAN DOGMAS are required beliefs for Catholics.
@@piracy22 Being based on tradition is no reason to reject something though. 1500 years of church history is also Protestant tradition.
@@ConciseCabbage I agree, but if scripture disagrees with it, the tradition has no value and should be rejected. If it aligns with scripture it should be embraced with joy.
A quote you referenced near the end of your video:
"It is not until the end of the sixth century that the narrative of Mary's death and entry into glory seems to have become fixed in its general outline and accepted by all the major churches of the eastern Mediterranean world." -Daley
I actually find it compelling that despite the seeming "lack" of evidence for an early and consistent attestation for the Assumption of Mary, all the major churches of the eastern Mediterranean then proceeded to accept the general outline of narrative that began solidifying in the 6th century. It'd be like saying "look at the fairly diverse perspectives in the early church concerning aspects of the canon of scripture, the natures of Christ, the use and place of icons, etc; but wow! Look at how a very steady consensus was eventually accepted for each of these very important items--despite outliers and variations--when they were finally surfaced for discussion and contemplation"
I don't find that compelling at all. Movements tend to spread on popularity. If you are EO why did so many western churches (nearly unanimously) accept the Papacy? Or why did EO nearly universally reject the papacy? That argument is not compelling.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 I'm thinking more about the reality of Sensus Fidelium, the understanding that if something is being accepted by the majority of Christians around the world after time for contemplation, debate, argument and discernment, there's a good level of confidence that the Holy Spirit--who is with the Church--is confirming the truthfulness of that belief, kind of how--despite outliers, which there will always be--the majority of Christians began accepting the 73-book canon of the Scriptures even though for hundreds of years prior there had been disagreements on some books and some collections and even after the majority agreed on one set canon there were some that continued propagating a variation to that majority view
@@wilsonw.t.6878 And on the note of EO and the papacy, the EO do accept the papacy, they just have issues with some aspects of the West's understanding of the papacy's jurisdiction and responsibilities. But they totally affirm that the pope is at the very least the first among equals and the Shepherd of the shepherds on earth. That sounds like consensus to me despite some of the other disagreements that then arise on the particulars of how the papacy is then to function in the universal Church. Kind of how both east and west accept the bodily Assumption of Mary, but there are debatable disagreements about some of the particulars like whether she had "slept" first or was assumed before her death, etc.
@YAJUN YUAN Yes to the first. And I see the Sensus Fidelium not in unleavened vs leavened bread but in the fact that everyone understands bread to be the fitting and necessary element involved in our memorial of Christ's sacrifice and not rice or corn or some other culturally-adapted staple food
Hey Dr. Ortlund, will you begin posting these to spotify again? I drive a lot and I love using that time to listen to your work, alongside Mike Winger and others who post there. Thanks!
Will get it up soon!
@@TruthUnites thank you!!!
@@TruthUnites Dr. Ortland, I'm sure you are aware that William Albrecht made a video attempting to refute your claims. Well, I made my own video refuting William's video, where I show that "he" is the one who is actually misrepresenting the Mariologists in your video, and I flush out where he makes assumptions, eisegetes Scriptural & extrabiblical texts, and he doesn't actually prove that the acceptance of the Assumption & Dormitian can be dated back before the 5th & 6th centuries. My video is not that log, and I posted links to your channel & video. Here it is if you want to watch it. BTW, I am a former Catholic turned Protestant, and have debated Gary Michuta & Trent Horn on the canon & the Marian dogmas.
czcams.com/video/4C5L8WoCh00/video.html
Perfect video
Hey Gavin, do you know of any early church resources that point to that verse in Revelation as pointing to the church?
The twelve can only be referring to the Apostles or Prophets. I would suggest Apostles.
yes, there is another comment compiling such verses, let me know if you cannot find it.
I can see Catholics saying that these objections don't ultimately matter because their belief in the dogma hinges on the authority of the papacy and magisterium. That would be a fair rebuttal in my mind. But there is one further problem after that for me. If the Church's claim is that it is preserving, clarifying, and handing on that which was handed on from Christ to and through the apostles, and an infallible dogma can be shown to be a later accretion, not handed on by the apostles, then there is a contradiction. And it raises the concern about what else may be later accretions. There are ways around this for Catholics. They can assert varying definitions and conceptions of what tradition means and what it means to preserve the apostolic tradition, etc. Does the Church claim that it only ever teaches what the apostles taught? Does the Church claim that it can never realize and proclaim new doctrines? I'm not sure. I'll have to look into it. I am certain that, if it claims it can do so, it would say that any doctrine of the church will always be in harmony with what was previously revealed. But this problem is still concerning.
In the year 1854, four years before the start of the apparitions at Lourdes, Pope Pius IX had declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary to be an “article of faith” to be believed by all Catholics.
Several years later, in 1858, the Blessed Mother gave her name to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, the Lady responded in the Bigourdane dialect, “Que soy era Immaculada Conceptiou,” which means, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
This convinced the skeptical Parish Priest of Lourdes, l’Abbe Peyramale, that Bernadette’s visions were genuine. He knew she couldn’t have heard of the Papal definition four years earlier, and she didn’t know what the words meant.
At Lourdes the Immaculate Virgin answered St. Bernadette: ‘I am the Immaculate Conception!’
@@jotunman627 Thanks for the information! That is interesting! I'm genuinely wrestling with these questions. After rereading my comment, I can see how highly specific dogmas could be clarifications on long held beliefs around which confusion has arisen. In the case of the Immaculate conception, I have read early fathers who refer to the sinlessness of Mary. The immaculate conception itself wasn't articulated by them like in was in the 1850s, as far as I've seen. But I see how it can be a clarification of the long held belief in Mary's sinlessness. Since my last comment, I've learned a bit about Newman's articulation of the development of doctrine. So I think I'm understanding the Catholic perspective better. I guess one thing I'm still not clear on is this. When the Church clarifies doctrine and makes a dogmatic statement such as this, is it reminding the church of what has always been believed (in all it's present detail), or is it revealing new aspects (more specific details) of an original belief? Based on my primitive understanding of Newman's development of doctrine, I think it may be more the latter, that the Church comes to recognize new aspects or more details of long held beliefs. If that's the case, it does make sense. But I can certainly see why it would raise concerns about doctrinal inventions. If we do this with any old idea, expound upon it over time, I can see how the idea can slowly morph to mean something it didn't originally mean. But I guess that's where faith comes in. In any belief system, there are foundational ideas and concepts that can't ultimately be proven. That's where an inquirer simply has to decide if they've seen enough to trust the entity (in this case, the Church) they are hearing from.
@@timrichardson4018 Yes, She had said it herself: ‘I am the Immaculate Conception!’, With these words she clearly stated that she is not only immaculately conceived, but is the Immaculate Conception. In the same way, a thing that is white is something other than whiteness itself, and a perfect thing is something other than perfection itself.
I would say that they were original beliefs and doctrines develope as time passes. (She was immaculate from the moment she was created by God)
The church is protected by the Holy Spirit from error, right from the start. That is why heresies come and go and never affected the church.
It is through His apostles and His church that He orally left His teachings to develop canon/doctrines for Christianity as it goes forward in time.
He established a church to speak and guide us, as we encounter new social issues in the passage of time....doctrines on faith and morals that are protected from error - "the gates of hell will not prevail"
The real world is a witness to this truth...as how we handle and define issues that beset our society today and those that surely will come in the future.
Today, The German Synodal Way (to redefine the sixth commandment) is a litmus test to Catholicism.
The church had never succumbed to the intense pressure from the secular world to accept "modernity" into the church and this GermanSynodal Way will not pass through. "..... And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Given the supernatural character of the One True Church that Jesus founded Jn 16 18-19, she can’t err when teaching on faith and morals, which, if she did err, would imply fallibility.
No mention of Dr. Brant Pitre or Dr. Scott Hahn? How can you say "many Catholic scholars will admit there's just no evidence for it whatsoever." and then disregard scholarship that says otherwise?
Precisely for that reason. Gavin only uses sources (ironically most here were of Gnostic origins) that support his own pre-derived thesis. He has an ax to grind and souls to sway, the Truth is secondary to his mission of gaining views and seats in his congregation.
Doesn't fit the narrative?
Bring on someone to debate the topic!! Thanks for the video.
17:48ff: a quality point about the early authors not appealing to an oral tradition.
Psalm 132:8 "‘Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.’”
Mary is the new Ark. Like the old Ark Mary carried Jesus the word (tablet with the 10 commandments), Bread of life (Manna), and High Priest (symbolized by Aaron's rod).
I would also like to point out that Protestants and most Catholics lack awareness of divinely inspired events either before or just after such declarations are made. Most if not all the time there is usually divine confirmation of such declarations. One such event was the miracle of the sun that Pope Pius XII himself witnessed four times at the Vatican before and after the declaration. (“I have seen the ‘Miracle of the Sun.’ This is the pure truth,” the venerable pope wrote of the events that began just two days prior to his proclamation of the dogma. Years later he described the events in handwritten notes. They were on public display at a Vatican exhibit in November 2008, as recorded in Catholic news reports of the times. The Holy Father wrote that, at 4 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1950, during his usual walk in the Vatican Gardens, “I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen.”
“The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle,” he recalled, and he could look at it “without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it.” The Holy Father also said the sun “moved outward slightly, either spinning, or moving from left to right and vice versa.”
Pius XII related how he saw the same miracle again on Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, “the day of the definition of the dogma of the Assumption, and then again Nov. 8, and after that, no more.” He took it as a divine sign endorsing the dogma’s proclamation.)
So Mary is as divine as Jesus now then?
This is beautifully simple! Thank you for sharing and thanks be to God!
Psalm 132:8 “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.”
Jesus is the Lord, Mary is the Ark, and both arise!
Re: 6:17ff “I just don’t think that there is any reason whatsoever on planet earth . . . “ lol ! I am enjoying you Gavin from this time stamp.
Hey great video, but I know my Catholic friend will simply wipe all of this off with a 'we don't believe in sola scriptura' - is there an argument I can use against that particular statement?
well, the argument here is not built on sola Scriptura, but Scripture + 400 years of church history, so that might help?
We have free will. Many millions of Catholics choose to worship Mary. They don't care if it's in the bible. God's word is not primary. Their beloved Church is above all and all the emotions they have over a lifetime of indoctrination about Mary mythologized. They've already made her equal to Christ as co-redemptrix and the immaculate conception, sinless life, queen of heaven. I think they'll put her above Christ in due time and you won't be able to talk most Catholics out of that either.
What is your take on the homily of Timothy of Jerusalem in the 4th century that speaks of the assumption of Mary?
So don't you think that God the Father or even God the Son Jesus Himself would protect and save the creature that bore and nursed Him as a singular exception from bodily decay just as Jesus was resurrected? No one is saying she did it herself, but that God did it as a grace for nurturing Him? And since Jesus would've kept the 10 Commandments, can't you even think that it was just one way that He would honor her? I mean if God would protect the Ark of the Covenant which was handmade, why wouldn't He protect His own creature He made Himself?
It’s common sense if you reflect on the unique and beautiful role Mary was given in the life of Jesus.
18:26 In fact, the Latin West was the "odd man out" when it came to Immaculate conception. The Latin version of Sub tuum praesidium ends in another way.
While the Latin West was still going with St. Augustine on this one, between himself and Duns Scotus, people like Gregorius Palamas (and the Gk / Cp versions of Sub tuum) were affirming in some diverse ways the Immaculate conception.
St. Augustine (and Tertullian) are also some fairly big distance from Jerusalem.
Awesome job Gavin!
Great breakdown of the topic.
About Rev 12. I understand the woman to be Israel as I don’t see the bride of Christ ever referred to a woman.
I'm not Catholic or Christian but I do love the vrigin Mary :)
I saw Scott Hann appeal to a "stronger" (?) version of Rev. 12.
He reads the beginning of the chapter 12 as a sequence of 11.19.
For a Catholic (that believes that Mary is the ark of the covenant), this might seem plausible.
And such a construct probably comes even later in history. Hahn can find anything in Scripture. He's an embellisher extraordinaire. He's largely responsible for the Isaiah 22 tale.
@@ReformingApologetics I kinda agree.
But the Revelation 11.9-12 argument might seem some indication of his view...
You do amazing work Gavin, keep it up!
Thank you ❤
Hello everyone can anyone please tell me where Our Lady is buried.I would like to visit the shrine
@Truth Unites
Thank you once again, Dr. Ortlund. You pointing out in past videos how accepting these dogmas as necessary in order to become R.C. has kept me Protestant so far!
Having said that, aren't there earlier texts which refer to Mary as being the Ark of the New Covenant, and if so, wouldn't it be a logical conclusion to say that just as the Ark of the Old Covenant had been taken up to heaven, so it probably was with Mary, despite the abysmal historical evidence that she was?
What are your thoughts on this, as well as Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant?
Also, just as another commenter had suggested, I would love to PLEASE hear your future critique of Dr. Brant Pietre's book, "The Jewish Roots of Mary."
@Thoska Brah
Interesting! Thank you for your reply!
Thank you for a clear and balanced presentation- Mary is obviously special.
So just to touch on the point about nothing being written about the assumption of Mary until the 5th century A.D, it got me wondering about Enoch and Elijah🤔 do we know what time had passed before it was written about them being brought up to heaven?
A few days ago while celebrating the Roe v Wade overturn, Matt Fradd said something around the lines of “let’s thank our blessed mother” and “let’s make a 20 million dollar church in honor of her”
My concern is this:
1. Why would we first thank the creation over the creator.
2. It would please God much more to use those 20 million to help women affected by the overturning rather than creating yet another structure.
Not saying Catholics worship Mary, but their adoration of her sort of blinds them to where the true honor should be placed and where we should be placing our funds.
Those are beyond valid concerns. Thanking a created being for a victory on earth, even as blessed as the Mother of Jesus, is clearly against the scripture warning not to worship the creature over the creator. I get so tired of the constant denials when Catholics clearly are in the realm of idol worship. We are to have no gods before our Creator, no god beside and yet it's a growing movement, gaining ground w/ supposedly infallible dogmas to back it.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 yeah it’s very distressing.
Here’s the video I’m referring to, the first minute to be exact
czcams.com/video/_OD8dZLIqgc/video.html
" Our life, our sweetness and our hope."
I agree with you: how is this not the language of worship? I know I am not supposed to confuse popular piety with theology. But, gosh.
Catholics worship Mary, regardless of how much they insist that they just "honor" her as Jesus' mother. Call it for what it is: idolatry. The Bible is clear that mortal ppl are not to be worshiped as if they are divine.
Hello Gavin. I have a slight worry that the picture of the scholarship you give may be inaccurate, as of, at least recently.
First, here is Stephen Shoemaker in his newer book called "Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion" puts it this way. QUOTE:
“As we will see, the Book of Mary’s Repose is centered around a number of ideas that had become highly aberrant by the fourth and later centuries and were quite foreign to the emergent discourse of Christian orthodoxy in this era. Accordingly, we can locate this text with some confidence to the third century, although the possibility of an even earlier origin, perhaps in the second century, should not be excluded”
He puts the issue even more forcefully in his paper draft, where he summarizes leading scholars. QUOTE:
"Other scholars have similarly identified these two apocrypha as particularly early. For instance, Baldi, Masconi, and Cothenet analyzed the corpus of Dormition narratives using a rather different approach, governed primarily by language tradition rather than literary relations, and yet all agree that the Obsequies (i.e., the Liber Requiei) and the Six Books apocryphon reflect the earliest traditions, locating their origins in the second or third century." (Source = www.academia.edu/10040859)
Thus, I believe that the idea that the Dormition narratives and even texts are at least, as old as the 2nd century, is very much on the mainstream horizon.
Hope to hear from you on this.
I prayed to the Lord about whether it's OK to ask the Saints and Mary to pray for us and a scripture popped into my mind. "The prayer of a righteous man avails much." On the Dormition of Mary, why is there no relic of Mary? The early church kept all the Saints' bodies because of the Resurrection. You said negative evidence should not matter but it does to me.
Her body is too holy. It went straight to heaven.
@@roybiv4499 That’s his point. We don’t have Mary’s body because she was taken up into heaven.
@@bethanyann1060 I think we have her house and a girdle?
You pray to saints and Mary to ask for prayer. Why not just pray to God directly, as the bible says, w/ Jesus as our given mediator?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Bec it is BIBLICAL.
29:29 - Question - How many writings from Church Fathers do we have that comment on Revelation 12 and whose comments are clearly before Epiphanius? And what are the particular sources?
Check out my comment where I provide the four earliest commentaries on Rev. 12. They all agree that the woman is the Church - in line with the imagery used in Isaiah and Micah.
@@coolmuso6108 , Thanks for the citations. I had not heard of some of those Church writers before so I look forward to looking into those writings.
Timestamp 7:55 I don't know if I agree with the idea that "many Catholic scholars will admit there's just no evidence for it whatsoever." Dr. Brant Pitre puts forth a ton of evidence for it in his book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. You said Stepehn Shoemaker was the top scholar working in this area. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, he very well may be, but in all my research in this area I've never heard of this person. I've never heard of many of the scholars you put forth aside from Eamon Duffy and Ludwig Ott. I would say Dr. Brant Pitre is one of the top scholars on this, so I'm surprised you didn't mention him. You've mentioned before that you have read his book. Is there a reason you didn't mention his work showing the biblical roots of Marian doctrine and early historical attestation? It seems most, if not all, the scholarship you cited was against the idea of biblical roots and early historical attestation when there definitely exists scholarship which would say otherwise.
If you never heard of Shoemaker you have no idea what you are talking about.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Yeah, display your wikipedia knowledge here.
that's a joke right? I'm published in Mariology.@@ghostapostle7225
They have no relics? Unheard of in the early church.
Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place,
you and the ark of your might.
9May your priests be clothed with your righteousness;
may your faithful people sing for joy.’ ”
Psalm 132:8
Gavin-great video, great study in the Fathers and the earliest witness on this. In my opinion, you're spot on with your assessment that this teaching is a modern development not attested in scripture or the Fathers (actually one of the main reasons I'm not Catholic!), but I wonder if you could clarify how this is a reason why someone should specifically be protestant? This is not a tradition subscribed to by Orthodox Christians.
This critique is not meant to be an argument to be a Protestant.
@@franciscor.m.8003 He literally said it was
@@mx_moi1964 the Orthodox refer to it as the dormission. That is she died first and was then resurrected.
No you are wrong and Gavin is been dishonest, this teaching took many centuries to develop just like all the dogmas of the Catholic Church they need to be studied over time. The so-called orthodox, who were Catholics at one point do believe in the assumption. Early Christians were obsessed with collecting the relics of their martyrs and prominent figures, is ludicrous to believe they would not keep the relics of Mary the mother of God.
@@hopefull61256 oh Ik that. I was just addressing Francisco R.M’s claim that this critique wasn’t mean to proselytize
This is the first Protestant that I've seen, and I've seen tons, who's - in his challenge of RC proclamations regarding dogma - actually has taken the time and done a fairly deep dive to actually factually portray them. He's probably on better footing than most Catholics, as far as a clear understanding. The teaching, mind you, is quite clear, but there's just a lot to Catholicism and thus many adherents believe, but can't tell you, in each case --to each Protestant challenge on the usual suspects (dogmas, theology) -- what precisely IS the teaching and how the RCC arrives at that position.
Careful now, actually, there are caveats to that, and that would be those who, in perhaps raw skepticism, do that deep dive and end up Catholic, and why? Because they are true and do stand up to scrutiny.
I am attracted to the dogmas as a protestant who loves the Catholic church..My problems begin when I am told that I must die on this hill: I must believe them-- or else. Why on earth did they decide to make this an irrevocable dogma? it's as if they wanted to tweak protestants just one more time.
I am in agreement with Lewis: what will they say next? Gavin hinted at it: co- redemtrix, which John Paul advocated.
Because of this, in spite of all I admire, here stand I.
Co-redemtrix is actually an old one, that even a pope somewhat rescinded or at least admitted the language was confusing and problematic. There will be more coming and I dread to see what it will be next. I currently go to mass and gave the RCC doctrines a clean slate to learn for myself from Catholic sources. I have to remain sola scriptura. What I had always heard was alarming enough, but it was worse when I checked it out for over a year for myself.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I go to mass when in France. I was baptized and believe in the true presence. But these dogmas keep me away. I see them as unnecessary and make Jesus less important.
@@jmorra I tried hard to believe in the true presence. I've taken the Eucharist and was wide open to God revealing the transubstantiation. Anything is possible w/ God, right? Then I learned that it's also said to be part of the continuing literal sacrifice of Jesus, though unbloody now. There are so many reasons I have to take issue w/ that. I can imagine if I was a Jew in Jesus day or even now having to accept that, when the apostles still decreed for converts to abstain from blood and things strangled. We think of our own revulsion to the idea of cannibalism, which I believe must be instinctual. The Jewish abhorrence for it had millenia of very specific ordinances against it.
@@jmorra I agree on Marion dogmas and others w/ prayers to saints putting distance between faithful Catholics and God. I used to wonder why lapsed CAtholics would tell me that God was too busy to pray to directly and didn't want to hear their problems. All those layers of separation from so many canonized entities. Even the prayer to an angel in church, that I'm very uncomfortable about.
When it comes to the Eucharist, the RCC reverance and Eucharistic adoration is a beautiful thing. It does elevate Jesus, but I wonder about his flesh being elevated to such a status. His word is honoured even above his name, says the scriptures. His word is our renewal and regeneration w/ the Holy Spirit to lead us, guide us and comfort us.
For some reason, I find the cannibalism in the eucharist to be the good kind of cannibalism. When we really love someone, we often have a strange urge to eat them, as when a parent says to their little child, " I could eat you up!" I read John 6 and cannot see how protestants can insist on pure " symbol," which reduces the elements to a visual aid. But I also see no need to appeal to Aristotle when explaining what exactly is going on. I am told to take and eat..that is enough for me.It is his body and blood, in some way. I think his glorified body is in the presence of God, but is somehow made present at the eucharist.
And yet i remain a committed protestant. I have been open to persuasion for a long time, but am getting nowhere.
Can't wait for your book "Reasons to be protestant" and its chapter on Marian Dogmas😉
Great video, Gavin. Regarding Revelation 12, another important OT background to the woman is the book of Daniel. In Rev. 12:14 the woman flees into the wilderness for "a time, times, and half a time" to hide from the serpent. Similarly, in Dan. 7:25 the "saints" are persecuted by the little horn for "a time, times, and half a time," while in Dan. 12:7 "the power of the holy people" is shattered for the same length of time. Evidently there is a connection here.
Of most significance for the present discussion is that while in Revelation the entity associated with this time period is the "woman," in Daniel it is "the saints" and "the holy people," both of which are terms designating a _community,_ not just a single individual. The intertextual connection thus demonstrates that the woman is a symbol of God's people-His church-not Mary.
Thanks for the insight.
We can also argue that the son in Revelation 12 is an individual, the serpent is also an individual. Therefore, the woman who bore the son is also an individual. Who is she? The primary representation of the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary. The Church and Israel are secondary.
@@peterw1177 Hi Peter. My initial comment provides evidence that John is drawing on Daniel's presentation of the suffering/persecuted people of God in his description of the woman, indicating she represents a corporate community rather than an individual. In your reply you have not interacted with my argument but simply made a claim. Regarding your first point, it does not logically or exegetically follow that because the Son and serpent are individuals, the woman likewise represents an individual. There is no hermeneutical principle that would prevent us from seeing both individuals and corporate entities being mentioned together in the same passage. For example, in Revelation 13 the three main powers in view are the dragon, the sea beast, and the earth beast. The dragon represents an individual (cf. Rev. 12:9), while the OT background to the beast imagery indicates they represent political powers/kingdoms (cf. Dan. 7:2-3, 23).
Regarding your second point that "the primary representation" of the woman is Mary, while the Church and Israel are secondary, again, you have simply made a claim without any evidence. You must provide an evidential foundation for that claim for it to be at all persuasive.
@@peterw1177 Of course the church and Israel are seen as secondary. Mary is already on par w/ Jesus, as queen of heaven, co-redemptrix, immaculately conceived to name a few. A few more decades, she'll be above Christ and it will be infallible dogma that she is.
@@mikedawson975Hi Mike. Thanks for your response.
In Revelation 12, we have the woman, the dragon and the son. We know who the dragon is because John tells us that it is the ancient serpent (called the Devil or Satan). We also know who the son is because John tells us that He is destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod, which is a reference to Psalm 2. This Psalm is about the coronation of Christ (Jesus). The dragon and the son are not just images, they are also individuals. We also know that the woman wears a crown. If Jesus is the King, Mary is the Queen mother according to the Davidic Kingdom. When Solomon was King his mother was the Queen. It is therefore not by accident that the woman in Rev. 12 is wearing a crown. She is the Queen mother who gave birth to the son destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. She is an individual, Mary.
Like the woman in Rev. 12 who flees when she is pursued by the serpent, Mary too had to flee to Egypt to save her son. I would like to highlight the difference in how the woman is saved and how Israel was saved from slavery in Egypt. We read in Exodus 19:4, “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.” Israel was carried on eagles’ wings, but the woman in Rev. 12 is “given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert.” Mary was given the grace of being born without sin and the devil could not put any stain on her. Based on the evidence we have we can say that the primary representation of the woman is Mary.
It is also important to note that John the author of Revelations refers to Mary as woman in the Gospel of John. We see this at the wedding at Cana and at the foot of the cross. The Church fathers understood this language as a reference to Mary being the New Eve who is also called woman in Genesis until after the Fall when Adam names her Eve.
as a lutheran who prays to saints, walking into this comment section feels alot like getting beat up with a metal bat by a crowd of people
I don't know if you focus your attention to Old Testament history but I would want to ask if you have any resources on the idea of heaven and hell? Like how the belief in heaven and hell developed in Israel historicall
Look up inspiring philosophy on this topic
An unexamined faith is not real. I struggle with understanding aspects of Mariology but to say that alone is reason to be protestant seems a stretch, why don't you invite Scott Hahn on and y'all can discuss how he crossed that bridge on his journey to Catholicism. Thanks for this channel, Dr Ortlund.
There are many other reasons he offers for the case for protestantism. The complete absence of historical support for Mariology is one reason.
Admittedly he says this one point alone can make the case for protestantism. Yet I think there is a strong case for protestantism on many counts.
@@gfujigo Also I think Gavin's comment in regard to Mary's Assumption as a dogma being a deal-breaker is in it's connection to Papal infallibility. It's hard to "walk back" the Marian dogma and not implicate papal infallibility as a sham. I think that's why this dogma is a particularly big deal: it's not just about Mary but calls into questions the inner workings of Catholic leadership. If leadership is fallible, corrections can be made. If leadership is said to be infallible in particular statements and those statements are shown to be built on unhistorical error, something has to give. Either the claims of infallibility are false or reason has to be tortured to rescue the phenomenon.
As a Protestant who grew up in a fundamentalist home (Young Earth Creation), I have seen so many people fall away from the faith as they become unable to synthesize their beliefs with science. But somehow they have become convinced (either by their church or themselves) that Christianity either stands or falls on the age of the Earth according to the modern English translation of the Bible. I often seek to inform people that our salvation is not in the age of the earth, but in the Resurrection of Jesus. Don't let non-essential doctrines destroy your faith because you over centralize their importance.
If I can't examine my views in the light of evidence, then I have problems. If evidence shows that the universe is billions of years old, but I have considered a literal reading of Genesis foundational to the Christian faith, then I must either reject the evidence and become cult-like, or I must accept the evidence and become atheist. But the age of the earth is not foundational to my Christian faith, so I can accept the evidence while remaining Christian.
But this is the problem with all the Catholic dogmas. The Marian Dogmas came significantly later than those who were writing her history. We have no reason to believe that Mary remain virgin, especially when we have 9 passages from the NT telling us Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46-50, 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-35, 6:3, Luke 8:19-21, John 2:12, 7:5, 1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:18-19, +Josephus Antiquities 20:200). We have no reason to believe Mary's own mother was also a virgin, we have no reason to believe Mary never sinned, that she was assumed into heaven, or that she is given some queenly title in heaven. None of these things we can test, but they may even be counter to the evidence. It is Catholicism that has staked its beliefs in these dogmas, so should we reject all of Catholicism on account of these? And if Catholicism is the "One True Church", then should we thereby reject all other denominations? Should all of Christiandom stand or fall on rather or not Mary ever enjoyed the lawful company of her own husband?
Jews can't interpret the Tanakh for themselves; they have to have the Rabbiim interpret the Talmud, interpreting the Mishna, interpreting the Tanakh for them. Muslims can't interpret the Quran for themselves; they have to have the Emams interpret the Hadiths interpreting the Quran for them. Catholics can't interpret the Bible for themselves; they have to have their priests interpret the Councils interpreting the Bible for them. Eastern Orthodox can't interpret the Bible for themselves. They have to have their specific denominational priests interpret for them. Mormons can't interpret the Bible for themselves. Protestants are the only ones inviting its readings to use their own reasoning, intellectual, and cognitive sense, as Isaiah did in Isaiah 1:18.
"We have no reason to believe Mary's own mother was also a virgin" - Catholics don't believe that either. Mary was naturally conceived, although without inheriting original sin.
I would suggest the "unable to synthesize" is often an indication their faith is not genuine and science is becoming and idol to those people, in many cases. I have a similar background and agree with much of what you're saying but there are slippery slopes and "science" is prone to error, especially as commercialized and politicized as it is today. Modern scientists completely discount Biblical evidence. It wasn't like that in generations past so I cannot believe that much of what has been concocted, appealing to flawed human reason and emotions, is accurate.
I do think you're right as far as dogmatizing non-core issues, though. On all sides, it takes humility to say we simply will never know certain things this side of eternity. I would rather stand before God someday and say: "I believed what you breathed on the pages of your Word" than "All those wise-sounding theories were too good to pass up."
Bottom line, it's OK to question and test your faith but friendship with the world is still enmity with God, His Word is still true, and if we have genuine faith, we will persevere in it, never forsaking the fellowship of other believers and leaving the church.
To be fair, I at least understand the logic of the “Queen of Heaven” since the Davidic king’s mother was declared queen (Solomon gave his mother a seat by his right hand). So while I don’t agree, I at least get the reasoning…
Now everything else regarding Mary just seems pulled out of thin air, especially the sinlessness and/or assumption into Heaven. There is no logic or credible history behind either of those doctrines at all.
Mary is the handmaid of God the father, the mother of Jesus our Lord, she is filled with the Holy Spirit. Mary is a big deal with the Holy Trinity but apparently not for 'bible christians. I'm going with the Holy Trinity's love and regard for her and Catholic teaching. It must be terrible being raised a fundamentalist.
@@samueljennings4809 All the logic flows from the fact that she is the new Eve. If you can accept that, you can get all the way to the Assumption.
So let's say I am convinced and want to join the Protestant Church. I made my First Holy Communion at St Bede's Church in Jarrow and I regard the Codex Amiatinus as The Bible or Scripture. Could you please provide a list of Protestant Churches in England which have not mutilated the Bible. Doing so is too open to manipulation and I won't have it. The Catholic Church has subsequently added the Book of Baruch, so yes there is one book which is definitely apocryphal. I think it is in the first edition of the King James Bible as well. The extant edition dropped a few books, I understand.
What are these texts you are talking about??
Where is the Trinity Dogma in scripture and unanimous view of "The Fathers"?
👍
I’m just curious. What do Protestants believe about Elijah and Enoch then? Were they assumed into heaven?
From what I've seen the majority opinion is that they were both assumed into heaven. I can't recall hearing anything to the contrary. But upon establishing that it doesn't then follow that Mary must have been assumed.
@@JRMusic933 Yes it doesn’t establish that she was just by the belief that Elijah and Enoch were but I would think it be logical for Protestants to then make the assumption more credible.
@@joecardone4887 not really. We believe in the resurrection of Christ that doesn't mean claims of resurrections are automatically more plausible.
@@joecardone4887 to illustrate. If in the 5th century some gnostics claimed for the first time st. Thomas had been resurrected and had taught among them back in the first century. You'd dismiss it on the grounds that it lacks adequate historical evidence to be believable because the report of the story appeared way too long after what it supposedly recounts to be credible. You wouldn't dismiss it because its a resurrection claim, because you affirm that resurrections can happen and have happened. So our attitude is the same here as yours would be there.
@@joecardone4887 we only believe this, because the Bible says it. There is nothing biblically saying what happened to Mary
Great Video. Didn't some reformers/protestants hold to some form of this?
excellent