REBUTTING Gavin Ortlund on relics and venerating the saints
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2024
- In honor of all-Hallows eve, Trent rebuts a video from Gavin Ortlund that criticizes the Catholic practice of venerating the relics of the saints.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Gavin's original video: • Relics: A Protestant C...
Timestamps
00:00:00 - Introduction
00:02:44 - Idolatry and Superstition
00:07:57 - Venerating relics
00:20:41 - The Council of Trent
00:25:42 - Superstitious?
00:34:48 - Relics before Nicaea
00:40:43 - Relics after Nicaea
00:56:14 - Development in Relic Veneration
"Most Protestants aren't just going to unceremoniously dump a saint's body into a ditch"
This is exactly what the Protestants in Scotland did to many saints' relics, including Saint Margaret. Granted, it was the revolutionary spirit of the Reformation at the time, but they definitely did that.
Don’t forget John Knox destroying relics of St. Andrew the Apostle.
A bit like pope Stephen digging up the body of pope Formoses, his predecessor, so that he could put him on trial and then toss the remains into the Tiber?
@@geordiewishart1683 Pope Stephen's actions in this matter caused a riot that ultimately led to his own death. No one considered it praiseworthy, unlike the protestant revolters who wrought a campaign of destruction throughout Scotland and thought it a job well done.
Protestant revolters.
Converted Catholics?
Funny how the most anti Catholic are former Catholics.
@@geordiewishart1683 It isn't exactly an unknown phenomenon that people can be easily whipped up into a zealous frenzy.
I’ve been consistently working hard to identify and deconstruct my straw men arguments against Catholicism. Discerning whether to be a Catholic or not… but if not, it will not be based upon mere straws.
Trent, your work has helped me immensely in this deconstruction of bad arguments
@OPiguy35: Cradle Catholic here - and I totally respect your search for the truth. The truth IS found in the Catholic Church and I pray you discover this yourself. God bless you.
@@tony1685 Are you a seventh day Adventist?
Most anti Catholics are X Catholics. Following footsteps of Martin Luther. No servant is greater than a master
@@EPH-re2xj romans is a super catholic book. Lol
@@tony1685 You've challenged many to reconcile some verses, mostly to do with the commandments. How do you reconcile the decision of what laws the convert Gentiles must follow in Acts 15? Keeping the Sabbath on Sunday was not one of them. Of course neither were many of the commandments you mention, but we know it's because the *moral* issue and intent behind each commandment that's important and what Jesus taught. Just like he said the Sabbath is for man, not the other way around (Mark 2:27). My step-father is a former SDA and had many restrictions growing up (not being able to purchase anything, ride a bike, listen to music, etc.) on the Sabbath. Things such as these become idols all on their own, and this is exactly what Jesus displayed in that passage. Furthermore, as you have to already know, the commandment is to not make images of anything on earth or in Heaven yet the Lord commanded images and statues to be made for the temple, to heal the people of Israel, and other various instances throughout the Bible. Is the Lord contradicting Himself? We both know the answer to that! I'm sorry for whatever your negative experiences with Catholicism have been, truly.
Ortland’s argument opposing all relics because some people misuse them is akin to arguing against all medicine because some people misuse them.
Where did Christ and His apostle teach that relics have power?
@@Justas399 Did you watch the video?
But to answer your question, the relics don't have power in an of themselves apart from the faith if the person receiving them. Trent makes this very clear in the video.
@@Justas399 literally when a blind man touch Jesus hem. Do u even read your bible?? Nowadays i got impression that protestant is not as prideful as they used to be when it comes to reading and knowing simple story of bible. Ashamed.
@@theosteven3362 Yes the woman was cured by touching His garment. However, it was her faith in Him that healed her and this incident is used as some kind of method to get healed in the NT.
@@Justas399 Good, you're getting it - humans can increase their faith by physical means, or use sensible things to express and use their faith, even though the physical means are nothing in and of themselves.
Ortlund has an annoying habit of arbitrarily introducing "nuance" and delineating between such minutiae in the historical record in an attempt to distinguish his particular protestant views from what is clearly patristic in modern Catholic/Orthodox practice. The cognitive dissonance necessary to remain Baptist in light of what we know from the ancient world is astounding to me.
It's something Trent has pointed out before in "When Protestants argue like Atheists". The basic tactic is having floating or unclear goalposts so nothing will ever convince you. In contrast, the proper thing to do is to declare exactly what evidence you need before engaging. That way your interlocutor can supply that exact evidences or the standard can be critiqued as unreasonable before people waste time arguing.
@@Joker22593 True, it is silly that he says he would be willing to consider Catholicism if abuses had been addressed at Trent, is shown passages where Trent denounced abuses without saying veneration was wrong, and then conveniently forgets his false olive branch to keep bashing Catholics.
The best part of it is to figure like a baptist reformed try to reconcile his critic to an ancient christian practice like veneration of relics because can be made an argument from silence about this practice in the first two centuries AD with the crude reality that can be made an argument from inexistence about the majority of the calvinist theology during the first 1500 years of christianism. That's something that I 've never understood. It's a kind of cognitive dissonance in a superlative degree
Exactly why I unsubscribed
Yes it seems like deep down he knows the Catholic Church makes sense but is looking for small excuses to stay out.
Man I love how Trent and Dr. Gavin complements each other.
Thank you Dr. Gavin for your inputs and Trent for clarifying/straightening.
Highly beneficial for us, Catholics, too!
Around 42:20, you say that St. Athanasius refers to the veneration of a relic from St. Anthony of Padua. You must have meant St. Anthony the Great, since the former wasn't born until 1195AD and St. Athanasius wrote a biography of the latter.
Yes, sorry about that!
@@TheCounselofTrent **airhorn**
I love it when Trent talks about the Council of Trent, the namesake for his Counsel of Trent channel.
Sacrifices to relics???!!!! It's never done in the catholic faith.... I do appreciate the charitable manner of Gavin's video.....
It may have been done by Catholics, if it was it was not condoned by the Church and would be condemned.
Once in history the Church condemned a certain heretical group for offering the Eucharist to Blessed Mary. Good thing the Church explicitly taught against it. As is fitting of the institutional ways of protection by the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, real Catholics would never do that. He finding some weird random facts and pretending that they are practiced or believed by many or most Catholics. He's not being intellectually honest. It's tough to tell if he's doing it on purpose or his pride is clouding his perspective.
I know this is a bit different but here in Spain sometimes I see fruit at the feet of statues. It's not common at all, but you do see it. I imagine a well-intending person doing it out of learned superstition. Unfortunately the Church here is pretty lax when it comes to addressing and correcting superstitious and/or unholy rituals among the faithful.
@@JesusChurchBiblehe LITERALLY said that “this stuff I’m mentioning may not ALL be the official stance of the Catholic Church”. He’s totally being open about it. Trent even praised Gavin for the honesty.
Gavin's critique is always welcomed. Persistent in his concerns, yet never crosses the line to condescension. If Trent keeps responding to the protesters, many more softened hearts will be swimming the Tiber. And I don't mean inter-denomination
paoching. It's about being one fold in Christ and sharing the fulness of Truth.
Ambrose of Milan speaks about the discovery and translation of bodies of martyrs and the miracles that took place. He didn't seem surprised. My Catholic concern is that "the Protestant concern" is being invoked to divide the Church and not just to correct some practices of some catholics...
I really enjoy the rebuttals to Dr Ortlund. Looking forward to the debate in March!
Debate about what?
@@cephasmwila7537Sola Scriptura
@@Compulsive-Elk7103
Oh yeah, I did watch the debate 😄
I hope Dr. Ortlund watches these videos with an open heart. I truly think they could help him be reconciled to the church
Catholicism is unconvincing!!
@@theknight8524 what did you think about the video? What did you think about the first Christians and their testimony to honoring and venerating the saints? What did you think about their testimony of praying for the dead?
@@raydudo3672 Honoring is one thing: as a Protestant l don't have a problem with that: veneration of dead people's bones is something else.
@@raydudo3672 "Pictures are not to be placed in churches so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration"
Council of Elvira(305)
Canon 36
There you go what early church believed honouring and venerating is two different things!!
@@davidjanbaz7728 so you accept *honoring* dead people’s bones?
We Catholics just want Dr. Ortlund to know jusy how concerned we are regarding the practice of Scripture alone, a later development not found in Holy Scripture or the early Church!
Making a claim about scripture (Sola) that scripture doesn’t make about itself is not only a later development but an elevated authority claim potentially or actually reaching levels of Bible idolatry in some Protestant circles. Should Protestants therefore rid themselves of bibles to avoid this idolatrous threat?
Several church fathers wrote about comparing beliefs with the scripture. Paul said to check against the scripture, all scripture is god breathed, Jesus held The Pharisees accountable for placing tradition over the scripture,…. Yes, there is plenty of evidence that scripture was held up as the standard by Jesus and fathers. It clearly is not something that was started by the reformation, the principle is already set by Jesus and Paul, and several early church fathers.
@coloradodutch7480 I agree yet, several Church Fathers Also taught submission to the Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written! Jesus Christ our Good and Kind Lord, indeed quoted Holy Scripture, as well as oral traditions and authority. Scripture ALONE was never practiced by the Jewish people before Christ, or by Jesus Christ Himself or the Apostles or the early Church! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Thank you Trent! Blessings to you and your family! 🙏✝️
Trent best explanation I have heard of what an indulgence is. As a cradle Catholic I have always had problem explaining in a clear way. Thank you , thank you, thank you. I learn so much from each one of your talks.
I just realized a strange string. Gavin only talks about Catholics’ veneration of relics but what about the Orthodox Christians? If I am not mistaken, every Eastern bishop wears relics in his pectoral cross. So it’s not only some Medieval western practice…
A lot of Western criticism of Catholicism is very myopic. The Eastern Orthodox simply don't exist in their thoughts.
Very true. The EO are just some weird Catholics “over there somewhere” who don’t have a Pope, if we’re acknowledged at all lol.
The Anglicans use relics as well.
@@williamsmith6706 That’s not a nice way to talk about Justin Welty.
@@williamsmith6706 Be nice to Justin Welby, please
Please rebut Allie Beth Stuckey’s Reformation Day podcast episode.
I find the Saints efficacious to Prayer life.. In fact the Saints drew me to Mass and confirmation late in life.. For me it's not a dogma, I used to be a Protestant. Oh I started with the Rosary and Saints in my late 20's . The more I learned the more I realised I'm Catholic not Protestant, as I found my real faith in the Catholic Church and it was a Jesus led revelation to me, thanks be to God!!!
Amen
Thank you, this is excellent and charitably addresses the weakness of the arguments made, hinging on silence in the surviving records of the first Christians.
Thanks Mr Horn for in this video you really give your best to clarifying things regarding venerating the relics and saints, God bell you and God bless the Catholic Church
Our relics, Saints, confession, indulgences, incense, altars, tabernacles, sanctuary spaces are not a Catholic invention. These are practices of Judaism especially ultra-orthodox. They still visit tombs of dead rabbis for veneration, candle lighting and prayer. They also keep relics of holy people, their tallit, tefellin etc Currently the President of Israel keeps relics of the Jewish saints (yads telfins etc) at the official residence Beth haNassi which are considered avenues of divine grace and power. This is exactly what the Catholic kings were doing by collecting relics. Jews continue to buy and sell relics of the tzaddikim.
Modern Judaism is a rejection of Christianity. Christianity is the fulfillment of ancient Judaism and it's proper continuous practice.
Keeping some and only some of those older practices in modern Judaism is hardly surprising. However what gets dropped off are all the ritual changes, dress changes, rejection of the taking the Old Testament literally, and rejection frankly of the entire ancient culture, including inheritance through fathers.
In that, nobody should worry at all about modern Judaism.
@@atrifle8364 Ultra Orthodox Jews have kept the traditions of temple Judaism close unlike the other forms of Judaism.. I would love to learn more about them but they appear to be closed off.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker - The Temple was destroyed in 70AD. All of Talmudic Judaism as we know today developed in about 200AD in Babylon and Jerusalem. There is no guarantee that those practices are the same as ancient ones. In fact they are almost certainly different and probably just garden variety occultism.
If you want to find out the proper practices, they are documented in the OT anyway. But there is no need for them as Jesus Himself rebuilt the Temple in 3 days.
@@atrifle8364 You forget we had jewish priests who converted eg Paul who brought over temple practices and liturgy which we use.
I was just discussing this with my husband not an hour ago; I think it’s really important to understand Jewish practices, because how are we to understand Matt 5:17 if not?
Perfect timing for my holy hour today. I read 2 Kings 13:21, which states: "When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet." I totally see where Gavin is coming from as it relates to taking it too far, but you can take that approach with nearly anything in life. Why have a slice of cake on your birthday if it could lead to you eating unhealthily? And as a former Baptist, I can vouch this can occur in the Protestant realm too. Since there was no sacrament of reconciliation as there is in RCC, sinning becomes so easy since all you have to do to obtain forgiveness is say a quick prayer to God to ask for forgiveness. (I know that example is a heart matter, that you need a true spirit of repentance, but I'm just making a practical point). In this way, instead of taking something holy and turning it into something more than it is, you do the exact opposite. This can be said a lot about why the reverence has been taken out of many, many Protestant churches and instead seems shallow or even disrespectful and God seems to be removed. Can we say drag shows in the church? I could go on, but Trent's got it covered lol.
@@EPH-re2xj Indeed, Our Lord's mercy knows no bounds. He will always forgive us. But if we sin after we have been justified and reconciled with God, we must seek forgiveness and not assume it. This is rampant throughout scripture, as it is that OSAS is a false doctrine.
JESUS says in Matthew 10:22 that he who endureth to the end will be saved. Not anyone who believes in Him like one does Santa. BELIEVES as in LIVES out.
A commentary on the verse you cited (which is speaking of the initial justification, by the way):
"The reference then is primarily to indebtedness incurred by the Jews in violating the decrees and prescriptions of the Law of Moses, but secondarily also to that incurred by the Gentiles in violating the law written on their own hearts. Therefore, when the Apostle says, “which was contrary to us,” all are included, all were under the curse of law, Gentiles as well as Jews. See on Eph 2:15. Now God, through Christ, has destroyed this account that stood against us, taking it “out of the way,” in which it stood between us and God; and this He did by “fastening it to the cross” of Christ, on which our Lord suffered and atoned for all our sins and transgressions." Jesus tore down the law so that we might be saved, praise God. Now it lives in our hearts and we must obey it, carrying our cross daily so that we may say we have fought the good fight, we have won the race - not I but through Christ Jesus.
@@EPH-re2xj How am I focused on my performance, please tell me? So the Jews had to endure in the law - the gospel didn't apply to them? How does that check out?
And actually Paul is one of my favorite apostles to support this. Fight the fight, run the race, so you can achieve the final reward and such. Even in Romans, he talks of Abraham and his faith...which is directly followed by action. A lot of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics, I think, are semantics. Not gonna go start a Scripture battle, because it's obvious you're familiar, which is awesome. Just hate the animosity that always seems to get thrown around.
@@EPH-re2xj thank you for your verses and understanding of them, very interesting to read. I believe I'll agree to disagree, as I believe both Paul and Peter were in agreement on the gospel and its meaning and that nothing was "hidden" from the pillars of the Church, as Paul calls them. But the discourse is always refreshing. Peace be with you!
@@EPH-re2xj you’re belief of ‘one saved always saved’ is utterly unbiblical!
Also because of your other comments where I’ve seen that you totally disregard most of the Bible claiming that was solely teachings for the Jews and how you only take from Saint Pauls writings I will quote Saint Paul to show you that your salvation is NOT assured.
“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” (Romans 11:17-22)
In context, St. Paul is explaining that Israel and the Church are really just one continuous people of God, not two, so God didn’t reject the Jews and then start over again with the Church. Rather, using a horticultural metaphor, he says that God’s people under the Old and New Covenants are one single “tree”. The Jews who rejected Jesus were simply cut off from it, and the Gentiles who accepted the Gospel were grafted in.
And, significantly, he warns his Gentile readers not to get too proud. If God cut off the “natural branches” (the Jews) who did not accept the Gospel, then He would have no problem cutting off the branches that have been grafted in (Gentile Christians) if they don’t “continue in his kindness.”
In other words, even though his readers had been justified and grafted into the people of God, their final salvation wasn’t assured. That depended on their continued faithfulness, and if they fell away, they would lose their salvation.
Or what about when Saint Paul explains that even his own salvation isn’t guaranteed.
“Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)
In this passage, Paul is using the metaphor of sports to explain the Christian life. He is saying that just as athletes train and discipline their bodies to win a prize, so too we Christians must train and discipline ourselves in order to ultimately receive the prize of heaven.
Then, in the second half of the text, Paul tells us that he has to do this too. He “pommel[s]” and “subdue[s]” his body (again, using figurative language) to ensure that he is not “disqualified” from the “race” to heaven. If a great saint like him was not guaranteed eternal salvation, then neither are we. Just like St. Paul, we too need to train and discipline ourselves so we don’t fall away from grace and find ourselves “disqualified” when we get to the pearly gates.
Saint Paul also explains that certain sins can keep people out of heaven.
“Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21).
To be clear, Paul isn’t saying that anybody who does any of these things once is automatically condemned to hell. Rather, he is saying that people who engage in these practices without repenting will fail to “inherit the kingdom of God.”
This is just the tip of the ice berg in explaining how the Bible tells us that our salvation is not guaranteed.
@@EPH-re2xj nope not how it works I’ve directly asked you but here you are doing the typically proddy thing of deflecting because you don’t like being proven wrong.
How predictable
Hey Trent! Can you do a “Rebutted” show for Allie Beth Stuckey’s show today about the Reformation?
Thanks, Mr. Horn. Your video has an insane amount of evidences and Church Fathers' cites that veneration of relics of saints is an ancient, legitime and suitable christian practice. These videos are a gold mine for apologetics. Thanks to Mr. Ortlund for involuntarily make easier our christian education.
God did not instruct us to use any relics in our worship
The Second Commandment is clear: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” (Exodus 20:4-5).
The prophet Isaiah spoke of the foolishness of idols: “Those who make an image, all of them are useless, and their precious things shall not profit; they are their own witnesses; they neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. Who would form a god or mold an image; that profits him nothing?” (Isaiah 44:9-10). “He cuts down cedars for himself, and takes the cypress and the oak; he secures it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it. Then it shall be for a man to burn, for he will take some of it and warm himself; yes, he kindles it and bakes bread; indeed he makes a god and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down to it” (Isaiah 44:14-15).
2. Saints do not intercede between us and God
Acts 17:16-34 records that the apostle Paul condemned the notion of praying to anyone other than God. In ancient Athens, Paul came across many of the so-called gods to pray to depending on the particular need. There were altars to Zeus (the king god), and his daughter Athena (the goddess of wisdom). Along with these were the so-called gods of the bountiful harvest (Demeter) and Aphrodite (the goddess of love and beauty) to choose from.
In response to the Athenians' search for God many centuries ago, Paul’s message was clear: your prayer to these non-gods is worthless.
Likewise, if the apostle Paul were to walk the streets today, he would not approve of the practice of many who pray to deceased saints. For example, praying to St. Anthony to help find things which are lost. Or Saint Jude if you are experiencing any type of financial hardship. These are just a few examples of the misplaced worship of any created being which violates God’s instructions and commandments.
On that day in Athens, Paul began to preach the truth of “the resurrection of the dead.” And while some mocked him, others were willing to hear this truth” (Acts 17:32).
The fact is, all those who have died, will not be conscious again until the time of their resurrection after Jesus Christ returns to earth. The patriarch Job writes: “Man dies and is laid away; indeed he breathes his last and where is he? As water disappears from the sea, and a river becomes parched and dries up, so man lies down and does not rise. Till the heavens are no more, they will not awake nor be roused from their sleep” (Job 14:10-12). To learn more regarding the resurrections, read our study guide “What Happens After Death?”
3. We are not to add or take away from the biblical instruction to worship God alone
The words of the prophet Isaiah must have rang in Paul’s ears, “I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images” (Isaiah 42:8).
Paul knew that God told His people to get rid of all of those idols and to serve the only true and living God. He knew that the prophets made clear that the making of gods or idols was not the way to know or honor the Creator, and it was an abomination to God.
@@geordiewishart1683 how about the handkerchiefs or aprons that touched St Paul and was used to heal the sick and cast out demons? Would you say they were idolizing the third class relics?
Don't forget about them stepping into the shadows of the apostles to be healed. Your wrong about this issue. I wouldn't presume to know what the Lord demands from us and ignore His people and their teaching o
God can work through whichever mediums he chooses.
But if on a certain occasion he elects to work through Paul's handkerchiefs, does this imply to you that all clothing and sundry items belonging to Paul are magical, or is it that all hankies are now workers of miracles?
Ortlund's ease for education is very much voluntary. Unlike Trent he's concerned more with education than 'rebutting'.
@@frankjamesiii5362 You are not addressing the fact that most Catholics worship Mary and Saints, bowing down to their images and praying to them above Jesus Christ and God the Father himself. Every Catholic I know worships Mary and Saints and prays to them above Jesus Christ and God the Father himself. I'm from Colombia and live in Canada, 98% of my family are Catholics, both my Canadian and my Latino Catholic friends do the same. My dear mom died praying and adoring Mary more than Jesus and God the Father. It goes completely against the second commandment, period. How can anyone say that historic records about some Christians doing so is more important than the 10 commandments? To me it is just mind blowing.
You have to give Mr. Ortlund credit for trying to be fair and charitable. Many people, even some "trad" Catholics, are just crazy and angry. I've never heard of anyone making sacrifices to relics.
That is true, but they reckon Aruis was very nice.
@@michaellawlor5625 facts he was easy on the eyes and articulate apparently
I'd esteem more Mr Ortlund if he didn't try to defend indefensible positions like... the baptismal regeneration is not the doctrine that Church Fathers asserted but a kind of strange baptistmal symbolism behind the "regenerational" adjective to adjust to his baptist theology. That's one of the reasons that I cannot take seriously any of his approach to any doctrine.
For sure. But he really got that part about the Council of Trent dreadfully wrong.
Your right but also we can't be ignorant to the overall purpose of his vid & prob 90% of all his videos. He may be more gracious than most Protesters but the constant material vs the holy Catholic Church is a bit uncharitable esp when Protestants can't agree on much but also get a pass, even being far from the 1st Deformers doctrines & views...But of course though, as the true ancient apostolic church would be attacked eventhough the gates of hell will not prevail against it
I feel the same sense of frustration when Protestants call it idolatry to kneel before or kiss an image, even when we thoroughly acknowledge it’s just an image and it carries no intrinsic power, as I do when oneness Pentecostals and Muslims insist that we are tritheists for our belief in the trinity, no matter how emphatic we are that we only worship the one God.
Then why do you kiss it? And how do you know all saints are actually saints? What if some of your saints aren't saints and you're bowing and kissing the image of an unsaved dead person?
The real issue is how icons came about. It was a bloody fiasco mate! Why should a person be killed for not venerating them?
Moreover, all people chosen by God to be a prophet, apostles etc. Is God choosing them. As such we give the honor to God for if he so chose we would all be destroyed because he safeguarded certain people not because they were holy but because God is holy and mercy.
@@lkae4 - Why ask an alive in the flesh person to pray for you? You have the exact same problem about being dead and unsaved. At least Catholics can say I believe the authority Jesus left behind on earth.
@@lkae4 1. Kissing is a form of veneration.
2. Usually lengthy investigations are conducted by the Church if there are miracles attributed to a person. These investigations are pretty thorough and can take decades if not centuries before they are confirmed true. Another sure way is martyrdom when a person was killed for professing the faith.
3. This will be an unsatisfying answer: We don't know. It has never happened, and because we profess the Church is true, will never happen as the Holy Spirit protects it from err in such binding matters.
I like that he went to latria Jesus told the devil at the temptation, YOU SHALL LATRIA THE YHVH YOUR ELOHIM AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU PROSCUNINE (bow to), there you have it straight from Jesus to the devil. You can paraphrase this, you shall adore the YHVHJESUS your God and him only shalt thou venerate.
I mean, there's kind of a form of veneration of relics in Scritpure: Aaron's rod being put in the ark, Elijah passing down his mantle, to name two. As far as relic miracles go, the only ones that immediately come to mind would be Elisha parting the Jordan with Elijah's mantle and Elisha's bones raising a dead man. It didn't happen often, but the precedent does exist.
Those are not practices though. Those are specific instances of use rather than dogmatic declarations like 1 Timothy 3:15.
Psalm 115:4-8 ESV
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. [5] They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. [6] They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. [7] They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. [8] Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them.
YES this absolutly applies to statues, icons and relics. Anything NOT ALIVE!!! Be VERY careful. Fear the Lord above all. Not your church.
@JuliaHalecky
with respect intended please read the Torah more carefully.
Exodus 20:5 ESV
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Bow down is separated by “or” giving a clear district behavior mandate.
Back up one verse before
Exodus 20:4 ESV
"You shall not MAKE for yourself a carved image, or any LIKENESS of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
In context the problem is not making the likeness of say Christ on the Cross but rather making then bowing to. This includes statues of Saints, Mary, Christ, angels, relics, icons, or even golden coated bibles or eucharist host.
Likewise this is accented further in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Leviticus 26:1 - “You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
Deuteronomy 4:16
beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
The warning applies contextually. The early church never engaged in such practices or pagan behavior. And God historically removes such practices from the earth once it reaches a precipice. Jericho was killed and whipped out by the Jews due to similar behavior after it had reached a point.
@JuliaHalecky Im not questioning the churches core of the Gospel,eucharist or baptism. Im not even concerned with “mother of God” or perpetual virginity. These are largely low church concerns. But ….THIS concerns me. This is seemingly alarming. this makes me concerned about the Roman Catholic churches future as a church. Historically God allows people to build up practices like this to a point and he then destroys them.
Not only the person falling on the bones of Elisha and coming back to life, but the keeping of relics/bones goes as far back as the Exodus....
Remember?.....
When packing up, they were so anxious to make sure they brought the bones of Joseph with them.
Scripture does not say that that dead man was brought to the tomb of Elisha with the aim and purpose that he might be brought back to life by contact with his bones, as though it had been at that time the custom among the people of God to run to the sepulchres of the prophets or saints in order to seek grace and power among the bones of the dead by means of vows and invocations. But the text says that that man was by an unexpected emergency cast into the sepulchre of Elisha when they wanted to bury him and, because the brigands came upon them, did not have time to make a grave. Therefore, lest the unburied corpse should be exposed to the caprice of the enemies, the opened the cover of the sepulchre that was nearest, which was that of Elisha, and did not lay the dead person in it (for they did not have time for that), but threw in the corpse. When it had fallen to the bottom, it touched the bones of Elisha and came back to life …
Now , also after that miracle took place, we do not read that the bones of Elisha were taken out of the tomb, elevated to a high place, carried about; they were not set forth to be kissed, touched, viewed; they were not honoured with candles, not adorned with silk, not adored with invocation for the purpose of obtaining help, not set forth for a special cult. Neither was a pilgrimage instituted to these bones for the purpose of there seeking the grace and power of God; indulgences were not promised; these relics were not laid on the sick and on the dead; people did not swear by them; faith and hope were not placed in them, etc. We read absolutely no such thing in Scripture about the relics of Elisha, also after that outstanding and amazing miracle through his bones had taken place. But the bones of the prophets were left in their tombs or sepulchres, as also Christ declares (Matt. 23:29).
Joseph also wished to eventually be buried in the land of his fathers. Knowing that God would later bring the children of Israel out of Egypt and back to Canaan, he made them swear to "carry up my bones from here" (verse 25). However, as a national figure in Egypt, he was first put in a coffin in Egypt rather than being buried in his homeland right away. That Joseph anticipated his burial in Egypt and the Exodus as well is clear from the obligation he bound on the descendants of Israel. Moses would make good on the oath more than 200 years later by taking Joseph's bones out of Egypt during the Exodus (Exodus 13:19). The bones remained with the children of Israel until they entered the Promised Land and were eventually buried in Shechem (Joshua 24:32).
Thanks for this sir Trent! Prayers from the Philippines!
All Gavin's videos can be summed up in "I understand the nuances, but I just don't wanna do it and no one can make me."
💯
Oh so we are just strawmanning now
Source: “Trust me bro”
Just like Martin Luther
Not even close, He has actual arguments with references.
Joseph the patriarch - asked his bones to be moved from Egypt, reburied at the promised land (Genesis 49 :29-32)
Elisha's bones - resurrected a random guy upon contact (2 Kings 13: 20-21)
Jesus' clothing - healed the woman with hemorrhage and many others (Matthew 9: 20-22) (Mark 5: 25-29)
St. Paul's handkerchiefs - healed the sick and drove demons out (Acts 19: 11-12)
God honors His Saints (Jesus is God) and gives powers even through their belongings, so must we honor them.
I like that he went to latria Jesus told the devil at the temptation, YOU SHALL LATRIA THE YHVH YOUR ELOHIM AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU PROSCUNINE (bow to), there you have it straight from Jesus to the devil. You can paraphrase this, you shall adore the YHVHJESUS your God and him only shalt thou venerate.
Scripture does not say that that dead man was brought to the tomb of Elisha with the aim and purpose that he might be brought back to life by contact with his bones, as though it had been at that time the custom among the people of God to run to the sepulchres of the prophets or saints in order to seek grace and power among the bones of the dead by means of vows and invocations. But the text says that that man was by an unexpected emergency cast into the sepulchre of Elisha when they wanted to bury him and, because the brigands came upon them, did not have time to make a grave. Therefore, lest the unburied corpse should be exposed to the caprice of the enemies, the opened the cover of the sepulchre that was nearest, which was that of Elisha, and did not lay the dead person in it (for they did not have time for that), but threw in the corpse. When it had fallen to the bottom, it touched the bones of Elisha and came back to life …
Now , also after that miracle took place, we do not read that the bones of Elisha were taken out of the tomb, elevated to a high place, carried about; they were not set forth to be kissed, touched, viewed; they were not honoured with candles, not adorned with silk, not adored with invocation for the purpose of obtaining help, not set forth for a special cult. Neither was a pilgrimage instituted to these bones for the purpose of there seeking the grace and power of God; indulgences were not promised; these relics were not laid on the sick and on the dead; people did not swear by them; faith and hope were not placed in them, etc. We read absolutely no such thing in Scripture about the relics of Elisha, also after that outstanding and amazing miracle through his bones had taken place. But the bones of the prophets were left in their tombs or sepulchres, as also Christ declares (Matt. 23:29).
@@geordiewishart1683 Nicely said, he also missed the connection between Jesus hem, Paul's kerchiefs and aprons and Elijah's mantle. In the Hebrew it says that God breathed the glory into Elijah's mantle which is most likely his prayer shawl. Now, these mantle's and kerchiefs and aprons have something in common, TZITZIT, which are the prayer tassels that remind that YHVH is our healer. This is a prophecy and testimony to the identity of messiah from Malachi that the sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings, wings is the word tzitzit. Now if you look at Acts 19 in context, Paul arrives in Ephesus, debates in the synagogue, lays hands to show that Jesus name is superior to John's baptism, preaches two more years THEN the tzitzit on the shawls that have been on him while he is preaching Jesus are put on to pray for healing and exorcism LIKE Elijah's mantle which proclaimed YHVH glory, not Elijah's. That's to say these items confirmed the message, like Peter's shadow which is a testimony to IMAGE because the Hebrew words used for image and likeness are related to SHADOWS, they bowed to the image of Christ being preached while in the shadow of Peter. You can't venerate shadows and this is explained in HEBREWS and these miracles would have been understood that way BECAUSE miracles must confirm Torah to be true for conversion.
Back to the hem of Jesus garment, VIRTUE WENT OUT OF HIM, he was made unclean because he was touched by a menstruating woman, but she was healed in his shadow through touching his tzitzit confirming the prophet MALACHI which is why the woman believed she would be healed by touching them.
Now let's finish Acts 19 which then moves to the sons of Sceva who attempt exorcism by invoking the names of Peter and Paul, the demon says he knows Peter and Paul but not these exocists so it's teaching that you cannot invoke saints. Last, it says that seeing these things the people brought out their books and charms and images to burn them because the way they interpreted the events made them fear the Catholic style of veneration. Similarly after the ship wreck and Paul is bitten by the viper the people want to venerate them but Paul tears his clothes and tells them to stop.
Keep up the good work!
Excited for your debate with him next year!
Dang right, man, these guys are both clearly very smart as well as principled people who actually want to have a real conversation, not just rabble-rousers screaming nonsense and not worried about actually discussing the issues at hand. I'll of course be rooting for Trent, but even as someone just looking at things from the outside, this would still be an awesome discussion just because of the character of the two debaters.
Me: “Wait, I thought it was just in a few mon- OH IT WILL BE NEXT YEAR!!”
The problem is that Protestants have a lowered boundary of what "worship" is. Because prayer is not necessarily worship. Christian worship in its highest form is the scarifice of the mass, while for Protestants there's no higher form of worship than prayer, because they misunderstand and reject the idea of sacrifice. They just conflate prayer and worship.
I'd say that Protestant prayers could also be superstitious depending on the interior disposition of the Protestant. Ortlund should not ask for more specific boundaries when the dividing line is actually found within the interior disposition of a person in most cases, including those of bowing, kneeling, kissing, etc. However, there are some obvious cases, and it seems like the saints of long ago condemn the drunkards of St Patrick's Day.
The case of the patriarch Joseph's bones might be a stretch example but worth considering.
1:02 CORRECTION: a 3rd class relic is anything which has touched a 1st, 2nd, OR 3rd class relic.
So a 3rd class relic can be made by taking another 3rd class relic and touching an object with it? And then you can take the newly created 3rd class relic and touch THAT to something thus making _that_ thing into a new 3rd class relic?
And then you can just churn out hundreds and thousands even millions of new 3rd class relics from ONE original 3rd class relic?
With all due respect that sounds a little mad. That can't be right, surely?
Edit : It seems I'm correct, you need a 1st or 2nd class relic to create a 3rd class relic. A 3rd class relic cannot make new 3rd class relics.
Time-stamps
0:45 - three classes of relics
- first class relic, remains of a saint like bones
- second class relic, the things a saint used in his or her lifetime (including clothes or chains).
- third class relic, Anything that is touched a first class relic
2:30 - Gavin’s actual concerns
Timestamp 6:49 Catholic superstition
@@yajunyuan7665 Nope
So much for the man made tradition of faith ALONE! Now, Protestants teach we have to be obedient too?🤔
Welcome Home Dr. Ortlund!
Relics are Biblical, and intercession is Biblical, as is bowing before another. Why should Protestants be ""Concerned", as we are saved by faith ALONE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Hey Trent!
I love your videos, I haven't watched all of them but I can usually find content of yours to answer almost any question I can come up with.... however my protestant step daughter has been sharing videos with me of a fellow who preaches from the Truth or Tradition channel...Do you have rebuttals for Truth or Tradition videos?!
Thanks,
Francis
Afternoon Mr Lusson, I'm in England and a recent watcher of Trent Horn's videos I subscribed to them, so I don't miss any and all the ones he done in the pass are on the subscription channel, if you subscribe you'll never miss an episode and you can check the all the previous episodes to see if what he's covered and what he hasn't, may God be with you and your family
I don’t know if he has addressed that channel in particular, but Bryan Mercier of The Catholic Truth address a lot of Protestant YT videos.
What about ex voto/votive offerings to Saints? Are they permissible?
The hagiographical accounts of St. Anthony the great, St Macarius the great and St. Benedict all feature the veneration of their relics after death.
Relics are in the Bible, icons and STATUES are in the Bible, so Protestants' are getting their SENSIBILITIES rustled about modern usage.
Thank you Trent!
I have this weird feeling that Gavin's arguments against catholic tradition are the arguments I use against the protest on the whole. He questions whether the development of the veneration practice was an honest development. I have the same opinion of anybody who claims the reformation is an improvement of the faith.
Trent, you did another excellent work. I have learned a bunch. I come out of this rebuttal/presentation better informed about the ancient Christian faith.
@@tony1685 Christianity never required its adherent to keep the 7th day, the Sabbath. There is no biblical text that impose to the ancient Church, the Sabbath. Christians are free to pray and worship everyday. And the bible shows the ancient Church to even gather specifically on the first day (Sunday) of the week. Here is an example in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 - "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come".
Only the tradition of men that want to impose to the ancient Church to follow the Jewish worship system and prevent them to follow the apostolic teaching as found in the new testament.
There is also no biblical text that prohibit Christians (the Church) to make requests (pray) to other human being, none whatsoever. When I say, I pray thee to sit here, I simply mean I request thee to sit here. Only human traditions that tries to pass as biblical teachings that try to force the Holy and ancient Catholic Church to stop asking other members of the body of Christ to pray for each others.
The ancient Church, which is the Catholic Church doesn't add to tje bible, au contraire it is the Catholic Church that collected and Canonized the very Bible people are trying to use against her in the 4th Century in the council of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397).
@@tony1685 Stop exposing your biblical ignorance publicly by hiding it behind a fake anger with series of texts that doesn't even make a reference to the Sabath or the 7th day.
1 Corinthians 16 shows that the instruction he gave to the corinthians is the same as the one he also gave to the Galatians earlier, please read AGAIN which day it was that he gave as an instruction to the churches (plural) of Galatia and now the Church of Corinths - hint: not the 7th day:
1 Corinthians 16:1-2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come."
Please, at least READ the text before you try to argue about it publicly.
Since you brought Acts into the discussion, let me add to the 1Corinthians verse, the one from:
Acts 20:7, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."
Clearly, the day of their sacred liturgie where the Holy Supper (breaking of bread) was held was on Sunday, the first day of the week. Christians are invited to worship God everyday, especially on Sunday, the first day of the week were the Lord Supper is held, preaching is given (Acts20:7) and financial collection is done (1Co16:2).
And no, the new testament still does not ask nor require Christians or the ancient Church to observe the sabbath, 7th Day of the week. However, if you maintain that it does, then please provide the biblical proof (the quote) where the new testament make such requirement?
And please, know that anger and virtual signaling is not equivalent to a biblical proof from the new testament. Just saying!
@@tony1685 asserting that something is a false dichotomy is once again not proving that it is. You seem pretty incapable to prove any of your assertions, you prefer to feign anger but fake hysteria doesn't work with me nor is it a substitute for biblical proof found in the New Testament. Please go away and come back when you have found that biblical texts in the New Testament that requires that Christians or the ancient Church is required to observe the 7th Day Sabbath like in Judaism. Thank you
@@tony1685 You are right, he isn't speaking to me but the first Century jewish community who were awaiting the Messiah. As for us, we are no longer under the Law regulating the Old Covenant as it is written,
"Those of you who are trying to be justified by the Law have been cut off from the Messiah. You have fallen away from grace." - Galatians 5:4
We are under the excellence of the New Covenant which says clearly:
"Therefore, let no one judge you in matters of food and drink or with respect to a festival, a New Moon, or Sabbath days. These are a shaddow of the things to come, but the reality belong to the Messiah" - Colossians 2:16-17
Since I am instructed by the inspired Word of God in the New Testament not to let ANYONE judge me in matters of Sabbath days, I have to obey and resist you the fake judge, the accusator of brethren. And I and the ancient Church will continue to worship God everyday, especially on the first day of EVERY week as it was also a practiced in the New Testament,
1 Corinthians 16:1-2 - "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On THE FIRST DAY OF EVERY WEEK of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come."
Acts 20:7 - "On the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."
Trent hits a grand slam again.
Gotta love the early church fathers too
@@tony1685 I'm not bitting
Fallible men will continue to ridicule defame criticize One True Catholic Church until second coming of Jesus Christ
@@tony1685 What truth?
@@tony1685 you hate the church that much? That when facts about relics in the bible and early church fathers are clear, you reject it because it's too Catholic.
You can still agree with the church and not be Catholic.
It's okay. Try it.
@@tony1685 omg, a prooftexting never learn bible protestant weve got in here.
1. Catholic never said or believed that Mary is the truth.
2. 2 Thess 2:15, Paul clearly said "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of MOUTH or by letter"
3. Catholic keeps the 10 commandment.
My advises for u:
1. Read yo bible
2. Read books
3. Learn your bible
Gavins video comes across very much as "protestants had these problems 500 years ago, and I still think the practices of 500 years ago were wrong". Very little dispute there, but a weird thing to base a 2022 "protest" movement on.
Gavin then speaks against relics universally.... strictly on his own authority.
In Deuteronomy there is a command to put Bible verses above your door posts. I have Bible verses posted around the house, especially on my mirrors, so that when I am getting ready, I am reminded to meditate on Scripture. I find my day goes better by starting with prayer and Bible reading, not because of any magical powers, but because I am focusing my day on God and His will for my life, and it helps me remember to pray without ceasing when trials come during the day. They help me be a better parent too when I meditated on scriptures on patience.
@@tony1685 says the 7th day Adventist
@@tony1685 Obey the Bishops of God if you want to obey God. The Israelites couldn't obey God without first obeying God's word through Moses
@@tony1685 This is not a false comparison. God clearly delegated authority both to the Prophets and to the Bishops. If we are not called to obey the Bishops, why should we take the New Testament as authoritative. Jesus didn't write it, and it didn't come straight down from Heaven. Apostles and Bishops like Peter, Mark, or Luke wrote it.
@tony the Word is Jesus Christ. The Word literally means logic reason or mind of God. And to your point the Word became flesh not text. And to that same point Jesus the Word didn't write anything down.
And the church the holy spirt led into all truth is the Catholic church.
Now please stop trying to use authority no one has given you to create a false bride for Jesus. He already has a bride the Holy Catholic Church.
I do both I read the Bible and I do everything that Catholic church teaches and m very blessed...what happened when Elisha touched the mantle or cloth of Elijah? What happened when a woman touched the cloth of Jesus Christ? These r all biblical...
On the bit about bringing dirt back from a holy place we do have biblical warrant. We see Naman the Syrian bring a mule load of dirt from Isreal for his prayer and devotion to the God of Isreal.
I like that he went to latria Jesus told the devil at the temptation, YOU SHALL LATRIA THE YHVH YOUR ELOHIM AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU PROSCUNINE (bow to), there you have it straight from Jesus to the devil. You can paraphrase this, you shall adore the YHVHJESUS your God and him only shalt thou venerate. Nathan wasn't kneeling to the dirt he was kneeling on the dirt which he put on the floor in the pagan temple he had to attend to show he was actually worshipping YHVH, your comparing apples to oranges with confirmation bias.
@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord Dude speak plain english
@@tafazzi-on-discord Ok you shall not bow down to or kiss in that context any but God not serve any but God
@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord That's barely english, and it's not what the Bible says. Do not bow down to any God beyobd Yahweh, I can and should bow down to my king, or kiss my mom, and serve my employer.
The issue arises when you warp language so much that you stop understanding the qualifiers in the text itself.
@@tafazzi-on-discord don’t try arguing with him. He has been copying and pasting the same bs on all threats even though there’s millions of rebuttals to this nonsense anywhere in the internet
Is there any clear early condemnation of relics or their veneration?
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “It is thus in vain to seek a justification for the cult of relics in the Old Testament; nor is much attention paid to relics in the New Testament. Origen seems to have regarded the practice as a pagan sign of respect for a material object.”
@@sunnyjohnson992 My question is if their is a clear condemnation of the practice anywhere in Scripture alone?
I remember Matt Fradd once humorously said something to this effect:
"The Catholic Church teaches that your body is a beautiful sacred temple of the Holy Spirit ! Btw when you're a saint we won't hesitate to put your dead body through a wood chipper without your consent and spread your remains throughout the world"
I believe in relics but I think there are honest criticisms to be had about how on a practical level they are used in Catholicism
Well, in fairness the people who killed the saints usually did the wood chipping first. 🙂
@@atrifle8364 Not really.... haha for some saints maybe.
Saint Andre Bessette died of old age and they literally removed his heart to put it on display.
I like that he went to latria Jesus told the devil at the temptation, YOU SHALL LATRIA THE YHVH YOUR ELOHIM AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU PROSCUNINE (bow to), there you have it straight from Jesus to the devil. You can paraphrase this, you shall adore the YHVHJESUS your God and him only shalt thou venerate.
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin - Because the heart wasn't decaying. It's a miracle for everyone to see.
God will give everyone new bodies at the end of time. My thought is the saints already have their new ones because they have eternal life. It's okay.
@@atrifle8364 I can't find any resource that points to his non-decaying heart being a reason, if you found one let me know
I hope you respond to his new video on icons, it's quite well done!
Ive been raised and still am a Baptist. And Ive always been open to Catholicism and always considered Catholics to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
Hi
Dr Horn
I watch a lot of your videos on CZcams and they have helped me a lot in my faith
now my question is how do you explain to someone Galatians 4:21- 5:1
cause that would have to do with a lot of history.
would be nice if you could do a video on the issue
God bless you and your ministry
Is it just me or is it odd that Dr. Ortlund
keeps saying “the Protestant…” when referring to his issue with relics, like Protestants are one group of the same mind. Don’t Anglicans venerate relics? Aren’t Anglicans considered Protestant? If so, someone can’t say “the Protestant…”, etc…maybe I’m wrong about The view that some Anglicans venerate relics but he kept saying “the Protestant…” and it didn’t seem right to me because Protestants disagree on all sorts of issues.
It's even more interesting because he will then separate protestants, but only to distance himself from some low church evangelicals.
So he'll say something like "the Protestant objection is this" and then he'll quote a Lutheran like Chemnitz. So it seems like he's throwing a wide net around "protestant". But then he'll say that the view of baptism that the vast majority of modern Baptists hold isn't the true Baptist view.
So it seems like he's willing to use wide net "protestantism" when it suits his needs, but then retreats back to his (very uncommon) "historic baptist" view as a way to say "no, those aren't the real protestant positions".
As a protestant, I find this back and forth very informative, thank you Trent! Watched most of it and it really helped me understand Catholic position a lot better.
Can you, or perhaps one of your viewers please tell me, why should a Chrustian pray to saints though? As much as it is helpful to prove there is a valid case that you CAN do it, and that many ancient Christians also did it, what is the bigger picture? To my knowledge Catholics agree that you can go directly to Christ, with whom you have close and personal relationship as a believer, if you ever need anything. You can also go to a living Brother, who you know on a deep personal level too, if you need intercession. Why would you ask for prayer people who lived, in most cases, hundreds and hundreds of years ago, and whom you can't possibly know on any deep level beyond superficial and one sided hiatorical records, many of which are acknowledged to be more myths and legends than verifiable information (the likes of st. Christopher for example?). Besides, saints do not have omniscience or omnipresence, right? They don't know us either, nor do we even know what causes them to be able to hear us, if they do, in fact, hear us at all... this is all so vague, impersonal and distant, I just can't understand why would I choose it over just praying directly to God and asking my living Brothers, who are the Saints that I know and can talk to directly. Any help? How does that work for you guys?
As a catholic I wonder this also.
@@hopefull61256 1. The canonized saints are those whom the church has infallibly declared as being in the beatific vision (heaven). 2. Because they are in the beatific vision, they are perfect in charity, so they love you more perfectly than any living person, despite not knowing you personally. 3. In James's letter, it says that the prayers of the righteous are more efficacious. There are no creatures more righteous than the saints in heaven, so their prayers to God are most efficacious among creatures. 4. You don't have to go out of your way to ask for the prayers of saints to be a good catholic; You just can't deny that they can pray for us.
I hope this clears it up a bit.
As a Catholic My "prayers" to the saints normally involve finding a saint who has had some special insight into the problem I am struggling with, i.e. st dymphna for anxiety. Then asking God to allow that saint to give me said insight. Often in meditation on this I will come to a realization or feel a great sense of calm in the issue. That has been my experience, almost like consenting to God using the saint as a way to heal my wounded soul.
A christian should pray to saints, because saints can obtain graces from God because of their status: Ex: abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrha. A saint is a faithful contemplating God in the beatific vision, he is seeing God face to face and is fully justified and sanctified, and scriptures tells us " The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." (James 5:16). No one on earth is as righteous as someone who is in heaven.
Saints do not have omniscience, but saints are in heaven, so they are not bound anymore by limits of time, space or body; they are spirit like angels. Angels and demons are not omniscient, but their knowledge is far superior than ours. This is why exorcists are trained to not listen to possessed people when they practice It because demons can tell them things about themselves to destalilize their work.
Also, if saints are facing God, God can give them knowledge. Saints are not omniscient, but everything they know in heaven is by the will of God.
This is just a brief answer! There are other vids of Trent that cover the subject better than I did. It is just an entrance.
@@tony1685 - Good morning, my favorite anti-Catholic! Happy Hallows Eve!
Thank you.
God bless you
Just curious, who is Saint John Chrysostom referring to venerating? Because Saint Anthony of Padua doesn’t live in till almost 1000 years after St. John Chrysostom
Another commentor said that he might have confused him with St. Anthony the Great (of Egypt).
@@sweetbriernr thanks, that makes more sense
Thanks!
I wonder if Dr Ortlund knew he had a piece of the wood where Christ was crucified would he just throw that away? Or if he found the nails Jesus was crucified with, would he dispose of them?
When specifically to do novenas become superstitious? Isn't praying a novena for a specific intention okay??
Do Protestants throw bibles in the trash? What would they think if they saw somebody stepping on one or destroying one?
Pray without stopping, even if only to stay in the joy of the Lord, come what may.
Today marks Martin Luther 505 years nailing his 95 Theses on the castle church door in Wittenberg which launched the Protestant Reformation.
…which was a horrible event in salvation history. Luther shook his fist at Christ’s only Church. Don’t be proud of that.
Yes, tomorrow is All Saints Day! See you at Mass!
No servant is greater than a master
@@hcho7776 Tesis that barely any protestant today follow.
Yeah, the nailing is likely legendary, according to scholars. Imagine what you will. I'll imagine Luther hammering a nail into the Body of Christ, creating the 2nd great schism of Christendom. All one has to do is read the early Church fathers to realize just how wrong Luther, Calvin, etc. were in accusing the Catholic Church of medieval doctrinal corruptions. The rebels rejected traditions that go back to the earliest centuries.
You can find relics in the bible. Acts 19,12
I like that he went to latria Jesus told the devil at the temptation, YOU SHALL LATRIA THE YHVH YOUR ELOHIM AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU PROSCUNINE (bow to), there you have it straight from Jesus to the devil. You can paraphrase this, you shall adore the YHVHJESUS your God and him only shalt thou venerate.
Wow I didn’t know that.
When this subject is being mention I always talk about the man that resurrected touching the bones of Elisha in 2 Kings 13:21.
God definitely can and has decided to work trough those parts of matter where his Holy Spirit dwelled.
@@tony1685 what do graven images have to do with the appropriate veneration of a kerchief or other relics of a deceased holy person?
Even the Jews had statues of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, and were ordered by God specifically to place them there (Ex 25:19). God is said to speak to Moses from the mercy seat between the two cherubim (Num 7:89). Aren’t these cherubim the works of human hands? And yet God not only permits but makes clear his wish for the placement of the cherubim on the Ark. How would an iconoclast explain this through his over-broad understanding of idolatry?
@@tony1685 "I can't make a coherent argument so I will just call my opponents pagans"
@@tafazzi-on-discord they can’t anything but repeat the same ad hominem arguments over and over. They simply take a commandment, break it in the middle, and say that we are pagans. Prot nonsense
Good points
42:23 I believe you mean St Anthony of Egypt?
Statutes, pictures, relics, sacramentals are symbols of the faith.
They are not the faith itself.
Saints are souls in heaven. They are not angels.
.
Some of those symbols do not symbolise the faith
@@EPH-re2xj Be baptized into the Catholic Church, then don't commit a mortal sin. If you commit a mortal sin you can simply go to confession before you die (or have perfect contrition). The sacraments are effectual signs done to us, so they are not works that we do.
@@EPH-re2xj What do you mean by works? Remember that believing something is a mental action. (See Ephesians 2:10)
@@EPH-re2xj What have I said that makes you think I do not believe 1 Corinthians? No catholic doctrine is in contradiction with scripture. Without the Catholics/Orthodox you would not have the scriptures. The way we reconcile these is that the grace given to us by God, that we do not earn, is through the sacraments. They are not our works but are God's work as effectual signs which are done to us.
I do not baptize myself, someone else pours water on me and it is God who baptizes through that person. The same with the others, I do not confirm, absolve, marry, ordain, etc. myself; someone else does the sacrament to me. Catholics are not Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians. It is always God who gives the grace through the sacrament, though He might use a person as an intermediary.
I ask you again to define what you mean by "works". It sounds like Paul includes "Receiving the gospel" as part of the good news. Is that a work? If it is not then neither are the sacraments.
Lastly, how do you reconcile your view with James 2:24? "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
@@yajunyuan7665 how do you know? Youre not a practising Catholic.
Are you going go tell us about Catholicism, when youre not one yourself? Don't make me 😂
How could you even dispute such things? They are found in principle in the Bible. It seems another instance of protestants saying whatever beliefs they hold must not contradict the Bible whereas they hold a double standard for Catholics that our beliefs must be explicitly found in the Bible. But even where we see obvious instances of veneration (and also prayer to people in the earlier English meaning of intercession or request) and of God using the bones and objects related to the Saints for miracles, this is not enough for the protestants apparently.
Because you take an example and over extrapolate it, and turn it into a norm.
I just thought- maybe it has something to do with the time that has passed. For example. The watch my father wears today i don’t think much of, maybe after he passes, it will mean more to me, then say in a couple hundred years, generations later- a descendent comes across the watch of their 5th great grandfather. They might display that watch somewhere and have much admiration for it.
One of my favorite official interactions between the Catholic/orthodox with the Protestants is when they asked to share the Church of the Holy Sepulcher with the Caths/orthos. Both roundly rejected the idea, so the prots funded a fake expedition to find Christs ‘real’ tomb
Superstition is common to people of all cultures. Catholicism is firmly anti superstition, but some individuals who profess to be Catholic simply sin against their religion by believing in all sorts of magic and witchcraft. I live in a country where most people are either Muslim or Christian Orthodox: superstition is quite widespread over here, especially among Muslims.
Hi Trent, I wonder if you could rebut Anti-natalism. This is a hard topic
Anti natalism is so dumb that it is self refuting 😅
The Christian view is quite clear really: "Be fruitful and multiply." It's first stated in Genesis and then repeated again and again. Life is a blessing, existence is a good.
When it comes to purely philosophical arguments, anti-natalism contradicts itself. It says life is full of suffering, therefore it's bad/pointless, while also arguing you shouldn't kill yourself.
If it makes sense to preserve the lives already created, how can you say that more life shouldn't be created? It makes sense as a jumble of emotions, but not as a logical position.
@@petardraganov3716 oh ok
Regarding Dr. O's claim that there was no addressing of the Protestant objections and concerns is a bit of sloppy history. I'll start with the same issue we see in most all the Councils including Vatican II. He like his Catholic Apologist counterparts take the Documents and Pronouncements of the Council as their only source. In the case of Vatican II we have Xavier Rinn's books on what happened at the Council, the speeches and other activities of the Fathers. While Fr. Rinn was a liberal with an agenda to smear Cardinal Ottaviani and other Traditional/Conservative Fathers of the Council, he is just one source. There is also a three volume set called, "The Council Daybook." Which covers the speeches, protests and interruptions, There are several other books harder to find which cost more than I can afford, when they can be found. For Vatican I there is Dom Butler's book which discusses these issues, between factions of Fathers, and their Speeches. Like everything dealing with history, there are some forgeries of speeches than never occurred in print, so care has to be taken. When dealing with the Documents issued by any Council, they do not always tell us how the Fathers came up with the Decrees that were passed by them. I'm sure that there are historians who would love to see all the drafts of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, which no person aside from the Mormon believers who are told they are Inspired of God, would dare think that the final draft was the only draft.
About the thing you said about the bible or the Church fathers not saying anything about going to church, or the music we should play there, if I remember correctly, Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing Psalms and hymns which the Reformed church does
Today we have recent verification of the Shroud of Turin as a modern day discovery which has been positively received by many Protestant leaders. It is ultimately God who heals through the prayer of the saint who is asked to pray for person venerating the relic.
Every Protestants against Catholic doctrine and discipline have pure intentions but they are ill informed. If only they see the treasures we hold. They have eyes but do not see, have ears but do not hear.
In the video, it is mentioned that if the cross of Christ were discovered with no question about its authenticity, that Protestants would equally seek to see it, pray before it, kiss it, etc.
Whether that is the case, and I don’t doubt that it might be among many, that does not suggest whether it should be the case.
King Hezekiah is an example of what various authors have pointed to of what should be done. See below excerpt from George Gillespie:
“Read, 2. Kings, 10. from the 22. Verse to the 28. And what example more considerable, then that of Hezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of Idolatry, as at their first institution were but men's inventions, but brake down also the Brazen serpent (though originally set up at Gods own command,) when once he saw it abused to Idolatry? 2 Kings 18. 4. This deed of Hezekiah, Pope Steven doth greatly praise, and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation, that when our predecessors have wrought some things, which might have been without fault in their time, and afterward they are converted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them.”
My issue is, if we can do all these things without idolizing, that would mean we could do the same things for money, food, or whatever. The Catechism speaks as if idolizing money etc. is a real concern, but if the bar is set so high, is anyone actually doing that? I guess the bar is "sacrificing" but what does that mean practically? Killing a lamb? Saying a Mass? No one does those things for money. It can't be something broader like sacrificing time, because many people spend their time praying to the saints, and most of us sacrifice our time for money (we go to work).
Caught this episode within the first minute. I may be the first to comment.
Edit: nope.
The one thing i can think is the way he said that making a journey and touching a relic to heal is dangerous, i thought immediately of jesus and the woman who said if she could just touch his cloak she'd be healed. So not sure if relics of jesus count
What I never see in Gavin's argument is that he never prove Catholic practices SIN and beliefs are evil, immoral and false when taken the scripture as a whole.
He does not prove praying to Mary and thd saints is a sin
He does not prove having statues, relics is a sin.
He does not prove observing tradition is a sin.
He does not prove purgatory is a false teaching and hence praying for the dead is a sin.
Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin I think added something to the scholarship here, discrediting somewhat Ortlund’s contention of a consistent chorus of anti-veneration early Church Fathers. But these Fathers, though they were a tiny minority, yet support the Catholic view on this. These voices Dr. Ortlund feels so confidently to be strident iconophobes in the early Church, what he believes to be a strong and indicative chorus of first-three-century Fathers opposed to venerating sacred images, have again and again by competent scholars been considered a tiny minority of the Fathers of those early centuries. They needn’t have been discredited to prove the Catholic contention correct, because, if indeed a tiny yet vocal minority, it proves two important things the Protestants listening, watching, and reading here ought to notice: a minority consistently objecting is proof of the ongoing practice which they oppose, since if no one was venerating images they’d have nothing to complain about. And also proved is that it was very widely accepted, since most of the Fathers never objected!
Your explanation of relics, to me, sounds quite similar to the Reformed view of the Eucharist, that the bread and wine are spiritually the body and blood, and that without faith, it's really just bread and wine.
The prayer of Jabez, by and large is rejected by the majority of Protestantism.
On the grounds of making it a thing we have to do based off of the tiniest section of scripture.
Similarly there’s a book called the prayer circle which is a similar thing :)
We reject those books. There’s a small following within the hyper Charismatic Movement for those books..
the point is that rejecting the papacy and reading the Bible does not make you immune from the temptation of superstition. The existance of that book proves this.
Trent and the counter-reformers destroyed the protestants intellectually. They showed them to be shallow virtue signalers just blowing with the wind wherever they could get the most personal gain. The Council also does address abuses just in too positive a way, a non-protestant way, for our opponents taste by emphasizing what is right not merely saying a negative statement
There are no limits to abuses, because your limits are anything that doesn't "contradict" scripture
@@yajunyuan7665 You contradicted yourself. Are there no limits, or is the limit what contradicts scripture? It can't be both.
Jesus himself used bread and fish for the multiplication of these two kinds.
But a specific bible can also become a sacred object by prayerfully reading the scriptures from that bible. Devils and angels have memories and as such spaces can become holy or tainted. This idea can be seen in both the exorcisms and blessings of the Church. Many protestants usually can relate to this when tying the concept to scripture verses referring to holy places, David pouring out his challis, and God's love of his holy ones.
Trent, your video came up in my feed because I had watched Gavin's video earlier in the week. My questions come from a place of seeking and not from a place of trolling or proselytizing. At ~19:55 you say that it's ok to engage in worship that isn't expressly forbidden in the Bible. I saw your earlier definitions of veneration, but as someone raised protestant, so many of the things Catholics do in regard to icons and relics sure have the appearance of crossing the line into worship or superstition. Even if it's not official church teaching, it is widespread enough that, for example, Catholic bookstores have "home sale kits" that direct people to bury a statue of Joseph upside down on their property in order to sell it faster. (I have a great meany questions about Marian devotion specifically, but I want to try to stay on topic, and I'm admittedly already in the weeds.) Don't the excesses fall under the scriptural prohibitions about idols and the commands for the Israelites to not carry out the practices of the Canaanites? Further, The apostle Peter stopped a man from bowing to him, saying he was only a man. These would appear to be scriptural prohibitions against practices common to the Catholic faithful. To paraphrase Gavin in his video ~13:18 : if these actions do not cross the line, then where exactly *is* the line? I'm still working through your video, so bear with me if you answer that in your video directly. Grace and peace to you.
Oh wow! You mentioned the Joseph statue business yourself!
I love when you two smarties go back and forth.
The Protestant Way: Where is the boundary on xyz issue?... Find out what the Catholics do and then just don't go that far.
Gavin is definitely getting pulled into the Catholic Church. Just come out bro 😅
A man who says he will go to extreme measures of pulling from any and all Protestant sects to debunk Catholicism is totally and completely blind and will not be joining Christ's Church unless if He blunts him in the head with His Truth!
Were only human, god uses these relics to show his power and increase the faith of the faithful. Now, since we are humans, people go overboard, and the demons will pounce on this weakness all day. One thing to remember is the demonic thought of "anything but God."
Watching this while wearing my padre pio relic I got for free....
You should do a video on Mike Gendron’s recent stuff for Revolve Bible Church. He uses the same 15 year old PowerPoint every time so it could be a one and done thing. It is pure fundamentalist anti catholic rhetoric and straw manning. It is so frustrating because bad arguments like Gendron’s are almost harder to engage than “good” arguments from people like Ortlund because they are on an entirely different planet of thought. Unfortunately it is people like Gendron, not Ortlund, who gain traction behind the scenes in a lot of fundamentalist Protestant circles. A baptist pastor of a very large local church gave Gendron’s book to my scared and confused mother when she told him she was worried about me attending RCIA and now she thinks I have forfeited my salvation.
Gavin is legit the best
Gavin’s entire video is a defense for the magisterium. His concern about when veneration crosses the line into idolatry and superstition requires we have someone or some judge to take each case to for a determination or guidance. Otherwise one man’s veneration is another man’s idolatry. No unity is possible. No settlement of disputes, etc.
Oh man, that is a valid point.
One of the main arguments that has convinced me of the necessity of a valid institutional body is a conversation I had with a buddy of mine. He suggested that we (Christians) need to maintain the practices of excommunication and anathemas (since this is biblical). As a logical development, I suggested the practice of convening councils which he validated as being a necessity. I found it ironic because we’re both Protestant and the only authority we would have to anathematize others would be based upon our interpretation of scripture - this then brings us right back into the problem of relativism and the Protestant departure from the apostolic Church.
A similar thing has happened to me with Gavin’s arguments. The more I’ve listened to him the more I’ve noticed the arbitrariness of his approach. There is no underlying coherence in a vast majority of his positions. The broad majority of them are reactionary arguments.
If you believe the gospel is the word of God. Then you believe that God calls us to love each other the way he loves us. If that is true, why would you think God would feel rebuked by us? Venerating our brethren, who were examples to us of how a Christian follows Christ. I understand Christ gave that example but then taught it to apostles to teach to us.
We need to stop pretending Gavin is an honest person, our Lord speaks about people like him "You are of your father the devil... who is a liar and the father of lies"
I agree. I find his argument just being empty frases to seed doubt. And if his standars were applied all across it would destroy all religious denominations.
😅😅😅
I am not sure it needs to go that far. I think people raised up in a different faith have long standing biases that they simply can't overcome. It prevents logical thinking many times because it's hard for many to accept. So I think you just need to pray for peoples hearts to not be hardened.
Gavin Ortlund is such a squeaky wheel.