Does Jerome Undermine Apostolic Succession?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 07. 2024
- In this video I argue that the testimony of Jerome opposes apostolic succession in its technical meaning. Along the way I respond to the argument by Keith Little that a key passage in Jerome has been misrepresented by Protestants. For Keith's argument see here: czcams.com/users/liveTmAIVTVR...
Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 Introduction
03:28 Keith Little's Argument
06:28 Jerome's Full Quote
11:22 1. "Gradually" (Paulatim)
12:47 2. When Did the Monoepiscopacy Emerge?
15:52 3. An Apostolic Institution?
20:25 Eutychius of Alexandria
21:28 Severus of Antioch
23:03 Why Take Jerome Seriously?
24:40 Clement of Rome
26:02 The Scholarly Consensus
30:40 Summing Up - Zábava
Protestant apologetics at 100% strength: the entire Protestant church
Protestant apologetics at 99% strength: Gavin Ortlund
So accurate. Thank God for Dr. Ortlund.
Fr
I don't know William Lane Craig pretty strong.
@@fastchase Is William Lane Craig a Protestant Apologist, or a Christian Apologist who happens to be Protestant? My understanding was that he focuses on Mere Christianity and evangelization to non-believers.
Here's an extract from his letter to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, (or LUTHER-ans, CALVIN-ists, etc.) you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
I am about to be ordained, and the enemy was looming the question of apostolic succession over my head. This video has helped substantially. God bless you Gavin.
Explain more?
Ordained? By who? What authority does said person have to ordain anyone! "The Enemy" meaning fellow Christians?! Jerome submitted to the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome his entire life remember that.
@@t.d6379 😕
This is now tied for first place with Augustine and Sola Scriptura as the best and most impactful video you have done imo. It opens up and reframes the discussion masterfully. Such an important and central issue that so many of us too often address in unhelpful ways. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
This is very timely and helpful. I've been wondering about this very issue for a while, particularly regarding bishop-presbyter office. And welcome back!
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 well ‘Catholic’ is a new name too, isn’t it?
@@rach9466Catholic just highlights the fact that there is only one Church in the world as there is just one body of Christ. That Church is universal in its reach and mission. Catholic just means universal.
I did not expect to hear the name of my former Latin professor, Dr. Thomas Scheck! That’s exciting to hear you’re interacting with his translation. I’ve not watched the whole of this video yet, but as always, I anticipate that it will be very well done and a thoughtful presentation for Catholics like myself to consider.
You're a champ for actually respectfully interacting with the presentation and not just throwing venomous insults like the rad trad caths or orthobros of instagram.
I am a protestant and I want to understand why Catholics think what they think. Not because I want to be a catholic or anything, I just don't get a few things and that bothers me sometimes. Just three very quick questions all related to each other to not waste your time too much.
Where do you see in the bible that Mary is co redemptrix and co mediator between God and men? Is that something that's in the apocrypha maybe? And what about praying to the saints?
@JesusProtects the title Co redemptrix is pretty inflammatory and I don't know why Catholics insist on that title, but it just means that since Mary was the one that birthed Jesus our Lord, she played a vital part in the plan of salvation, which again, I think is a really unnecessary title since then we could say that Pilat was instrumental in our redemption since he sentenced Jesus to die for us, so Pilat is now the co redemtrix. Not every catholic is comfortable with this title though, to be fair.
@@JesusProtects Catholic Answers lists the scriptures they use to justify praying to saints, under the title: The Bible Supports Praying to the Saints. I've never found it very satisfactory, because there is no direct scriptures to support it. They don't seem to recognize us, the living body as saints, even though several epistles directly call us that. The recognize canonized/dead saints, so they are able to point to scriptures they feel support praying to them for intercession. As for Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediator, that is a later development and I think they fall on church tradition for that. Because they believe Peter was given the keys to bind and loose, the church is given much latitude, even outside the bible for traditions.
@@Stigma-ba115 Thank you for your answer. I just don't see it in the bible. I only read that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men so I was wondering if that is church tradition or something written in the apocrypha. I believe in sola scriptura, because I think is the literal word of God inspired to the writers and perfectly preserved through the ages for us without changes, so it's always my ultimate authority above anything any human can say from the pulpit, public talk or in a book, and I can't see 90% of catholic doctrines in it so I'm very confused where the catholic faith comes from.
So helpful. Thank you!
Thanks for this video. I thank God for your work. Much needed in this days.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
Excited!
This is a matter of historical shifts in terminology and the development does not undermine apostolic succession. The medieval Catholic Church had the "subdiaconate" that no longer exists today, but emanated from the authority of the episcopal office, which contains the fullness of the sacrament. The distinction of the presbyter and bishop developed as episcopal actions began to be delegated (this was also done in the Second Temple by the High Priest). But even if, for the sake of argument, that priests as we understand them to be today, were consecrating bishops, I see no reason why this authority could not have been delegated to him from a bishop with the fullness of Holy Orders in ancient times. Canon law today and for most of Church history only allowed for a Bishop to validly administer Holy Orders, but I see no reason why there is an intrinsic obstacle in the sacrament for a bishop to delegate the role of episcopal consecration to somebody. Even today, Bishops usually administer Confirmation, but it is oftentimes delegated to priests. However, this was for the sake of argument and I do have some quibbles. Bottom line, no one is denying that "bishop" and "presbyter" were used interchangeably early on, but this doesn't undermine apostolic succession when understood in light of the Church's teachings on the sacrament of Holy Orders and what it has looked like throughout history.
I'm not Catholic, but this was my thought as well.
Thank you for this, brother! Well done as always!
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
You are such a blessing to us Dr. Ortlund. The way you handle Roman Catholic polemics with grace and precision is so admirable.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 You realize that your lumping Lutherans and Calvinists into schools of Gnostic thought, right? "Taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but some other." Referring to yourself as a Lutheran or a Calvinist would be more akin to referring to yourself as a papist then a Valentinian. While I'm sure there are some exceptions, they would be in the minority, as I have never met a Lutheran claim to be under the authority of Luther or Calvinists claim to be under the authority of Calvin. These are schools of thought and have even been labeled "nonessential doctrine" by the overall Protestant church. Additionally, you are very much brushing over that Jerome was addressing the problem of Gnostics ever-growing within the body. Those you mention above deny the divinity of Jesus and even deny the scriptural authority of the Old Testament. Both Lutheran and Calvinist thought our defenders of the Trinity as well as the authority of the Old Testament. I would encourage you to examine the context of Jerome's meaning here. I may even say that instead of addressing the letter of what he is saying, you should look at the meaning.
@@alisterrebelo9013exactly, so the Orthodox must be correct since they have apostolic succession and they have kept the ancient faith. After all, Peter started his first church at Antioch.
@@countryboyred The collection of the Apostolic Churches together have the fullness of Truth. I'm glad you see my point even if you don't want to be a part of this fullness of truth.
@@alisterrebelo9013 “the collection of the apostolic churches together have the fullness of truth.” Wow I’ve never actually heard someone put it in to words like that. I agree with you man. That’s why I’m going to an Orthodox Church now. I have many great Catholic friends and family. I also know many wonderful Protestants that love the Lord. Ain’t Christianity great?
Perhaps 1 Timothy 5:17 explains how the development occurred. Over time, the presbyters appointed one who they thought "ruled well" to be worthy of "double honor." It still doesn't get rid of the essential equation of bishops and presbyters, but it at least explains the existence of a hierarchy within the presbytery. (Note how many Protestant churches maintain a three-office view, pastor/elders/deacons).
Very good video. It would be interesting to see a video on original sin and the church history surrounding it. You have people who say that Augustine created the idea. Also you have people saying that psalm 51 and Roman 5:12 don’t teach original sin. This is a huge issue that separates the East and West with regards to Adams Guilt
I agree. I heard that the Orthodox differ on original sin. I myself don't believe in original guilt or original sin beyond the proclivity to sin.
BTW, a very relevant passage (because Paul quotes it and it is used to argue the protestant view of total depravity) is Psalm 53.
This is the one that starts with "The fool says in his heart there is no god" but then it goes on about depravity that Paul quotes in Romans.
Dr. David Wood discussed this and exegetes several psalms with "there is no god" kind of language and made some very interesting points.
czcams.com/video/2NDLwQ8UVuo/video.html
In a busy season, it’s always great to get some gradual exposure to early Christian writings. Looking forward to diving deeper.
Thanks always! Have a great day.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 Thanks for sharing your opinion and the quote, have a great day
@@jonasopmeer I didn't share any opinion at all and no problem. Now I am, I hope Gavin wakes up and realises St. Jerome doesn't work for his argument.
@@alisterrebelo9013 Your opinion is in parantheses
@@jonasopmeer Fair enough.
Thank you for this, very informative
Not to justify Luther or Calvin but if you look objectively the RC Church oppressed and killed far more Jews and executed more "heretics" through the Inquisition than the protestant reform movements ever did. For me the real heroes of the Reformation are the Anabaptists who were persecuted and executed by both Protestants and Catholics yet overwhelmingly were committed to following the example of Jesus and rejected violence and co-dependent relationship with the state.
I have made an in-depth reply to this:
"St. Jerome, Papacy, & Succession"
So good
Your comment is supposedly one hour older than the video. What's up with that? Lol
@@morghe321it was released first to patrons which I am one.
@@morghe321Because they are uploaded in his Patreon first
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 oh, OK. 😅
Kind of like your content 😳
Yes! An elder and an overseer are the same role in Scripture! Read Acts 20:17 then read Acts 20:28 (and in between if you want) and you will see that Paul addressing elders or presbyters says that the Holy Spirit has placed them as overseers or bishops.
This proves that overseer and elder are synonymous terms denoting the same person. To make an overseer a bishop of a district to rule over the elders of various localities in that district is erroneous. That is what Ignatius did. His erroneous teaching is what became the basis for the establishing of rank and brought in the hierarchy.
Great video. Thank you for continually providing solid, historical, generous content that builds up the body of Christ.
Very helpful. If the Roman magisterium never errs when declaring dogma and they have declared repeatedly with no equivocation that my Protestant church is no church at all due to this issue…but it turns out they’re wrong and the apostles never taught that physical apostolic succession by bishops is strictly required…this would seem to disprove the whole Roman system. It would at least force them to admit Vatican 1 was wrong about the pope’s ability to declare dogma without error.
Or they will simply double down with tens of "rebuttals".
It gradually all became about power and not about Jesus. Its a gradually development under any Catholic Church.
Yes to all of the above
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 So you agree with this Jerome quotation?
Excellent summary of the primary sources and scholarly consensus. Love it.
Here's an extract from Jerome's letter to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, (or LUTHER-ans, CALVIN-ists, etc.) you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 Could you clarify what you are inferring from this quote?
@@lynnmmartin Gavin was trying to use Jerome to undermine Apostolic succession without truly understanding Jerome's views on this.
Reading that quote it is VERY clear that Jerome believed that the churches founded by the Apostles i.e. the Apostolic churches are the true churches of Christ. Given that Jerome lived ~340-420 he understood that the Church reached him 300 years after the death of Christ through Apostolic succession and would propagate in time through the same mechanism.
The second major point is that, unless you can claim or show Apostolic succession, then you are putting yourself at spiritual risk by being outside of that Church that was founded by the Apostles on the instructions of Jesus. Jerome negates the basis of the foundation of all Protestantism by saying that any church founded after the foundation of the Apostolic Church is false, as this is warning that Paul gave about the wolves who would come to devour the sheep.
The third point is that he is taking a sledgehammer to Sola Scriptura by equating people who form breakaway churches to Satan because both of them use Scriptures, to make their false assertions.
I'd hate to be Gavin and have to find out about this passage after making this video. Jerome is not his friend, and he's going to have a tough time reconciling Jerome's views here with the defense he gave Jerome.
@@alisterrebelo9013 Note that the current formulation of apostolic succession relies on passing through a monarchical episcopate. So Jerome's position, articulated by Dr. Ortlund, completely undercuts the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view.
Second, Jerome is right that we shouldn't leave the church founded by the apostles and continuing to this day. However, now that the RC and EO churches have deviated from the apostolic faith, they aren't the continuing church of the apostles. Instead, I'm forced through their faithlessness to belong to a church that had to break away from the institutional church in order to follow the apostolic faith.
It's quite possible that the people in breakaway churches in Jerome's day were in the wrong. It doesn't follow that the people in breakaway churches in our day are in the wrong.
So Jerome's quote is completely compatible with a Reformation tradition.
@@lynnmmartin Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I dont want to strawman you, so could you clarify the following for me:
1) Could you briefly define and summarise 'monarchical episcopate'?
2) What deviation(s) have occured and how do you know they are deviations? And how do you know they are deviations significant enough to warrant breaking away?
3) What Church are you currently a part of? Do they have any sacraments? If yes which ones?
4) Biblically, define what faith means.
Edit 5) It seemed like you agree that Christ founded an actual Church through the Apostles, yes? And it seems as though in your view, the *total* corruption of this Church *completely* necessitates leaving every form of it to form a distinct Church?
This is an excellent video.
As someone who is exploring theology both for and against Catholicism, does this argument still somehow disprove apostolic succession? If Jesus gave the church the authority to bind and loose, it would make sense that the episcopate established by the apostles, even without singular leadership, all hold the power to collectively bind and loose. When they shift to a bishop-led structure, that is them binding that structure on earth and in heaven. I feel like this argument, while solid, does not necessarily disprove that infallible authority was not passed to the leaders of the church.
There seems to be other quotes by Jerome that Jerome solidly backed the papacy. That would tend to lend to maybe a misunderstanding about these quotes. I don't know? I've heard there's already a rebuttal by an Anglican (who also believe in apostolic succession), and there will be many CAtholic rebuttals of course. I'm sure Trent Horn probably has at least a 3 hour rebuttal in the works, lol.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 I think Jesus' own words to his own first apostles gives a caution about that:
49“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.” 50“Do not stop him,” Jesus replied, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Luke 9:49,50
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I have no problem with that passage from Luke as it is proof of *individuals* being able to access the gifts of God regardless of their Church affiliation.
I am discussing the validity of Churches established through unlawful rebellion and rejection of doctrines and dogmas agreed upon by the Apostolic Churches.
I'm in the same boat as you brother. Protestants completely ignore binding and loosing. It's virtually never addressed. It doesn't matter if Scripture is silent on a matter. If Christ's Church decided to bind something on earth as it is heaven, then it is officially bound. It does not matter what Scripture does not say because the binding of something is not contingent upon Scripture to corroborate.
Forget this one by St. Jerome?
"Either then a presbyter should be ordained a deacon, from the lesser office, that is, to the more important, to prove that a presbyter is inferior to a deacon; or if on the other hand it is the deacon that is ordained presbyter, this latter should recognize that, although he may be less highly paid than a deacon, he is superior to him in virtue of his priesthood. In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters, and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple."
Letter 146 to Evangelus.
"Traditions handed down by the APOSTLES." Threefold distinction is clearly Apostolc. Aaron, his sons, Levites=Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon.
It's really astounding how badly they want to say the early church fathers' writings aren't that important, and at the same time go searching them for anything to validate their sects. This particular quote is an easy refutation of this entire video, and there are others as well. I find that it's difficult for people like this person in the video to overcome the need to be right so badly that they cherry pick what they think supports them. It reminds me of Iraq and the WMDs. Just come home to Rome already.
Apparently that quote didn’t support his thesis.
This quote is ambiguous in regard to the titles Bishops and Presbyters being different. Thank God Jerome clarified what he meant in the writings discussed in the video. This is how taking the full context of one’s life and writings work.
@@alcomproduction You take into account his writings by...taking his writings into account! There is nothing ambiguous about this. He clearly states that the threefold distinction comes from the Apostles and this is confirmed by all other Fathers as well. Epiphanius describes exactly how and why this transition occurred DURING the Apostolic age.
@@matthewp3499 Exactly, that’s why we know there was no succession in the way the Catholic Church has claimed.
man that intro song is so smooth
Great Video!
simply brilliant
great video!
Yes he does, as well as scripture, the apostolic fathers, and Irenaeus. The concept of AS as known today was a development unknown to the early church. Thanks for doing this Dr. Ortlund.
Jerome was allegedly from Štrigova, Croatia. My father was from there, too.
However, Jerome was a priest (presbyter), so he must have accepted ordination from a bishop.
The term "presbyter" is used to refer to an elder who served on the Sanhedrin, and to an elder who served in the Church.
In the Gospels, we read the chief priests (arkhihiereus) paired with either the elders of the Scribes: the chief priests were those priests selected to serve on the Sanhedrin, while the scribes were specialist experts in the Torah.
Read through Acts, and we find that the Apostles are paired with the presbyters at the Council of Jerusalem. As the Apostles pass from the scene, the bishops become more prominent.
What we also find in the NT, in the Didache, and in the first letter of Clement, bishops and deacons are mentioned together as the permanent ministers of the Church. Presbyters are there, though less clearly.
What did Irenaeus say that you are referring to?
I posted a comment specifically about what Irenaeus said on this topic maybe in a different place.
@@MichaelPetekyou’re assuming that from what you know about the Catholic Church in more recent times, bishops and presbyters were elected by their congregation for much of the early church rather than a bishop appointing them.
@@MichaelPetek “However, Jerome was a priest (presbyter), so he must have accepted ordination from a bishop.”
Nobody is denying that.
“The term "presbyter" is used to refer to an elder who served on the Sanhedrin, and to an elder who served in the Church.
In the Gospels, we read the chief priests (arkhihiereus) paired with either the elders of the Scribes: the chief priests were those priests selected to serve on the Sanhedrin, while the scribes were specialist experts in the Torah.”
This is just an assertion. There is no evidence the church was one for one a match with the structure of the Sanhedrin. You have to prove that.
“Read through Acts, and we find that the Apostles are paired with the presbyters at the Council of Jerusalem. As the Apostles pass from the scene, the bishops become more prominent.”
St. Peter identifies himself as a presbyter, not one time is an apostle called a bishop. Acts says nothing about a 3 tiered hierarchy. Apostle was a wholly unique office. Acts 15 says the presbyters and apostles were together at the council. You’re reading into it they were “paired” to try and maintain some early episcopal structure that isn’t in the text.
“What we also find in the NT, in the Didache, and in the first letter of Clement, bishops and deacons are mentioned together as the permanent ministers of the Church. Presbyters are there, though less clearly.”
Presbyter isn’t mentioned because it was still synonymous with bishop. It makes no sense why deacons would be mentioned but not presbyters. Unless presbyter and bishop are synonymous.
You seem To be asserting a 3 tiered structure into the early writings that isn’t there. This is another assertion you have to prove not just assert. The apostolic writings continue to use presbyter and bishop synonymously. Clement interchanges the terms in one complete thought (44) just like St. Paul does in his pastoral letters. Again you are asserting a 3 tiered structure and the presbyters are just “less clearly” mentioned. Even when we get to Ignatius invoking the bishop and the 3 tiered episcopacy was taking shape it was very different from the modern episcopacy. The bishop Ignatius is invoking was over a local church not diocesan. Ignatius also says the presbyters are the successors of the apostles not the bishops. He also indicates that bishops were selected by the whole church not some hierarchical mechanism. So even in its early development the episcopacy was very different from the modern episcopacy of today.
This is not controversial and most protestant and Roman Catholic scholars agree the episcopacy was a development.
@@cooperthatguy1271I expect that they would have been elected by the congregation, not necessarily by the same method in any two churches. But the bishops, presbyters and deacons would have been presented to the bishop for ordination by the laying on of hands.
In biblical law, a man can appoint another (shaliach, apostolos, agent) to act in his person for certain purposes. An agent can appoint another agent.
The daily grain offering of the High Priest was usually made by junior priests appointed in this manner and deputised by him to act in his name.
What would you say on Jerome’s view of baptismal regeneration?
This channels growing fast
Three points of skepticism:
Episcopal election by a council of priests does not necessarily imply episcopal ordination by a council of priests. For example, Augustine was elected by the people but ordained by other Bishops. The historical reality of other modes of episcopal election than Papal election (which is a relatively recent custom of the Church) doesn't have any real bearing on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, it's the mode of ordination which is critical.
That the terms Presbyter and Episkopos were used interchangeably in the very early Church does not necessarily imply that the original two offices were what we would call the Priesthood and Diaconate, and that the Episcopate came later. It could imply, alternatively, that the original two offices were what we would call the Episcopate and the Diaconate, and that the Priesthood as an office which is distinct from and subordinated to the Episcopate came later. That the monoepiscopacy was not the norm in the very early Church would also have no bearing on this - the fundamental thing about the Bishops office isn't that there's only one of them (in fact large diocese have several, and there are many cases where diocese have overlapping jurisdiction), but that they have been invested with the authority to govern the church, ordain successors, etc. I'm not convinced from reading the texts that its not the case that this was the Apostolic office, and that Bishops later chose to ordain men to a secondary ministry and share some of their mission with them.
Clement speaking for the whole community does not imply a lack of primacy. Up until like the 1970's Pope's spoke in the name of the entire Roman Church using the royal "we". Take the definition of the Assumption of Mary from 1950, for example. "We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."
Masterfully done Dr. Ortlund!✝️
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 Would that also include those that call themselves “Roman Catholic” or “Eastern Orthodox?” I don’t hear the name of Christ there either. Mind you, names like “Lutheran” or “Calvinist” are not the names we chose for ourselves. They were given to us by you. So we accepted it. After all, the Lord knows His own.
@@logicaredux5205 Luther and Calvinist are the names your churches took for yourself. Are you going to lie about this? There are tons of Churches, schools with the name 'Lutheran' them.
'Catholic' means universal. Roman Catholic is the Roman Church that is part of the Universal Church. This distinguishes it from the Eastern Catholic Church which is the Church from the Middle East. These are geographical indicators.
'Orthodox' means traditional. Again, Eastern Orthodox is a geographical indicator of its origin.
These churches were formed by the Apostles and their successor bishops. Neither Luther nor Calvin were ordained Bishops and they had no legal basis to form Churches. They are the very definition of what St. Jerome is talking about.
Edit - Jerome is very clear - all churches founded after the Apostolic churches are false.
"For the fact that *they took their rise AFTER the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold"* (i.e. the wolves coming to steal the sheep).
@@alisterrebelo9013 I have no reason to lie to you. We did not choose those names, we accepted them. Of course, I’m sure from your tone that you have no interest in such details. Please spare me your attempts to school me in the meaning of Catholic and Orthodox. They are beautiful descriptions. It is you who are deflecting from the point I made. Now please go somewhere else and rant to the Devil.
Funny story. When I wrote an essay for my literature class, my professor told me "The quotes are good. Yet, you know, Plato, Kant, Aristotle...That's too common!Find more original people to quote".
Extract from another essay of mine the follwing month "According to dr. Gavin Ortlund, theologian and Baptist pastor..."
lol
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
It stands to reason that the office of presbyter and bishop were originally one because the apostles (the first bishops) were the first priests.
Thanks for this video. In your research, what is the latest two-office church still operating that you found in the early church? It seems by the early 3rd century latest, the episcopal model was universal.
what happen with the debate with trent horn about apostolic succesion? I have been waiting for it
Hey brother Gavin, could you do a video on the development of the ministerial priesthood? I struggle with how such a thing became universally adopted, and so early. Was there any pushback at all? Any help on this would be appreciated. God bless!
What do you mean by the ministerial priesthood?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Are you serious?
Currently sussing out seminary. We will likely be within Apostolic Succession soon, but this is comforting regardless!
Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are ALL successors of the Apostles. It’s not just the Bishops. And all Bishops are also Presbyters/Priests. One can’t be a Bishop without being a Priest first, and one can’t be a Priest without being a Deacon first.
No matter how we interpret or understand how these offices looked like or worked, the point is that ordination happened within and amongst those who are successors of Apostles.
To be clear, this is not about whether Apostolic Succession is true or not, this is about HOW it looks. And of all the models that are presented here, the one thing that is in common between them all is the LAYING ON OF HANDS. The point is that there is an unbroken chain of ordained ministers from the apostles to the present day, who can all be identified by the laying on of hands.
Dr. Ortlund shoots himself in the foot and causes a huge problem for himself. He CAN’T reject the Catholic model holding the position that he does. To do so would be wildly inconsistent in ways he might not even realize.
His position is that the offices of Bishop and Presbyter are the same office. According to him then, this would mean that a Bishop ordaining men to the episcopacy, presbyterate, or diaconate, would STILL be the same thing as a Presbyter ordaining to those offices. With his position, he would have to admit that the Catholic model is STILL valid, but that it’s just not the ONLY valid model. So the Catholic model still fits in his broader model. But the great irony here is that of all the possible models we can have, Protestantism doesn’t fit ANY of them!
THIS fact alone disqualifies Protestantism altogether. This issue alone is enough to make you Catholic/Orthodox.
no this is qualitatively differnt from how apostolic successions works in the catholic and orthodox church's, this is not only cope, but pretty poor cope as well, this fairly heavily undermines catholic and orthodox claims to apostolic authority
@@buffcommie942 nope. It’s not qualitatively different at all. You’re the one who’s coping hard. You can’t even respond to a single thing I said. This undermines Protestantism, not Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
@@VoiceOfReason_ if you don't see how the early church not being governed by a monarchal episcopate but instead councils of leders undermines apostilic sucesssion then you don't know your own claims
@@buffcommie942 first of all, the Church WAS governed by a monarchical episcopate. St. Ignatius, who was the Bishop of Antioch and student of the Apostle John, tells us this as early as the year 107, 250 years before St. Jerome.
Second of all, St. Jerome himself tells us that the monarchical episcopate began DURING the time of the Apostles! He specifically says that this restructuring happened in response to the schisms that happened in Corinth, which St. Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians.
Third of all, even if the early Church was governed by councils of leaders, those leaders were STILL ALL ministerial successors of the Apostles through the laying on of hands!
If you don’t see how the essential element of Apostolic Succession is the LAYING ON OF HANDS IN AN UNBROKEN CHAIN FROM THE APOSTLES TO THE MINISTERS OF THE CURRENT DAY, and if you don’t see how THIS DOES undermine all of Protestantism, then you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
The issue is that it is the only valid model in the RCC. The position he’d argue actually would vindicate Lutheranism as they vary on different structures. Some have an Episcopate but they don’t believe it’s jure divino and a Congregationalist/Presbyterian system is just as valid (btw I’m Anglican and we fully believe in a jure divino Episcopate, I just am pointing out what his position means)
In approaching Damasus for advice, St. Jerome affirms that the Bishop of Rome is both Peter’s successor and his chair “the rock on which the church is built:”
“Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me…Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.
It’s so incredible how Protestants keep using 100% Catholic saints to prove Catholicism wrong.
Good luck with that.
Isn't the issue about presbyters *electing* their own bishops vs. the papacy *appointing* bishops via the claim of apostolic succession? That's how I understood it. I don't see this video as an argument by Ortland that Jerome was somehow an anti-papist who didn't believe in apostolic succession in any way.
@@joeoleary9010the larger point is Gavin’s whole argument and war on Catholicism is all sleight of hand. Why does it matter if policies change over time? What matters is : does the church/ Rome have true apostolic authority? Catholics today say yes and so does Jerome.
Popes were issuing orders to Christians in other countries as early as AD 70.
Even today the bishops (overseers) are appointed from the presbytery (elders/priesthood)
More evidence of the existence of the Catholic Church in its nascent structure
Informative. This looks to be a contentious one.
Oh yes, there's going to be a series of long Catholic responses, and then some responses to responses. Any time a protestant finds the smallest agreement w/ a church father, the Catholics get pretty upset about it. They would like to claim that the church fathers only back them, in all ways and at all times. It doesn't matter how plain as day the statements are. That's hold true w/ scripture though.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 It does seem prevalent for RCs to cite the consensus of the Fathers, but when specific examples are offered contra their positions, they come out with either "You're misquoting them" or "That's just one example, and it doesn't matter because we still have consensus." The former is often just not true, and the latter reeks of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
That said, I have already a response here not from the RC side, but the Anglican side. Anglican Aesthetics has a video out on this going over some evidence pre-Jerome in rebuttal to Dr. Ortlund's position here. I'm hoping to see this line of dialogue advanced.
@@ottovonbaden6353 I have to grant them that they largely have consensus on the church fathers, who were usually Catholic bishops. They don't have total consensus though. When Gavin did the video on how Augustine believed in supremacy of scripture, and it was very clear from the number of quotes, that Augustine put scripture above bishops and councils, the Catholics about lost their minds over it. They really don't like to see that any of the church fathers agreed w/ protestant Christians on any points. Of course the church fathers would have some agreement w/ us, we are bible believing Christians.
If I have typos, I had to fight for that post, as my little cat was head bunting me for attention the whole time, lol.
Here's an extract from Jerome's letter to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, (or LUTHER-ans, CALVIN-ists, etc.) you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013If you want serious engagement or discussion, it would be prudent to not spam the same quote on many different replies to this video.
St. Jerome also affirms that the bishops have been entrusted with the keys of the kingdom…
“These [“The Clergy”,] you will say, remain in their cities, and yet they are surely above criticism. Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ.”
It os no different than the Apostles being empowered to bind and loose. It doesn't make any defense for AS
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 I truly don’t have the time to get into right now otherwise I would but look up Allan Ruhl he posted a rebuttal. Gavin is an awful deceiver whether he is doing it purposely or not. But that’s what schismatics do.
@bgillis77 we don't need Gavin or Allan. I strongly believe christians should know their history, especially because it is complicated and we are all products of history. But the bible is always always our focal point. It doesn't matter what was being done or said or "received from the Apostles." If we can not find a clear-cut command, we are at liberty to disagree. It is safer than being dogmatic. It frustrates me that many Catholics pretend Luther did us badly when he broke away from the church. Yes, it has brought many divisions and bad practices, but that is not Luther's fault. It is the fault of they who do not look to scripture. Luther's way is far better than how the Catholic church heavily struck down divisions in the church, some of which were purely out of a heart to follow scripture because the clergy were not only corrupt but refused to do what they were ordained to do. For crying out loud, many in the congregation had no assurance of salvation, no access to scripture, and its interpretation. As long as salvation is not found in a church, as long as the church fathers, even if Catholics claim are theirs, share the same faith and bible we do, we are good to go. You people can behave like the Jews in the OT and think so special of yourselves. We are content to be the gentiles who have been shown so much grace and love. As long as the same Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, we will meet in heaven where there will be no divisions. I will never recommend the RCC as a good church for any believer, but God forbid me to think I'm a better breed of christian than they are. It's sad that many of you think protestants are a blot to the faith. Surprisingly, it is we who are not obsessed with some extra biblical traditions. We are content to be obsessed with salvation and the assurance of it. We have come to stay.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 the Bible cannot stand alone look at how messy, disordered and chaotic protestant sects are… the Bible needs the magisterium to be properly understood. It is what gives a guard rail so that we do not fall into heresy. That is what dogma is. No where in the Bible does it preach Bible alone. The Catholic Church IS the Church established by Christ, Holy Mother church’s teachings have never led us astray in all her 2000 years. Bible alone is such an immature argument bc the early Christians didn’t have a Bible! They relied on sacred teaching and the magisterium.
@bgillis77 you mean Marian dogma, praying to the saints, indulgences, and unbiblical purgatory doctrine, that faith alone in Christ alone is not enough, empty rituals and traditionalism comes from the one true church, headed by a ceremonial magisterium? No wonder the heart cry of the Reformation will ever ring true, Sola Scriptura, away with all these if we can not confirm them by the bible alone. The Didache is not inspired, church fathers are not, their importance are only recognised as long as they align with the bible. By the way, do you lay claim to the interpretation of the OT, or should we submit to the Jewsih Church for interpretation? Also, are you saying the bible written in human languages can not be understood by anyone outside the RCC? Or have the keys to these languages been given to your popes? You can continue in your cry of being the one true church with a 2000-year history of infallible whatever. The word has been written on our hearts, Christ dwells in our hearts by his Spirit. If that is not enough we want nothing more.
Hi, Dr. Ortlund. Thanks for your work. I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute, and I'm writing a paper on the topic of polity. Your interaction with primary sources has been helpful. However, I am wondering, where does Ignatius speak of the presbyters as standing in the seat of the apostles? I didn't see a source cited for that in your video.
Hello Gavin,
do you have a good book recommendation for the canon of scripture?☺️
Gary Michuta's "Why Catholic bibles are bigger."
Any Catholic Bible.
It is very difficult to defend Jerome’s position on this topic, because it is mostly based on his own interpretation of Scriptural texts. You also have to throw out a lot of evidence for apostolic succession to defend Jerome.
People like Irenaeus seem to have direct knowledge of Apostles appointing and ordaining Bishops. According to Irenaeus (Born 130AD) Polycarp a Bishop and martyr was ordained by the Apostle John. In Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) (4) “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time..”
According to tradition the first bishop of Jerusalem was James the Just, the "brother of the Lord", who according to Eusebius said that he was appointed bishop by the apostles. His successor Simeon of Jerusalem was also appointed Bishop by the Apostles who were still alive at the time according to Eusebius. This makes sense to me since it is very similar to Acts 1:12-26.
It is also evident when you read Acts 6: 1-6 that the Apostles were very much involved in running and establishing the Church. “Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, ……They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. “
It is possible however that Jerome’s model may have been used in other places.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)
“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)
What are we talking about?
I’m guessing as this direct quote runs counter to Gavin’s thesis, it will either be ignored or spuriously explained away
@Danaluni59 exactly, as with St. Agustine also. The more I look into what divides is Christians the more I think that maybe the postmodernist are right, it's impossible to have a true interpretation. Not even from the author. I believe and pray the Holy Spirit is still leading us.
6:26 If we go to Epistle 146, it seems one of his points in favour of the theory is, John the Beloved calls himself a presbyter or elder in two epistles, the latter being 3 John.
Since St. Irenaeus the presumption has been that John the Beloved was the son of Zebedee, but Irenaeus left Asia at c. 16. Jean Colson made a point of sparse hints in Asia Minor tradition other than St. Irenaeus pointing to them being two different persons.
Dr Ortlund, I'd love to hear your comments on this idea. I'm at work so I can't fact check it right now but if I remember right doesn't Paul write to the Colossians basically saying "wow I'm so pleasantly surprised that there's a church in this city! I was sharing the gospel in some other city (Ephesus maybe) and there was some dude from colossia who happened to hear the gospel and bring it back to his hometown." If that's the case shouldn't it be of interest that he didn't rebuke them for not having real sacraments because they didn't have an actual bishop?
No, Paul was not surprised there was a church there. It’s implied that Paul had Epaphras guide them in faith on his behalf and he’s pleased to hear of their great faith and love. Churches don’t randomly start popping up from random, zealous, individuals giving themselves authority until the 1500s I’m afraid. As fun as it is to pretend apostolic authority in the early church was a myth and read today’s modern forms of Christianity back in to it.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
The church of the first century had a three-fold structure: apostle-presbyter-deacon. The apostles had authority over the presbyters. It is not surprising, then that the church the apostles left behind saw a need to continue the apostles' seat. (It would seem surprising that John, if not other apostles, did not give the church guidance on this issue before his death.) A hint of what was to come might be seen in the NT in the messengers appointed--Timothy and Titus. Paul told Titus, " Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you." (Titus 2:15--NKJV) This seems to give them authority above the presbyters. Then, we have the letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters 2 and 3. Each letter is addressed to the angel of the church in that city. The Greek word translated angel here is the same word that can be translated, messenger.
Mr. Ortlund, a question about the functioning of the laying on of hands (which is often related to Apostolic succession and doctrinal succession). Specifically, the way it has been explained to me, all valid ministers (pastors bishops etc.) have had other elders of their church lay hands on them and pray over them as the means of appointing them to a valid office from which they can teach, offer sacraments such as the Lord's Supper, and lead their church. Is that correct, and if so, do all valid churches have ministers who have been appointed through the laying on of hands by other ministers, tracing all the way back, ultimately, to the apostles?
I am wondering this specifically in relation to churches in remote areas and places where God is at work through dreams and other extreme means such as in many muslim nations where people are coming to Christ through visions God reveals to them in dreams. Could a group of such people form a valid church and partake in the Lord's supper even though they have no outside contact, and thus no laying on of hands?
Look at what Yi Seung-hun did.
@@benabaxter I'm not familiar with him - who was he and what did he do?
Read "The Heavenly Man" by Brother Yun. He helped establish many house churches in China. His testimony is a wonderful example of exactly that.
@@mcgilldi thank you for the recommendation
Good works thanks Dr. Ortlund
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
Happy Feast Day of the Assumption of Mary 😊😊
😊
A question for clarification. The citations you have given make clear selection of the bishop is by the presbyters, but who is considered doing the ordaining?
Is the scholarly consensus that the presbyters would previously ordain their bishop? Or that presbyters previous ordained each other?
I can see ways that a development of a 2 tiered hierarchy could develop into 3 tiered hierarchy and be harmonised with apostolic succession, but of course this would not be based on evidence.
Excellent video!
Great video. As a correlated question, I am curious about patristic understandings of ordination. Would the fathers have considered congregational ordinations to be valid? Questions like that.
Ambrose of Milan was in a sense chosen to be bishop by the local congregation at Milan.
@@gabrielbridges9709 but he was not ordained by the congregation. That’s the critical difference.
@@cullanfritts4499 he was still elected by the congregation
@@gabrielbridges9709 true
No
10:16 This is a point where that convert from Anglicanism, I think it was, his book was titled in reference to Ephesians 4:5, took the quote I misrecalled about John, when about Peter.
His view was the real meaning of NT "episkopos" was simply priest, the real meaning of NT "presbuteros" was partly one class of bishops (other classes mentioned as apostles, evangelists, angels, prophets) and partly the most common term for it. A generation later, the terms switched use.
@Truth Unites question Does the term "papacy" mean the church being united with civil power? Has the definition shifted? How do you use the term?
I want to second Gavin’s recommendation of Alistair Stewart’s book. A fascinating piece of scholarship, and one proponents of an apostolic sanctioned three-fold order will have to account for.
Hi Gavin
It is my understanding that Apostolic Succession can be traced through a senior presbyter line as well - representing the college of presbyters thus making a Presbyterian form of government valid as well. What I am lost at however is the congregational form of governance. Can you show where we can see that form polity specifically different than the episcopal and presbyterian models ?
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
"Let Jerome be Jerome!"
Beautifully said!
Here's an extract from Jerome's letter to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, (or LUTHER-ans, CALVIN-ists, etc.) you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@alisterrebelo9013 Why did you add your words into his mouth? Please let Jerome be Jerome. All ecclesialists, be it Romanists, EO, OO, and ACOE, as well as their variants, claim to be the one and only true church.
I appreciate Gavin's due diligence on Church history sources and references. However, not St. Jerome or the reformers would agree or even phantom Gavin's notion holy scripture or church. St. Jerome lived and fell asleep as an Orthodox Christian. We know the history of the reformers, their movements, and churches bare little if any resemblance. It is interesting that Protestants can not rely on their church fathers (reformers). God willing, we should pray for unity of the faith.
As a Protestant, I echo your prayer for unity of the faith. Here is the good news--I believe that all who worship our Lord Jesus, who believe upon Him for forgiveness of sins, will be united in truth forever one day.
Truth also divides, Gavin...
hey, can you make a video about the process theodicy, as I think it can be quite problematic, and could lead to pantheism (If i understand it properly)
21:28 Presbyters electing the next bishop does not necessarily translate to them doing the consecration.
The thing this custom was exchanged for may have been election by surrounding bishops instead of internal presbyters.
In Apostolic constitutions, you even involve laymen. That doesn't mean they do the ordination, obviously.
21:39 Against the implications thought to ensue by perhaps Charles Gore, definitely you, one would say appointment and ordination are two different things.
It's human nature that power always seeks to preserve itself within the structure of an oligarchy of elites. Bishop begeting bishop was an organizational evolution, and those who are born out of that framework always demand its preservation. This is also why they must, by self-preservation, downplay the Holy Scriptures while elevating various tradition-- whichever tradition each pundit belongs to. The systems each have their own variations but similar motifs, as listed above.
And yet Jerome also wrote to the Bishop of Rome: it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house if profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge.
Hi Gavin.
Do you have thoughts on statements like the following (from Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3, chapters 3-4) by church fathers that sound just like Catholic/Orthodox apologists for apostolic sucession and oral tradition and the church being the body to which believers who ask in matters of controversy?
Here is a particularly provocative excerpt but the full quote has context and other arguments:
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Wider Context:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
... [discussion about polycarp]...
Chapter 4
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
Sure sounds like sectarian reformation forming into thousands of self-governing anti-apostolic fracture cults is nothing new.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 No offense but what you seem to be doing is just taking a cheap shot.
There are many schools of thought and practice in all sects of Christianity.
For instance, Jesuits, Doninicans, etc. They also have doctrines and theological systems named after people, like thomism.
This is just a cheap shot. If you have something substantive to say on this topic, then it would be of use.
I also agree that it would have been better to stay in the church as it was. However by the time of "the reformation", the Church was already fractured in several sects and they all participated in acts and have beliefs that seem entirely alien to the meaning of Scripture (which Jerome was saying in that quote you added is of great importance) and also to even the tradition passed down and even the tradition that developed early on.
I am talking primarily about icon veneration and praying to the saints. The canon is kinda a touchy subject too because there seemed to be early disagreement on this important issue, but I don't think it is even comparable in importance to the 2 issues I mentioned first.
@@OnTheThirdDay Two points:
1) this quote proves that regardless of what Jerome thought of the presbytery, he CLEARLY thought Apostolic succession was important as he LITERALLY called those outside the Apostolic church as being of the Church of the AntiChrist.
2) None of the example you cited started their own Church to therefore fall under the category of Anti Christ that Jerome defined.
Does your emotional reaction perhaps hint at some truth to what Jerome says?
@@alisterrebelo9013 1) I was responding to what you were saying.
You highlighted a single sentence which said that if Christians call themselves by a name other than Christ then they are not Christians.
This is said in the context of talking about heretics that started their own organizations outside of the church but that single sentence is specifically about so called Christians who also go by a name of another person as well.
You know for a fact that this is just begging the question because the protestants argued that they were being faithful not just to Scripture but also tradition that had been corrupted. This is the point being contested and due to persecution they left. Luther didn't just try to just start his own church out of nowhere and the legitimacy of his arguments are the whole controversy.
I don't know much about Calvin so I can't say.
2) Your argument does not apply to Anglicanism or to Nestorianism which have a line to the begininng, although disrupted by politics and church politics.
In short, this was a cheap shot (you adding a comment about luther and calvin into Jerome's quote). Nestorius is an obvious problem because the rest of the church denounced him as a heretic and excommunicated his branch (although church politics definitely were a bad issue).
Although currently the East and West are nicer about it, early on they meant it when they excommunicated each other and the Orthodox (as far as counsils and authoritative speakers) still do believe that if you are not in the Orthodox church then you are in no church at all.
Also the fact that I saw you posting this (almost?) exact comment on someone else's comment also shows you are acting as a comment troll right now.
Your comment has nothing to do with my question and contains unsolicited and irrelevant jabs at protestant groups.
Then you act like I am overreacting by calling you out in polite terms. (Go reread my comment. I was intentionally trying to not instigate anything.)
As for me, I wish there was a single united church that taught true doctrine with perhaps minor disagreements within. It just isn't the case anymore.
Early on this seems to have been the case for at least a couple hundred years and over the centuries many extra doctrines have developed that are just not fitting.
What is Keith's background on this topic? Is he published?
Never mind, I watched the first part of his video with Suan. Kieth is a "hobbyist researcher".
18:00 Moses sharing leadership ... a by now traditional view is, the seventy chosen by Moses correspond to the 72 disciples who were the first priests - just as the 12 were the first bishops.
So the instance chosen by St. Jerome actually favours the common RC interpretation.
Roman Catholics often appeal to AS as “Christ taught [apostle] who taught and laid hands on [bishop] who taught and laid hands on [bishop] and so on down to today. But the papacy doesn’t work like this at all. It’s possible for successive popes to have not met, and certainly not learn from each other.
Also, Ignatius, who is heavily invoked in support of AS, mentions at the end of one of his letters something along the lines of “I guess my congregation will have Christ as their bishop” (not actual quote). Can’t remember which letter; I’d have to look it up. This would not indicate that he was planning on any succession along the lines of what Roman apologists say today.
Catholics don’t say each pope appoints the next pope. The bishops appoint other bishops, the popes are successors of each other in that they succeed each other in the office of bishop of Rome. This is how it is done today when the cardinals(some bishops) elect the Pope.
@@bman5257 I agree they don’t say that about the popes specifically, but the general case for apostolic succession is that it is a string of “taught by _____who was taught by____ all the way back to Christ.” And that they all laid their hands in that chain.
@@AmillennialMillenial Well the bishops themselves are in that chain even if the office is not. Every bishop is going to be ordained/consecrated by another bishop. And we would assume in the early Church that the apostles would not have appointed Newbie Yahoos as their successors. We shouldn’t expect the bishops to be completely heretical in the first generation or two. (E.g. St. Ignatius of Antioch is reliable). If we believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all the truth and the gates of Hell won’t prevail against the Church. (John 15, Matthew 16). We shouldn’t expect complete error in the Church for any number of generations. With all due respect to Dr. Ortlund, his aniconism seems to conflict with his view that the Church wasn’t restored but simply had accretions that grew in it. If he is right about aniconism, the Church was completely taken over by idolaters for centuries.
Posting in the first three minutes and hoping you address the issue of the definition and parameters of apostolic succession in re the seven ecumenical councils.
Since those don’t support his thesis, he will likely ignore all of there evidence
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, I suppose is a book which includes Jerome's commentaries. This is a module in Accordance Bible Software. The module is arranged by chapter & verse of the Bible, presenting different (so-called) Church Fathers' comments on passages. I checked & found Jerome's comments on Galatians. I am not sure how complete the comments are; maybe they are complete, though scattered since included with other "fathers." I don't recall what the module cost, perhaps between $100 & $200 on sale.
When you say “technical and full expression” do you mean the juridical or sacramental nature?
This argument entails that apostolic succession is not tied to the office of bishop, right? I say this because, to my mind, it would entail gaps in succession at best, and the irradication of succession altogether at worst. The former I allege, as the distinct office of bishop did not exist until the presbyters created it. This creates a gap or gaps in time in which no one formally succeeded the apostles. The latter I allege because a cause cannot give what it does not have to give; ergo, if the presbyters did not possess apostolic succession, they could not "give" it to the bishop when they installed him. I'm interested in the testing of my argument by counter perspectives.
In an appeal to Pope St. Damasus, St. Jerome requested a decision on two separate and distinct matters, that of episcopal appointments and Trinitarian theology of which he wrote the following, “My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the church is built. This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."
[Rengers, Fr. Christopher, O.F.M. Cap., The 33 Doctors of the Church (Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.: Rockford, IL, 2000), pps. 97-98]
I appreciate that modern Roman Catholics do a better job of explaining what succession is and isnt. It isn't "getting zapped by the right zapper."
Succession/ordination is (or should be) seen as a collective act of the whole Christian community, with the bishop merely as presiding officiant, whose role is to invoke the Holy Spirit upon the man in consecration and to place him into his sacred vocation. The laying-on-of-hands are important gestural delineators of blessing, but it isn't magic (in the crass sense). It's about proper authority and placement into office, solemn duty (to the community/parish, etc), a man being offered up to God and the prayers of the believing community.
Essentially, this is the Protestant theology of ministerial vocation, as well. It is also important because it asserts contrary to the splinter sects that _merely_ being ordained by a bishop in succession (in a dark room with no witnesses, Simonistically, etc) is insufficient to establish that the ordination is a valid act of the whole Christian community to create a minister. The magic touch is not enough, it has to be a canonical act of the church and not simply the unilateral act of a rouge bishop.
When succession clearly isn't a collective act (i.e., when the clergy appoints its own people without regard to the laity) it should not be seen as a collective act.
31:22
Cranmer was consecrated by a true Catholic bishop, who had been consecrated in 1521 before the schism.
Pole was a Catholic.
Parker ... 17 December 1559 by William Barlow (bishop of Chichester).
Barlow ... February 1535[1]
source says
_"He bewails to Cromwell their blindness and ignorance, and complains that 'no diocese is so without hope of reformation.' Next year he was removed from his unruly flock to the rich priory of Bisham in Berkshire, and was sent with Lord Robert Howard on an embassy to Scotland. While thus engaged he was elected bishop of St. Asaph (16 Jan. 1535-6). But before he left Scotland he was translated to St. David's, certainly without having exercised any episcopal functions,and probably without having been consecrated."_
So, if we uphold the distinction of bishop from priest, Barlow had no succession to transmit, since he was probably never a bishop.
But even if we don't ... there is another very good reason why Anglican and Swedish Lutheran orders are invalid.
In the Swedish reformation, Laurentius Petri was consecrated by an elderly Catholic bishop obeying the King under duress, and there is perhaps even better case for Agricola over in our eastern Duchy Finland (which we lost in 1809). But they did not have the intention of transmitting even normal priesthood, as witnessed by their opposition to the Sacrifice of the Mass.
If a Liberal Catholic ever attained episcopal consecration, but had the intention of conferring special powers of Hindu-Buddhist meditation, he would not validly be handing apostolic succession on. This is a reason why many Trads either doubt, or in the case of most Sedevacantists deny validity to the New Mass or the new rites of Consecration - lack of proper intention properly expressed.
Hi Gavin, I really like you, I do. Do you know what else Jerome said? Here's an extract from his letter to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. *If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, (or LUTHER-ans, CALVIN-ists, etc.) you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist.* For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
Jerome was also known to be an angry crank who didn't get along with Augustine, or apparently, anybody else. But it is interesting that this human drive to belong to the "true" church existed in Jerome's time, as it does in the present day. That being said, Jerome certainly had a point about about the dangers of new sects, but by the same token, a totally orthodox and true church can be corrupted as well. Hence, the Reformation.
@@joeoleary9010 None of the 3 other Protestants who replied to me can seem to make the connection between what I've posted and Gavins presentation.
Gavin is relying heavily on Jerome's writings to question Apostolic succession with the presumed intent of strengthening the validity of Protestant Churches existing outside of the Catholic and Apostolic Union. Well the quote I put out shows clearly that Jerome cared very much for Apostolic succession to the extent that he was willing to label those outside of the Apostolic Union as belonging to the 'Synagogue of the Anti-Christ'. The onus is now on Gavin to reconcile what he may see (while I do not) as a contradiction.
"A totally Orthodox and true church can be corrupted as well."
Let me reply two ways to this:
1)Did any of these occur? Jesus lying when he said in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit fail to protect and guide the Church established by the Apostles, or do Protestants simply not believe these verses?
Matthew 16:18 ESV
And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
John 14:16, 17, 25, 26; 15:26,27; 16:7-11, 13-15 - HS guiding the Apostles and the Church they set up.
2) Corruption of say for example, Popes is not proof of corruption of the remainder of the Church. This is like saying RZIM should shut down because Ravi Zachariah was sexually sinful.
I also have to say that Gavin at the 18:45 mark is being deceptive. He leaves off the very next sentence of that St. Jerome quote which says:
"For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?"
Do you think that might be important to mention in this discussion? This proves that it was never the presbyters who ordained themselves a Bishop in Alexandria or anywhere else. The Latin word St. Jerome used was "nominabant" (which means to name or nominate) and not "ordinatione" (to ordain) in regards to what the Alexandrian Presbyters did . But he does use the word "ordinatione" when he specifically reserves that power for the Bishop!
And later on in the same paragraph:
"Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles."
SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES! Underline it.
what do you think this proves? Are you proposing this is at odds with Jerome's view that presbyter and bishop is the same office (excepting the developed custom)? Why would anything you have quoted here rebut that?
Please do a response to Brian Holdsworths video on “ relationship > religion “
Church historian Rev. Richard Hanson in his book "The Christian Priesthood Examined" said something to the effect regarding Jerome:
"Mercifully, for the peace of the Church, Jerome was never made a bishop"
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
@@alisterrebelo9013 anachronism.
@@DrBob-gr5ru non sequitur
@@alisterrebelo9013 no it's not.
@@DrBob-gr5ru yes it is. I'll keep playing this game until you present a real argument
If Catholicism is false, why does it produce so many saints? The focus of the Catholic Church is a call to holiness, to alignment of one’s will with the will of God. I don’t see this at all in Protestant churches in America. If Protestantism is true where are all the saints?!
How do you know any of the Catholic church's saints are "saints"? To put it another way, how do you know that Pope John Paul II is a saint and Corrie ten Boom isn't?
@@joeoleary9010 boom might be a Saint too! You don’t have to be Catholic to be a saint. I know the church’s saints are saints because of the ways they lead their lives! Read about their lives and their devotion to God and their sacrifices and you will see. My point is there are so many from the Catholic tradition.
It might just be they are better at recording the saints among them compared to other churches
@@briandiehl9257 could be.
I'm new to this video. Who is Keith?
When did the term "priests" begin to be found in the early church Father's writings? I was actually more interested in when the five-fold ministry gift of "pastor" began to be used instead of the term "bishop?"
Hi Gavin, I was looking for some advice. Is there a place we can submit longer form questions? I am a Protestant and my sister was raised Protestant as well. But after spending several years running from the Lord, my sister has come back to the Lord but is now a fully confirmed Catholic. I’m getting married to a baptized, non-confirmed Catholic (who is now Protestant) and there is some differences in opinions between my sister and I about my wedding. There are a lot more details that I don’t have room to put here, but is there somewhere I can submit a full question? Or is there any resources or advice you can give? I’ve spent the last several weeks studying Catholicism because I have never known much about it. I want to come to my sister with love and understanding (like the irenic approach you take).
Maybe on his website?
Perhaps talk to your sister about her conversion and how it came about. My guess, being Catholic she would be ever ready to give an explanation for her hope.
I was hoping Gavin might mention of Jerome's claim that the office of "priest" wasn't of Apostolic origin, but a post-Apostolic development. I'm not sure what Jerome meant by that statement and what the consequent implications of that claim are.
When you going to do a video on Jovinian, Vigilantius, or Claudius of Turin?
Great video! Dr. Bryan Litfin from Moody Bible Institute in his book, "Getting to Know the Church Fathers" mentions that the first time the single "elder-bishop" Biblical office got "split" into two separate, distinct office, wasn't in Rome but in Antioch (early 2nd Century AD):
"Ignatius [of Antioch] owns the distinction of being the first advocate of the monepiscopacy, in which a single bishop serves the entire Christian community in a city. Ignatius' letters clarify the reason for his move: the early church had been seriously undermined by disunity & false doctrine. Single bishops were the proposed solution. Ignatius viewed the harmony that exists between Christians who love & obey their bishop, & the bishop who exercises selfless pastoral concern for his flock, as a reflection of the harmony between the Heavenly Father & his obedient Son. Over & over again, Ignatius celebrated church unity as a depiction of divine unity," p.42.
Dr. Litfin then quotes Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians 4 (ANF 1:50-51). Dr. James White also affirms it's not until the mid-second century (~AD 140) that this catches on to the church of Rome, when for the first time there is a single bishop in the city.
(1) You said that every institution undergoes rapid institutionalization after it's founders die. I think this is a fascinating thesis that someone studying ecclesiology or church history could use for a dissertation. Do you know of any literature studying this phenomenon? Doesn't have to be from a religious point of view. Even secular business, etc.
(2) I don't know anywhere that the Catholic Church has ever dogmatized the idea that Bishop and Priest were ordained separate offices in the time of the apostles, so I don't think this actually proves anything (except that Catholic apologists continue to make arguments the Catholic Church has never made itself)
That Jerome was always causing problems...
That prot.😣
No he wasn’t. Protestants make it seem that way by always cherry picking and taking it all out of context.
St. Jerome also said “These [“The Clergy”,] you will say, remain in their cities, and yet they are surely above criticism. Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ.”
@@bgillis77 That doesn't directly mention apostolic succession.
Can you demonstrate where Dr Ortlund took things out of context? Are you implying that he has a habit of taking things out of context?
@@bgillis77 I'm pretty sure @theknight was joking w/ his quip, "That prot." It made me chuckle anyway. We don't think Jerome, or other church fathers, who in some minor ways agree w/ some protestant theology, are protestants. The main points in pointing things like this out, is mostly to just show that the reformation ideas weren't completely novel. There was jostling and contesting of CAtholic doctrine from the beginning and the church fathers weren't unanimous or completely uniform in their beliefs. The church fathers didn't have all the beliefs of modern CAtholics either. Those are the smaller points. Catholics seem to want to jump to, we think the fathers were protestant. Which is a huge leap I've never seen a protestant make yet.
I notice Jerome uses the term or title of priests. Peter did not use the term for anyone in office in the Church. They were referred to as Elders, bishops etc. The Apostles knoewthat the only Priest was Jesus the High Priest. But guess Jerome was already conditioned by Catholic Church
Hey Gavin can you do a video on Mark 7 verses 5 through 13 especially teaching on verse 11? I have read this passage many times and I have a general understanding but I would like to have a fuller understanding. Maybe you could give some detailed background as to what the Pharisees were doing that Christ taught violated Scriptural commands. Thanks
I think there is a reason to mistrust Jerome on this. He himself was 'just' a priest. He was Pope Damasus's scribe, and expected to be the bishop of Rome after him. When Damasus died and he didn't succeed him, he left Rome to go East very jaded and upset. I personally think Jerome never got over the upset of not being a bishop himself.
Dr. Ortlund, this is an incredible video. As an Anglican who holds to episcopacy on "prudential" grounds as you said this video sums up pretty well my understanding and view of BOTH episcopacy and apostolic succession. A question I do have for you is this: while I can see that the monoepiscopacy was a development would you rule out ANY and ALL catholic/translocal ministry as being outside of apostolic development? What I mean by this is that it seems to be quite clear from the witness of the New Testament and the Didache that there is a nascent catholic/regional/translocal ecclesiology that is held by the apostolic ministry through the apostolic and sub-apostolic age. The "lowercase a" apostles, as it were, in distinction from the Twelve (and Paul?). These lowercase a apostles called "coworkers" by Paul functioned essentially as church planters who planted churches, appointed presbyters, and exercised a catholic, translocal authority of local churches until their generation eventually died out and the monoepiscopacy eventually developed out of Asia Minor to become the normative, universal model. In my understanding the FORM of the episcopate is a development and decidedly not apostolic, but the FUNCTION of it (being a catholic, translocal, ecclesial ministry that exercised some degree of authority above the presbyters that was a missional based, catholic ecclesiology) was apostolic and was what the mono episcopacy was trying to fill the void of. What are your thoughts on this?
Very good question! I hope he answers.
Jerome writing to the Luciferians in 379AD.
"We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, *Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc),* you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
Im in the PCA. My question is if episcopal government is not necessary, can you give a governmental system that is can better wield power. Governments are systems that allow people to wield power. In this case the keys to heaven and hell. The bible's examples of government are all monarchial. Christ is king of the kingdom. Im not episcopal, but episcopal government seems to be the best way to wield the keys. It puts all of God's judgement into a few individuals
This is an interesting video. However, the bottom line is found in the Acts of the Apostles and a quote in this video. That is: " the laying on of hands". That's how the Apostles did it. That's how their successors did it. Doesn't matter what you call the post-apostles. Bishop, presbyter or elder those names develop overtime. The lineage is the key. It's the contant throughout time. All of the rest is nuances.
So, back in time the presbyters selected from amongst themselves who would be bishop. Fine but, that's not totally different than today.
Brief synopsis: When a new bishop is needed in the Catholic Church, 3 men are selected from the clergy (priests) . Their names are , through channels, sent to Rome. These men are vetted. The Pope selects one man to be elevated to bishop. Similarly, when a new pope is needed, the Cardinals gather to elect a new pope. Is it exactly like in Apostolic times? No, but it is similar. What remains constant is the " laying on of hands ". This occurs when a priest is ordained. This occurs when a bishop is consecrated. Read the Acts of the Apostles. Not every Christian had hands laid upon them. The average Christian recieved baptism. Some had hands applied. The application of hands traces the lineage.
There was no Apostolic succession. There were 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ including Paul who was the last Apostle of Jesus Christ.
Holy Scripture teaches that even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith in Ephesians. Plus, Timothy and Silvanus were Apostles as well as Paul and Barnabas as Holy Scripture teaches. Where Does Holy Scripture teach the office of Apostle ceases? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I'm convinced that catholic apologist on CZcams know that their position is wrong but they are so devoted to their religion that they refuse to admit it. Anybody with a decent amount of reasoning ability could see that the Catholic position across the board on many different issues rely on the person having a strong blind faith in the church as an institution, regardless of how plainly scripture itself seems to either disagree completely or in the very least have no context to whatever their current dogma is. The holy scripture is not on the Roman Catholics side and history itself is not on the Roman Catholics side. They are fighting a losing battle and unfortunately their devotion to Rome may cost them their souls. When you do not put your faith in Jesus alone you are like the Jew doing works of the Law. We all know that no not one is righteous enough to enter heaven. Putting your faith in Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation.
This is a very bad take. There are many people who have reasoned their way into the church on the evidence alone, often at great personal cost.
To be Catholic just takes a more realistic view of Scripture, that the inspired Word of God was nonetheless a series of ad hoc responses to individual crises. Nonetheless, the Christian Church is in continuity with Jewish law and Jewish custom in specific ways, for example, that binding and loosing refers to the interpretation of scripture, and that baptism corresponds to circumcision. We are not under the law, but without a knowledge of the law how can we have knowledge of the "law of the Spirit of Life?"
Your denomination didn’t exist until the 16th century, before this time Catholic Churches did exist. That means people believed in catholic dogma before Protestant dogmas of “saved by faith alone”, etc.
Not sure how you can believe in an interpretation of the gospel that was alien to the early church and christians for most of their history.
@@christsavesreadromans1096that’s a mischaracterization of what Protestantism is. Protestantism is just a reforming movement to try and seek the most original form of the church and truths they beleive sin line with scripture. Protestants aren’t a sect in the form that Catholics are because we claim no exclusivity of salvation.
@@christsavesreadromans1096look up to the waldensians, they were basically protestants in the 12,13th century and in fact many protestants ideas existed before the reformation so what you saying is false
@@cooperthatguy1271 And the original church didn’t believe in saved by faith alone, they didn’t believe in scripture alone as their authority, nor did they believe that baptism doesn’t save, nor did they believe in a symbolic presence of the Eucharist. So the reformation was a total failure with their attempt to “reform” the church into its original ways, as very few of the doctrines they hold the early christians held.
I mean Ignatius of Antioch, who was the disciple of John the Apostle, straight up wrote that the bishop presides in the place of God, and to do nothing without the bishop. Does that sound like Protestant doctrine at all? No.
28:47 how does it not settle the question? If RC's accept what you present as true, how could they also affirm the Vatican 1 formulation of the "constant custom" that was "always" maintained? It would also prove the Matthew 16 interpretation that they argue closes the case in their favor was not for 20-30 years even possibly understood to be the case. If single, apostolically appointed bishops did not govern each church, from their establishment, with the Roman bishop having universal authority, then it is all a lie.
This doesn’t refute apostolic succession, you have a group of apostolically-suceeding bishops / presbyters being arranged in a new structure for church government. They were all ordained from the laying of hands by validly-ordained presybter-bishops before them, i.e. apostolic succession. The episcopate became universal in the Church by guidance of the Spirit. These things can develop. Read St. Vincent of Lérins Commonitory (23rd chapter)
As an Anglican, I would agree with this take. Certainly (as Dr Ortlund points out) the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ were used interchangeably the the NT, particularly in the Pastoral Epistles. However the pattern for a local church having a singular chief pastor is also Biblical specifically with the example of St James at Jerusalem once the Apostles dispersed. Also there is in the same Pastoral Epistles the precedent of men (Timothy and Titus) empowered by an apostle (Paul) to appoint bishop/presbyters in specific locales (Ephesus and Crete). So although the distinction between bishop and presbyter was a development, it was an early development and not without Apostolic precedent.