Are Protestants Like Skeptics? A Response to Michael Lofton

[@derekmchardy8730]

To use the term 'skeptic' as an overall description of someone who disagrees with one or more of our beliefs is, I think, to commit the question begging fallacy. Protestants who remain Protestant despite investigation of and interaction with other Christian traditions ( at least the ones I know) do so because they are unpersuaded by the arguments of representatives of those traditions. To label such individuals as 'skeptics' doesn't seem to me to be a fruitful way to advance respectful discussion.

[@tonywallens217]

Agreed. We should engage arguments

[@boanergesbrothers8687]

It's perfectly valid to call it skepticism if the premises of your argument lead naturally to challenging basic Christian orthodoxy. It's easy to harmonize Florence and Vatican II so long as you accept that 1) by heretic and schismatic Florence means *material* heretics and schismatics and 2) that Florence doesn't preclude the possibility of pagans receiving baptismal grace by implicit desire (which Florence doesn't deny). Neither lacks ground in medieval and previous theology. Gavin is essentially arguing from the "Spirit of Florence", rather than the text of Florence. His point is that the Council Fathers wouldn't have thought what they were writing as permitting those possibilities, and therefore the Council should be understood to have anathematized them. This is just a faulty theology of inspiration though, and it undermines biblical inerrancy. The Holy Spirit protects from error the specific words written, in their specific intended meanings, not the their "spirit". If you assume the latter, you run into big trouble harmonizing the New Testament, and end up having to drop inerrancy altogether and having to join either the FC Baur team or the Bart Ehrman team. Luke and Matthew are the easiest to compare. Take Matthew 2:22-23: “But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.” And now Luke 2:4 - “So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.” Clearly, Mary and Joseph already lived in Nazareth according to Saint Luke, but Saint Matthew is also clearly not aware of this fact. If we didn’t have Luke’s birth narrative, Matthew would have led us to assume they had never heard of Nazareth before. So the “spirit of Matthew” is in contradiction with the Luke. However, there’s no damage to inerrancy so long as you assume “spirits” aren’t infallible, only the actual meaning of the actual text. It would have been easy for Saint Matthew to write that Mary and Joseph were originally from Nazareth, but the Holy Spirit prevented him from writing this error down, even if he thought it. Likewise, it would have been easy for Florence to say that anyone who dies in communion with the Eastern schismatic churches is damned, but they were protected from writing those errors down as well.

[@darewan8233]

@@boanergesbrothers8687 Interesting but it is the spirit of the law that is commended to us to follow by the scriptures themselves, 2 Cor 3.6. Yet this "spirit" is not guarded by God as well as the letter? Dont get the connection to Baur though. With respect.

[@derekmchardy8730]

@@boanergesbrothers8687 Thanks. My best understanding of what I see as your main point is as follows: 'The Holy Spirit protects from error the specific words written, this applying not just to scripture but to decrees of church councils. Therefore if you reject the inerrancy of conciliar decrees you are on a trajectory inexorably leading to skepticism then rejection of Biblical innerancy and thus all of Christian orthodoxy.' I believe, my friend, that here you commit the question begging fallacy. You assume the truth of the statement that the Holy Spirit inspiration of conciliar decrees is the same as Holy Spirit inspiration of scripture. Your argument proceeds from this assumption. But this is precisely the point of contention between theologically conservative Protestants such as Gavin (and myself) and Christians in other traditions. You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with us but the Protestant 'sola scriptura' position says that nothing and no-one has authority equal to Holy Scripture. This position has been explicitly expressed in (non-inerrant) Protestant confessions of faith in the 500 years since the reformation. Gavin, however, made a well documented video showing Augustine and other church Fathers held scriptural authority to be higher than other authorities within the church, Millions of conservative Protestants have, for centuries, denied conciliar inerrancy whilst steadfastly affirming scriptural inerrancy. With respect I believe your conjecture about our trajectory is demonstrably empirically untrue. Yes of course there are many 'Protestants' who by their lives and their doctrine deny scriptural authority but similarly there are millions in other traditions whose lives and personal beliefs do not align with official church teaching. Sadly neither the ready availability of Bibles nor the existence of a Magisterium are proof against departing from the 'basic Christian orthodoxy' which I am sure we both hold dear. God bless.

[@boanergesbrothers8687]

I’m not begging the question because Gavin is the one trying to undermine magisterial infallibility with supposed contradictions, not me trying to undermine Sola Scriptura. That’d be a separate argument. What I’m pointing out is that there’s no real contradiction, so this doesn’t prove or disprove conciliar inerrancy.

[@myselfpoker88]

A simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it. - Martin Luther

[@theknight8524]

Amen

[@Ternz_TV]

coming from the philippines, all sort of false prophets have arose because of this (a layman armed with scriptures without a pope). Try googling the names of Felix Manalo, Eli Soriano, Apollo Quiboloy etc etc...

[@myselfpoker88]

@@Ternz_TV I know of them. They are false prophets like the pope. God bless

[@romanchavdar5004]

“the mightiest pope…” Is he talking about apostle Peter?🤔

[@romanchavdar5004]

Only thing is there were no popes without Scripture. This phrase of Luther's makes no sense. The point is that Luther simply did not like the Church's interpretation of Scripture😉

[@thomasatteck8476]

Greetings from the UK. I am enjoying your irenic yet firmly-grounded-in-scripture approach to the various problems people are testing you with. It is incredible how nuanced arguments can be, particularly regarding faith issues and its a blessing to see your firm stance. I thank God for your explanations and your continual contending for the faith. I pray the Lord will give you strength daily and that we as fellow believers follow your example and will 'always be to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that we have'.

[@susanhoskins5285]

These videos are incredibly helpful in clarifying terms and meanings. I appreciate the attitude of humility and dedication to truth. Thank you for the time you put into studying and producing this. 💟✝️

[@SirThighmaster]

Hey Susan! Great to see you on here. I listen to Gavin Ortlund often myself. He’s a great resource!

[@5BBassist4Christ]

I am a skeptic; I will take that label. I've seen abuses of power from powerful leaders in the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, Jewish Rabbim, Muslim Emams, political leaders, and powerful scientists. I have learned to question everything and not just take things on blind faith because powerful people have told me so. So I have questioned things, -not to disbelieve everything, for that is foolishness and truly skepticism run amuck, but so that I may know for myself what the truth is. I have had conversations with other skeptics who have criticized me for applying skepticism to science, particularly I investigated the idea of the flat earth. I came to the conclusion that the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing that the scientists are right in the earth being a sphere. I did not come to this conclusion because powerful scientists with agendas told me to believe, I came to this conclusion from my own observations, experiments, and investigations into the matter. Even still, atheist skeptics criticize me for applying their relished skepticism to a field that they deem ought not be skeptical (science). I have also investigated the arguments for the existence of a Divine Being, a First Cause, a Fundamental Essence, -necessary and required for the existence of all other things. I have found the world doesn't make sense without there being a fundamental Creator, nor does the fine tuning of its foundational properties seem likely. Nor is there any objective standard for us to build our morality without a divine authority. Furthermore, I have investigated the historical evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection. From the mention of Jesus by Josephus, the slander of His crucifixion from Lucien of Samasota, the tortures of the Christians from Tacitus and Pliney the Younger, I have found Jesus' existence as a real historical person to be certain. I have investigated Celsus' and the Talmud's arguments for Jesus being conceived out of wedlock and concluded that Matthew didn't make up the virgin birth in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy, or their story of why Jesus went down to Egypt and concluded Matthew didn't make up that story to align with Hosea. I have investigated the eclipse of the year 33 by Thalus, Phlegon, and Guang Wu and have found there to be a convincing case for some darkness at the time of Jesus' death. I have investigated the Trinity, rather Jesus was Divine, whether the Bible affirms or condemns slavery, and many other subjects, and found there to be a strong case for the Trinity and divine nature of Christ. And arguments critics of Christianity use regarding a Biblical support of slavery is really redefining terms. I have investigated Judaism and Islam. I have found Jewish history very convincing and evidence that God is protecting them; I have found Islamic history more full of holes than Swiss cheese. I have investigated a Biblical argument for Replacement Theology and whether the Church has replaced Israel, and feel like I can say along with Paul, "May it never be!" But rather, even granting Jewish history, this should actually affirm Christian theology, that John accurately predicted in the Book of Revelations that the Jewish people will endure to the end, and since I've condemned Replacement Theology as false, then therefore this is not Christianity replacing Israel. And I have investigated Catholicism, and found it to be full of abuses and twists of scripture. Catholicism is built off of rhetoric more sophisticated than what atheists tend to bring, but it is rhetorical all the same. I have investigated the several mentions of Jesus' brothers in the Gospel, and found them to be drawing parallels to David's brothers and Joseph's brothers, -both men whom their brothers rejected. Thus, the argument that Catholics give that these brothers are cousins doesn't work. I have caught Catholics taking scripture out of context, stopping a text just before it contradicts their point, and even at times straight up lying about what a texts says. "Protestants argue like atheists" they say, but their redefining words to justify the councils are as bad as atheists' redefinition of "nothing" to explain how a universe can come from "nothing".

[@jesse77able]

I think this is your best segment from a logical standpoint. Good points, I agree!

[@Athabrose]

Great response Dr. Ortlund. The “skeptic” label seems to quell fruitful dialogue and puts the one claiming this in a perceived position of authority based on their own presuppositions that are yet to be proven or agreed upon. I see this tendency with some Catholics, Orthodox and certain Protestant groups. It tends toward this triumphal thinking that to me seems like a safety net for a weak foundation of triumphal authority. There are many things in church history that we can look back at and either reconcile, dismiss, or admit wrongdoing but when your faith is tied to “infallible” structures it’s very difficult to square things up historically and can often lead to grasping at straws polemically. That’s a tough spot to be in. Often it manifest in a position of not trying to be wrong instead of dealing with these things directly for the sake of the truth of the matter. This sadly results in a faith bound to an infallible structure that no longer is concerned with reality but just enough argument to keep the status quo for the base. Hence, Reformation is always needed.

[@davidblakeslee951]

This is really good and very helpful, as all your videos are. I greatly appreciate it all. Thank you for all your hard work!

[@dri-fit9712]

Hello Dr. Ortlund. As a Muslim, I enjoy watching your videos, as they allow me to gain a deeper appreciation for the nuances and differences among different Christian denominations. Seeing as you are an eloquent and well-mannered gentleman, I would enjoy watching you dialogue with some Biblically-versed Muslim apologists (“The Muslim Metaphysician” is one that comes to mind). In any case, wishing you the best and praying to God that he unites us upon the truth.

[@pigetstuck]

Who are some of the best Biblically-versed Muslims? (ones who understand Christian beliefs and can do hermeneutics well)

[@majestyhype9605]

Jake Brancatella is in no WAY to be considered an authority to speak on ANY biblical matters. Not only does he have no formal education in biblical studies, I’m pretty sure he only has a bachelors in philosophy as well. His main speaking point is against the Trinity and incarnation and other metaphysical areas. However, this same Jake has been found to be unable to clearly defend his own theological views. This was clearly displayed when Dr Khalil Andani an Ismaili theologian and philosopher who is an ACTUAL academic, wiped Jake off the floor in their debate thereby exposing his ignorance. Additionally, Jake believes or at least used to as an Athari that one has to commit ta’wil in the attributes of Allah which means affirm that he has them without seeking to explain it. However, this makes his argument against the Trinity fallacious because you can’t say Christian’s need explain the totality of Gods existence and be unable to live up to the same standard yourself. You seem like a genuine and honest listener and so I’ll link a video below showing the dishonesty of Jake and the debate review with Dr Andani so u can judge for yourself. If you want some other perspectives check out Orthodox Shahada kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZyopIespJKHd7s

[@dri-fit9712]

@@majestyhype9605 You are right that Jake lacks formal education in Biblical studies. While such can be important, I don’t think this should be the ultimate benchmark and believe that he has demonstrated knowledge and aptitude in dealing with the Christian tradition through the plethora of engagements and video material he has produced. I have seen his debate with Andani and can’t help but to smirk at the praises you are singing on him. He was confronted with his own scholars disagreeing with him, showed that he has no idea about the Athari view of God’s attributes, and even started criticising Jake for using the inconsistency of his positions as an argument. Jake on the other hand held his ground and stuck to Sunni orthodoxy, which is consistent with the apparent reading of the Qur’an, the understanding of the earliest generations, and a sound mind that hasn’t been polluted by platonism. As for Atharis making ta’wil, you misunderstood either the Athari view or what ta’wil means and what Jake is arguing for. Ta’wil is to divert the text away from its apparent meaning and giving it a different meaning, e.g saying God’s hand means God’s power. The Athari position is to affirm the apparent meaning of the text, but to do tafwid of the howness of an attribute. For instance, we affirm that God has a hand. The apparent meaning of a hand is something with which one manipulates or grasps matter. However, we don’t ascribe a howness to God’s hand. My human hand is made of flesh and bones, God’s hand is of course unlike mine and befitting of his majesty. Lastly, this is not comparable to the trinity or the incarnation. It is fine to say there are things which we cannot fully understand about God. What cannot be the case, however, is that we ascribe a logical contradiction to God. For example, it’s possible for there to be a universe that is exclusively composed of curved lines. We cannot conceive of this as our universe is exclusively composed of straight lines. But principally, there is nothing contradictory about this idea. However, it is not possible for there to be a universe that is exclusively composed of curved lines and exclusively composed of straight lines, as this is logically contradictory.

[@dri-fit9712]

@@pigetstuck There are many such Muslims. In addition to jake, there is Ijaz the Trini from Calling Christians. Then there is Hamza from Hamza’s Den and Kalamology, to name a few.

[@pigetstuck]

@@dri-fit9712 nice! So if I check our their videos, I won't find sloppy, apologetically-motivated bible interpretations?

[@ProfYaffle]

Notes to self for future reference 22:42 "The claim is not that these explicity teach the Trinity. The claim is that they are enigmatic and perplexing until you have the Trinity" 22:50 "The doctrine of the Trinity is a resolution of tension, not a creation of tension"

[@ProfYaffle]

23:00 Angel of Lord. Joshua 5: 13-15 24:50 Psalm 110 YHWH says to my Adonai ... Mark 12 26:13 Zech12: 10 John 19: 37 YHWH is pierced 27:47 Psalm 45: 6-7 God your God. Hebrews 8&9

[@ProfYaffle]

22:18 Examples not used: Use of plurals in Genesis 1 - could be read either way, not as forceful Proverbs 8 personification of wisdom - same reason 3 visitors to Abraham Genesis 28 - though fascinating Daniel 7

[@pamarks]

Why can't we just admit our churches have been in error about issues falling outside the fundamental heart of the gospel, and then move on to argue about which traditions are best? Catholics and Orthodox (in that order) are stubborn.

[@1984SheepDog]

Because Christ's church has never failed in a fundamental way to preserve the truth of the gospel, or else Christianity is a failure.

[@ToelJhute]

@@1984SheepDog that's not even the failing that the original person was talking about. he wasn't talking about failing to preserve the gospel and its glory, but tradition outside the gospel.

[@KnightFel]

@@1984SheepDogthe churches of Galatia failed in teaching the gospel and Corinth persisted in monstrous error. Christ never promised to keep the church from erring. He promised the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth, and he did that, it’s called the scripture and the church is to be subordinate to it. So much of the NT is written to correct error

[@danielcartwright8868]

Everyone should have a healthy amount of skepticism. It's how you don't get taken in by rubbish. It's irrational skepticism that's the problem.

[@jjjsalang]

Amen! Too much of a good thing can be bad.

[@theknight8524]

We want to see more rebuttals like this😍👍

[@Alfred33AD]

1.) Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it." The Church has not changed her teaching on this issue and has professed the same truth at the Second Vatican Council as she always has. Please consider reading Dominus Iesus from the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith from 2000. This professes the same magisterial teaching regarding the "unicity and salvific universality" of the Roman Catholic Church. 2.) Distinction Between Formal and Material Schism The Church has always taught that there exists a distinction between material and formal separation from the body of Christ. This isn't an "innovation" of some "pesky jesuits", this is a basic scholastic distinction. Our Lord charges a man according to his consent to the sin he commits. One does not commit a mortal sin if one has not consented to it by his will. In the same manner, those separated materially from the Church may not have separated formally from the Church by adhering to heretical teaching or formal schism. In such cases the Church recognises that there remains a possibility of salvation but does not (nor ever has or will) claim that this is suddenly an open door for all those materially separated from the body of Christ. The extent of clear and obvious bad faith argumentation in this video is palpable. A simple search for more clarification on this dogmatic profession would yield results satisfactory for confirming that Rome has not deviated from this article of faith. The intention of such bad faith representation is to cause anxiety among Catholic faithful by entering a hermeneutic of rupture with its genesis in the Second Vatican Council. The result of such dishonesty is certainly reaping the poorly catechised faithful for heretical houses of prayer.

[@zekdom]

Time-stamps 17:43 - Useful apologetic: ask who Isaiah 53 is talking about. Most people will say it’s about Jesus. Then you can point out that Isaiah 53 was written 700 years before Christ. 20:12 - The Tanakh does not rule out the possibility that three persons can be fully, truly God. In contrast, Florence does rule out salvation outside the church. 22:06, 22:40 - Hints of the Trinity in the Tanakh 22:50, 29:00 - The New Testament is a resolution of tension, not a creation of tension. 23:05, 23:43, 24:30 - Joshua 5:13-15… Who is this? Angels should not be worshipped, and Joshua took off his sandals because the ground became holy - reminscient of the burning bush in Exodus 3. This leads us to the question: what’s going on here? 25:40 - Psalm 110:1, who is this Lord of David? This doesn’t quite make sense until we have the Trinity. 26:30, 26:55 - Zechariah 12:10, God is speaking. The “me” who is pierced is referencing the one true God. How is God pierced to death? See John 19:37. This seems like a reference to Christ’s crucifixion. 27:30 - This passage is mysterious until the revelation of the New Testament.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

Since this has generated a lot of discussion, here's my unsolicited crude analogy. Suppose I am having a party at my house. "I'm going to mail out invitations to my party. In order for one to be admitted into my party, it is necessary to have an invitation in hand at the door." I also state, "Now that I have established my admittance policy, I will not change that policy." At the party, I start allowing people who pay me $50 without invitations to enter the party. The question is asked, "Did you change your admittance policy to accept a $50 payment for admittance even if the person does not have an invitation in hand?" I answer, "No, I didn't change my policy." "But paying $50 is not the same thing as having an invitation in hand, so this isn't the same policy that you initially had and said you weren't going to change." "Yes it is the same policy. This is a development and clarification of that policy. You wrongly assumed that by invitation in hand I only meant the ones I had mailed out. You didn't consider that there were other ways to have something I would accept at the door."

[@coffeeanddavid]

I did watch Michael's response video and it didn't seem very well put together. Charitably, he may not have had time and opted to shoot from the hip, but it mostly felt like unguided rant vs an informed rebuttal (which is usually his way, I think). I ended up not taking his response very seriously, as a result.

[@anthonym.7653]

It was not well done at all.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

Lofton seemed to miss your point. He pointed to other difficult things in Christianity and said that if asking “can’t you appreciate why it would be difficult to accept” can be used by a skeptic against Christianity in general, then it should be avoided when treating a particular doctrine of Catholicism. I didn’t take your question of “can you appreciate the difficulty” as your primary argument, just a framework to get Catholics to appreciate the Protestant position. As far as I understood, you simply took the definition of infallibility as they put it forth, and compared statements from Florence/unum sanctum and Vatican II/current catechism and pointed out that the positions are different beyond a reasonable explanation of development. In my opinion, the Catholic Church insists on rigidly defining various things, but then when held to their own definitions, apologists tend to pull out this “you’re just a skeptic” accusation. By the way, this very issue is my number one reason, I don’t accept infallibility from the pope or general magisterium. No matter how much context you allow or categories you create, the two positions on salvation outside the church are different.

[@tonywallens217]

I asked this question to Gavin but I’m curious to hear your thoughts as well

[@tonywallens217]

Hi Dr. Ortlund, how would we deal with the Scriptures that say that one must be born again in order to be saved? To my understanding this was also taken quite seriously for most of history, allowing for baptism by blood or desire very early on, but as you say not much outside of that. Should we be strict in interpreting this how the early Church did, or is a modern one that allows say for implicit faith to be preferred? And would preferring the latter leave Christians open to the accusation of “revisionism”?

[@evanfrost9586]

@@tonywallens217 hi there. I feel like John 3:8 provides the answer. From verse 5 we see Jesus says we must be born of water and the Spirit. Most of the time the water part is emphasised because of baptism by water, which is important. But the being born by the Spirit somehow does not get as much emphasis. I stand to be corrected and I'm happy to apologize if I'm misrepresenting here. By the time we get from verse 6 to 8 Jesus has brought being born of the Spirit to be the central point he is making to Nicodemus.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@@tonywallens217 if you were asking for my answer on this then I would say the following: First, for reference, I’m a confessional Lutheran, so I imagine I would differ from Dr. Ortlund somewhat on this, and may be closer to the Roman Catholic position than most others in this comment thread. I believe that Scripture teaches that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), joins us to Christ’s death (Romans 6:3-5), delivers forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), is regenerative (Titus 3:5), assures us of our salvation (Mark 16:16), and is generally necessary for salvation (John 3:5). With that said, we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). Grace is granted to us, and we receive it by faith. The question is how is grace delivered to us? Is it immediate and internal, or does God have external means He has instituted for us to receive grace? Nearly all Christians would agree that the preaching of the Word is a means of grace, and I agree; faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). In confessional Lutheranism, we add sacraments to the Word as means of delivering grace to us. Sacraments are a joining of God’s word to an element, and are instituted by God and have His promises attached to them. Word and Sacrament are means of grace, with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper being the two Sacraments. The gospel then is the message preached and is contained in Scripture, but then is also contained in the Sacraments. In the vast majority of cases, I would say, yes, baptism is necessary for salvation, as our confessions say. Denial or delaying of baptism is a denial or delaying of the gospel. In the case of someone who has come to faith through the Word, and (extreme example) is killed on the way to his baptism, I think that person would still be saved, because he is explicitly affirming faith in baptism. As far as those who have never heard, I don’t think Scripture teaches anything about “implicit faith” in Christ. This is where the doctrines of election, Christ’s descent into hell, and God’s unsearchable counsels come in.

[@tonywallens217]

@@AmillennialMillenial interesting response. I appreciate the time you put in.

[@prettypurple1051]

Dr Ortlund would you please make a video on how to choose a church/denomination for an average person like me who is very disconnected from my charismatic church because of how I just feel like it's mostly entertainment. This is what led me to asking what did the early church look like? My research has led me to discover more about catholicism, orthodoxy and even the other protestant denominations I never cared to learn about. Now I'm confused. I'm not a theologian nor intellectual as many who go on this journey so I just need advice on what to consider when looking for a church/denomination. Thank you in advance.

[@reepicheepsfriend]

I’m not sure if this is exactly what you’re looking for, but there are some groups who have attempted to return to a similar form to what we see in Scripture. They are sometimes called house churches, but not every so-called “house church” is a good example. One of the most well-known proponents of this type of church structure was a 20th-century Chinese brother called Watchman Nee. His works are worth looking into if you’re unfamiliar.

[@jjjsalang]

Dr. Ortlund has a video about advice on how to choose a church.

[@addjoaprekobaah5914]

Any sound reformed Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran church. Don't buy into the RCC and EO, we are the true church. They are not.

[@philoalethia]

Lofton is pretty skilled at drawing people into a variety tar-baby tangents (or, to be more precise, red herrings). The underlying question you were clearly addressing is when or whether doctrinal development is legitimate. When the development involves contradiction with the prior position, then there is a problem. One or both positions must be false (or some other circumstantial complication is in play). Pointing out that two contradictory ideas cannot be simultaneous true isn't skepticism--it is an expression of the most fundamental axiom of logic: non-contradiction. Lofton is (accidentally) correct that a rejection of certain Roman doctrines constitutes a skepticism, but we SHOULD be skeptical of things that are demonstrably false and contradictory. We shouldn't accept X just because someone asserts that X is true, especially when it contradicts what the same organization claimed previously, contradicts personal experience, or contradicts some other tenet held to be true. The Roman Church and its apologists have painted themselves into a corner in these situations because they assert (1) that the Roman Church alone (including those in communion with it) constitutes the true Church, and (2) the Church can never err when it comes to these magisterial claims regarding doctrines and morals. If contradiction is impossible, then anything that appears to be an error or contradiction is not. We just have to figure out what massaging and revising of the previous statements is necessary to make the system work. Consequently, they expend great effort ignoring, revising, or reinterpreting past positions to maintain compatibility with current ones. It must be exhausting!

[@duckymomo7935]

That’s the entire catholic apologetics system

[@danielcarriere1958]

Have you actually listened to Lofton's response videos? Seems like you are not addressing any of his points in this post.

[@philoalethia]

@@danielcarriere1958, yes, I regret to say that I've listened quite closely to countless Lofton videos. Lofton's videos are largely manifestations of narcissistic sophistry. He makes about 239 disjointed points in each, then doesn't, then takes the other side, then suggests that it might be the other way, but that the person isn't being entirely consistent, or charitable, or just "hasn't thought it through." Lofton's general position is a combination of "muh pope" and "muh magisterium" with the repetitive assertion that only these bring "objective," "definitive" answers to any question... except when they don't... and that nobody else has or really understands these things quite like Lofton does. Between that and his countless requests for other people to explain themselves to Lofton, my brain cells actually begin to commit suicide. I try to offer the suffering up to God or for the poor souls in purgatory. :) In any event, there is practically no point in attempting to address anything that Lofton says for the mere reason that Lofton says everything... and nothing. Indeed, I was a bit concerned that Ortlund took the time to directly address anything Lofton says, because L will just spin this into a six-part series of rambling videos where he parses every syllable that Ortlund uttered into complete obscurity. I generally like Ortlund's approach to things--and as you can see he is much more generous and gentle than I--but sometimes it is better not to acknowledge Really Bad Arguments or to give others the fuel they desperately desire to perpetuate their nonsense.

[@danielcarriere1958]

@@philoalethia What a nasty reply. And again, it shows you haven't actually listened to his response that he posted this morning or the one from a few days ago.

[@philoalethia]

@@danielcarriere1958, it is the accurate truth, and it seemed to be what you were seeking... or perhaps I am mistaken. Some people don't really want that anymore. If someone was a rapist and I described him as a rapist, I suppose someone could just as quickly accuse me of being nasty. Oh well. No, I haven't listened to Lofton's reply this morning. I am not a Lofton fan-boy and don't wait breathlessly for each of his meandering videos to drop so that I can go take notes. I only listen when I feel particularly like I deserve some kind of suffering. And I have suffered greatly. I just don't have much patience for sophistry or deception. If that makes me a nasty person, then I guess I am a nasty person. Mea maxima culpa.

[@Jackie.2025]

Great video! Thank you!

[@michael6549]

The Roman Catholic "development" of this doctrine was clearly an attempt at accommodating the more pluralistic kind of viewpoint that was characteristic of the modern age. I remember when I first read "Dominus Iesus". I was still a Roman Catholic at the time and was struggling with the whole Vatican II approach to salvation which always seemed to border on universalism. Some of my devout friends told me that Vatican II documents like "Nostra Aetate" are merely "pastoral", not dogmatic. "Dominus Iesus", on the other hand, was intended as an authoritative dogmatic statement and it, they assured me, would clarify for me what the Church REALLY taught on this subject. I was expecting a forceful reaffirmation of the old extra ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine. All it really said was that people might have a bit more difficulty being saved if they are not objective members of the Roman Catholic Church because they will inevitably encounter certain deficiencies in matters of faith and practice. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, has no such deficiencies so it's a much better path. Oh, by the way, faith in Jesus and membership in the Church are still necessary. But that faith doesn't have to be explicit and that membership doesn't have to be objective. Then I saw that Pope John Paul II was doing everything in his power to muddy the waters by promoting prayer meetings with Buddhists and Hindus, kissing the Quran, telling Roman Catholics not to evangelize the Eastern Orthodox, etc. To me, it just seemed like an entirely different and new approach to salvation. Of course there are ways to rationalize such things. Someone with enough intellectual and rhetorical skills can rationalize pretty much anything. The question isn't whether a doctrine can be defended but whether it's actually true.

[@matthew7491]

Good point. I think in the Roman Catholic tradition using doctrinal development and papal infallibility you can basically defend any doctrine. Issue is more whether it's persuasive or not.

[@mc07]

"Skeptic" is a strange term to throw around when speaking of inter-Christian dialogue. Once again, it seems like it is being used from an exclusivist point of view... i.e. only the RCC is true (which is demonstrably false).

[@myselfpoker88]

A simple man with Scripture has more authority than the Pope or a council. - Martin Luther

[@ConquerorofJerusalem]

😂

[@SamuelMoerbe]

Hey man, I think you misquoted the original quote, and distort the original meaning. “A simple layman armed with scripture is to be believed above a pope or scripture without it”-Luther at the Leipzig Debate with John Eck - Bainton, R. H. 1. (1950). Here I stand: a life of Martin Luther. New York ; Toronto, Published by the New American Library The emphasis is on authorities of Man vs God’s word, not that the authority lies with the individual over the pope and councils. I’m assuming your goal was to just portray Luther in a bad light to prove a point you believe. However, I would say that if any fruitful discussion is to be had, and if we care about truth, make sure you let the words speak for themselves. It doesn’t help your point to argue with caricatures. God Bless, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.

[@myselfpoker88]

@@SamuelMoerbe Thanks mate, God bless and have a happy and safe new year.

[@ConquerorofJerusalem]

@@SamuelMoerbe the Reformation was not needed at all, it splintered the Church into 40,000 or 35,000 denominations, Christ would not want us divided, we should be under the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Thank you, Merry Christmas

[@EmberBright2077]

@@ConquerorofJerusalem I think Jesus would prefer us decentralized but mostly right, rather than united and all wrong.

[@jonathanwiedenheft1956]

Hi Doc thanks for all you do! It would be awesome if you also posted these in a podcast format so it could be downloaded on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! It's available in spotify, though this one is not up yet.

[@thomasc9036]

When Aquinas and Florence declare the damnation of EO, were really saying all EO or just the leadership? When most people say "China did this", "Muslims did this", or "Jews did this" we are referring to usually the leadership or those directly involved in the open conflict.

[@dina.k]

Brilliant.

[@killingtime9283]

21:55 this reminds me of CS Lewis the great divorce where hell is "stuck" in dusk and awaiting for the sun to set. And heaven is at dawn just waiting for the sun finally rise. 🙂

[@AndrewofVirginia]

Great take on Joshua 5. Love that passage. But with regard to your statement about NT writers quoting the OT to make theological points rather than to point out actual fulfillment, I believe this view falls short on the very Messianic prophecy you mentioned. In Acts 2, Peter says after quoting Psalm 16, "he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption."

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! To clarify, I did not say they don’t argue for an actual fulfillment. I said they often are not wielding the OT text evidentially, but rather theologically -- in this case, to identify Christ as the Davidic King. Hope that clarifies.

[@AndrewofVirginia]

@@TruthUnites No, Peter is here claiming that the Psalmist "foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ." Emphasize that word "foresaw." This is a claim of direct prophetic fulfillment. Peter was not taking bits and pieces of Scripture and putting them together to make a new theological point by his own authority. He was relying on the authority of the original meaning of this text from David.

[@thegoblin957]

5.26 I suggest you look into some of the material produced by Ben Stanhope. this was the standard cosmological opinion in the ancient near east

[@Charlllot]

Hi, Gavin! I'm a huge fan of your channel. Sometimes I gaslight myself about whether I can be saved as a Protestant, and one of the things I've found that provides some assurance is how evident the presence of the Holy Spirit is in you. When you mentioned Tovia Singer, it reminded me of something I heard him say that's been bothering my mind. He says that Zechariah 13:6 should be rendered "And if one asks him, ‘What are these wounds between your hands?’ he will say, ‘The wounds I received in the house of my friends'" and claims this is a prophecy about Christ being exposed as a false prophet. Is there any way you could address this allegation?

[@TruthUnites]

don't have time to answer that just now, but thanks for the comment!

[@TheFIame]

I'm not familiar with Tovia Singer too much but I do Michael Brown, Erik Manning (KZbin Channel: Testify) have interacted with his work and will be able to answer some of Tovia's objections.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Dr.Michael Brown Can answer that question: just call his show!

[@samueljennings4809]

I don't have a lot of time, but the first thing I noted when I took a peek at that chapter is that there is no real clear connection to Jesus. He didn't receive the nail wounds at "the house of his friends" (v 6) but was received his wounds outside of a city wall alone surrounded by mockers so this feels like serious stretching tbh.

[@georgwagner937]

Thomas: unless I put my fingers in his wounds I will not believe. The other: well, we don't have him here right now, but I drew this picture of him with wounds, that gotta be enough evidence. Thomas: then I will, as I said, not believe. The other: you're just arguing like an atheist. It is enough evidence.

[@1984SheepDog]

Prots posting their Ls

[@georgwagner937]

@@1984SheepDog what do you mean by that?

[@romanchavdar5004]

Gavin, waiting for you to become catholic! Hope it doesn't take too long, bro:)

Starting on 21:48 could be a good short :) or at least an extract complete video - about the Trinity in the OT

[@DrEnuelHernandez]

Dr. Gavin, when can we have you in our program?

[@miltrol3d77]

That will be awesome

[@philagon]

Great contribution to the content of the video.

[@TruthUnites]

Hello! Do you have my email address? Shoot me an email and I will get back to you. If you don't have an address let me know thanks.

[@314god-pispeaksjesusislord]

@@TruthUnites WERE THE EBIONITES ACTUALLY HERETICS? Were they judaizers? Or were they just Jewish Christians who understood Hebrew Matthew (just for one example) differently? YOU MUST WORK THROUGH THE MESSIANIC JEWISH CONTEXT OF THE POST BAR COCHBA REBELLION OR YOUR NOT GOING TO TRUTH. I know you want too, and I'm not saying anything a messianic Jew says is correct, but if you don't address this CORE issue who will?

[@314god-pispeaksjesusislord]

@@TruthUnites NO the Trinity CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS THREE DISTINCT PERSONS IN HEBREW, if I'm wrong then get someone who speaks biblical Hebrew to say that. I've NEVER found even one, I may be wrong BUT SHOW ME. I'm NOT commending MODALISM, but I am saying the Trinity is NOT right, it's NOT even wrong.

[@Jackie.2025]

Dear Pastor Gavin, I’ve watched several videos from Catholics in the past few months on various topics. There is one thing that I just can’t get by and that is that I find that most Catholics argue for and point to the Catholic Church, defending their beliefs as their main goal (not saying all, I also believe that there are brothers and sisters in Christ), but the videos are so intellectual, often empty and draining and it often boils down to “we have the better arguments”, everything is about the church fathers, but it is different with you, one can hear, that your goal is, that God would be glorified. You don’t primarily point people to a certain Christian tradition, but you point People to the person of Jesus Christ (especially in your video about church anxiety) wanting people to put their trust in him and that is very prominent in you. It is your heart that is different. And if that is the fruit of being solid in your Protestant beliefs, what else can one be than Protestant, for the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart. God bless you🙏🏼

[@apostolicapologetics4829]

@2:40 I will be looking into this as this section of the Council of Florence Session 11 does seem to be much more rigid in meaning than CCC 846.

[@Golfinthefamily]

Gavin, I really really appreciate your channel. I would be curious to know if you have dealt with your thought on covenant theology...are you still Covenantal? Are you on the spectrum between that and dispensationalism?

[@benmurray8903]

Strictly speaking, if Gavin defines himself as confessionally reformed, then he's almost certainly in favor of covenant theology.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@benmurray8903 Got ya.

[@thomasc9036]

He said that he was a reformed Baptist but now days even that is a spectrum. However, Covenant Theology usually include "baptism is the sign of God’s covenant promise to believers and their children". Considering Baptist ministers do not baptize infants, he won't be part of covenantal unless we use the modern "broad" definition (I hate that term "broad" used nowadays... such a safe term but so ambiguous). Edit: BTW, I am giving you a narrower understanding of Covenant Theology from a Presbyterian perspective.

[@benmurray8903]

@@thomasc9036 I wouldn't call the camp of Baptists who also believe in covenant theology a modern development at this point, since their theological heritage goes back to at least the early 17th century. The way that low-church Baptists engage with or disengage with covenant theology, especially in North america, is definitely a much more modern development. And to your point about the distinctives of being Presbyterian or being Baptist, my experience is that the conversation for covenant theology can be had for an hour and be fully agreed upon by both sides. It is only in discussing the implications of covenant theology (such as, how CT affects our theology of baptism) that divergent convictions surface. But that's just my observation and experience.

[@thomasc9036]

@@benmurray8903 What I am saying is that the Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Presbyterian Covenant Theology are two different theologies with the same name but share many similarities. Both the LBC and WCF dedicate Ch. 7 to explain the Covenant. Some liked to differentiate the two by adding "baptist distinctive". That's fine as well for me. My point is that the two denominations differ enough that many (including my pastor) would prefer that the "original" WCF be the standard for referring to covenant theology. Frankly, I appreciate these distinctions. Instead of seeing differences, I see the dedication and commitment.

[@bmide1110]

The problem with the, “well at that time everyone assumed [x], but now we know [y]” argument is that it entirely undermines the infallibility of the teaching office. If the magisterium believed, and taught everyone else, for hundreds of years that the EO and OO believers were all damned, only for an assumption in that promulgated dogma to come to light and reverse that teaching, that seems to me a clearly fallible teaching office! How can you trust any dogma of the Catholic Church if all one needs is to challenge and assumption in it and find that the whole thing can be uprooted. Imagine someone saying 300 years from now, “Well, leading up to the 2000s, everyone assumed that a homosexual couple couldn’t partake in the sacrament of marriage because of [x] belief, but now we have come to see that because of [y bogus rationalizing argument] we now see that they can implicitly(!) be involved in a male-female union even though they are biologically both males or females.” It’s the same argument with the same resulting reversal of belief across the church about a church dogma.

[@Stormlight1234]

Hello. I would recommend reading Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus and Doctrinal Development.” International Journal for Systematic Theology 24 (2022) by Andrew Meszaros. You can read it online for free. In it, Andrew walks through what development of doctrine means and why you couldn’t see the types of changes on the teaching of homosexuality that you are asking about. If we don’t allow for development of doctrine, then we need to conclude the Bible teaches all kind of errors. Your claim: The problem with the "well at the time everyone assumed [x], but now we know [y] argument is it entirely undermines the infallibility of the teaching office. Application: The Old Testament taught there is one God but at the time, everyone thought that meant one person. The New Testament clarified that it is one God in three persons. Error or development? The council of Florence declared there is no salvation outside the Church but at the time, everyone thought this meant no salvation outside formal union to the Church. Vatican II clarified that it is no salvation for anyone "culpably" outside the church which can include some via informal union. Error or development? In both cases, it is God clarifying our understanding through His Church. In both cases, the old text does not explicitly rule out the new reading. I would respectfully suggest you dig in a bit more as to what Catholic scholars and the magisterium actually teach about the development of doctrine. I think it may surprise you and you may realize it is impossible to avoid. God has been doing this since the beginning of time. God bless!

[@bmide1110]

@@Stormlight1234 Hey Chris, First of all, I wanted to genuinely thank you for your friendly and irenic tone. It is so rare to have someone on the internet disagree with you cordially and kindly, so really, thank you for that. Time fails me to give a full reply to you unfortunately, but I can just say that I would largely respond to what you said above how Gavin did in the video-I see no problem with OT views of God’s personhood because the OT never asserts (and that’s the key word) that God is not three persons. However, I find that that statement at the council of Florence clearly asserts that the Orthodox will all be condemned to hell, faithful and martyrs included. The analogy of the Trinity would only work if there was a verse in Leviticus or something that said, “and if any man rise up and say that God is three persons-or that God’s eternal son will become incarnate to save humanity-let that person be rejected, for surely he is a deceiver.” But, even if we were to say that the OT authors mistakenly asserted something about Gods personhood out of ignorance, that really would not bother me. But I am not an inerrantist, as it seems you, Gavin, and Michael Lofton are, so I understand that causes me to approach scriptural authority in a way you might not. In any case, I am thankful to you brother for your kind tone and wish you all the best in your pursuit of Christ. May the Lord’s grace lead us both to the eternal home where we may experience many countless days of warm fellowship in our mutual love for Jesus! Grace and Peace, B

[@Stormlight1234]

@@bmide1110 Thank you for returning the friendly tone! I can certainly see how one would interpret Florence to say that and how they meant it to apply to anyone not formally united to the Church for all time. However, just like OT never explicitly asserts the Trinity, I don't think Florence explicitly states something that would make it impossible to include informal union with the Church as meeting the extra ecclesiam nulla salus statement in Florence. On other words, I don't see an explicit contradiction with the actual words written at Florence and Vatican II, rather, I see an unfurling of understanding as to what type of unions are possible with the Church. I also fully realize that many non-Catholics will think this type of development of doctrine is just moving the goal posts, however, I don't think there is a logical contradiction between Florence and the modern Church. The real question, for me, is whether the development of doctrine is valid. This would necessitate the including statements that the original authors would not understand the later interpreters to understand. The prime example of why I think this is valid, is because Jews in the OT would not have ever intended for the Trinity to be included in statements that God is one. Likewise, manny (if not all) theologians at Florence would not have wanted informal union as a possible inclusion in their understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However, it is God that is guiding His Church. I don't find it surprising then that the specific words that Florence chose allow for the possibility of later including an interpretation (unknown to the original authors) that includes informal union with the Church. This is sometimes, it appears, how God protects His deposit of faith. He allows for His people to misunderstand aspects of His revelation only later to clarify (e.g. Trinity). I hope this at least shows why Catholics who hold to the development of doctrine do not find Dr. Ortlund's challenge to be valid as he seems to be trying to say there is an explicit contradiction where there simply isn't one. God bless!

[@Stormlight1234]

Hi Dr. Ortlund. I feel you are underplaying the parallel of your argument and the Trinity. I don't see why everything you said about the Trinity couldn't be perfectly paralleled with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). You say the idea of implicit faith was completely absent from that time in history (Middle Ages/Florence). Likewise, the idea of the Trinity was completely absent from the Jews for over a thousand years before it was revealed to us that God is a Trinity. You also say, but there are hints of the Trinity in the Old Testament. Catholics can say the same thing, that there are hints of informal union in the tradition and Bible including baptism of desire, baptism by blood, Old Testament peoples, and unbaptized babies, etc.(see "Is There Salvation Outside the Church by Fr. William Most). Just like you said the New Testament is the resolution of the tension over the nature of God with the old Testament, Catholics would say Vatican II is the resolution of the tension over the possible natures of union with the Church (formal vs informal) from Florence. The parallel seems exact. I think one key problem is that you aren't acknowledging the fact that the way the words are written on the page in Florence doesn't rule out the possible interpretation later to include informal union with the Church. There is no contradiction with the actual words written. Furthermore, the Catholic scholars I have read all seem to acknowledge that the modern Church understood "outside the Church" differently than people did in the time of Florence. Catholics aren't denying this as this is part of what development of doctrine entails. This doesn't mean Florence taught an error. Just like the way God worded His revelation of being "one God" in the Old Testament later includes a way to read it all in a Trinitarian manner, Florence is worded in a way that allows for informal union to be included in its modern understanding. To me, this is the lynch pin of this disagreement. There were no Jews for thousands of years that thought "one God" mean the Trinity. There very well may have been many Christians for hundreds of years that thought EENS did not include informal union with the Church. If we say this means Florence is in error, then so is the Old Testament. I truly wish you would reach out to a scholar (like Dr. Ralph Martin) in this area and have a discussion. I don't expect you will find new information that is going to change your mind, but I do think it would be good for everyone to have the Catholic positions presented in its strongest form. They can then decide for themselves what seems the most likely explanation for change from Florence to Vatican II. God bless!

[@ericcarlson9885]

@Chris I guess it is theoretically possible that informal union is included in the meaning from Florence, but so improbable as to be rejected by anyone who doesn't have a prior commitment to its being true. You have to see that, because of these commitments, you are essentially incapable of looking at these issues in an objective way. And you don't have to go all the way back to medieval times to realize this is not how pre-Vatican II Catholics viewed these things. (Which is part of the reason the division between Catholics and Protestants used to be so intense. Both basically anathematized each other.) Just go back to the Baltimore Catechism (first put out in 1885, but which Catholic Answers still states to be valid). It claims that the number of Protestants to be saved in the end will be very, very few. One needs more than just implicit faith. (I realize that the BC is a regional statement of faith and, though based on Bellarmine's 17th-century catechism, it certainly does NOT possess strict magisterial authority. Nevertheless, it does show what Catholic sentiments were toward the end of the 19th century.)

[@1984SheepDog]

@Eric Carlson I guess it is theoretically possible that trinity is included is the meaning of "the Lord is One" but so improbable as the be rejected by anyone who doesn't have a prior commitment to its being true.

[@Stormlight1234]

@@ericcarlson9885 Hi Eric. I think you are misunderstanding what I (and the Catholic scholars I have been reading) are trying to say. I do believe theologians at Florence did not intend for informal union the way Vatican II understands it to be included in their statement. In fact, Ralph Martin says in his book "Will Many be Saved", 'Vatican II represents a major shift in how the Catholic Church viewed the status of non-Catholic Christians.' The development of doctrine entails there is a change in how the statement of Florence is understood. Here, Theologian Andrew Meszaros explains how some change is to be expected under the development of doctrine theory in his discussion of extra ecclesiam nulla salus: "The question, then, is not whether or not some teaching changed. The question is rather what kind of change did that teaching undergo? Is the change, as Newman would phrase it, an authentic development, or a corruption? Or to rephrase in the more scholastic idiom, is the change homogenous or not? In other words, Newman wants to shine light on the church's definite, and enduring teaching, not by showing that it always stayed the same, but by showing that it developed rather than decayed and got warped or mutilated." The theologians I have read argue that extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not changed in substance, just in its presentation. All Catholics at all times would still agree "there is no salvation outside the Church". The development has now come to include others that visibly appear outside the Church (e.g. pagans with an implicit faith in God) that may have an informal union to the Church. We see the same type of development with the Trinity. Most Jews in the Old Testament understood God to be one person. With the revelation of the New Testament, we now believe this means one God in three persons. We don't think the Old Testament taught error, it just needed God to further develop our understanding of what He was conveying to us in the actual words He gave us in the Old Testament. Likewise, Vatican II now allows us to see that Florence’s statement "no salvation outside of the Church" includes people in the Church that are informally united to the Church. While the theologians at Florence likely didn't intend for the Vatican II reading, God did and in His providence this became explicit at Vatican II. And it should also be noted that this wasn't a complete 180 for the Church out of nowhere. There were many seeds of implicit faith and informal union with the Church throughout Church history. Sullivan, Martin, and Most all have great works out there that outline a lot of the historical documentation of these ideas throughout the centuries. And Vatican II also is not necessarily out of line at all with what the Baltimore Catechism is saying. Ralph Martin cautions that many have interpreted Vatican II to have a "salvation optimism" that many (if not most) non-Catholics will have an informal connection to the Church and be saved. This is a misunderstanding of Vatican II. Just because one may have invincible ignorance to the truth of the Gospel or the Church, doesn't mean they are saved by their ignorance. 'Nevertheless, an important distinction must be kept in mind. Just because people are not culpably ignorant does not mean that thereby they are saved. Their personal response to the illumination that God gives is required. As Fr. Sullivan puts it: For the first time in the history of the Catholic Church, we have papal authority for explaining that this axiom means: "No salvation for those who are culpably outside the Church"... It is important to note how Pope Pius said they can be saved, because he has sometimes been taken to mean that people can be saved by ignorance, or merely by keeping the natural law. If one reads his statement carefully, one sees that being "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" is a condition that must be fulfilled to avoid culpability, but is in no sense a cause of salvation. Neither is it correct to say that people are saved merely by keeping the natural law; this would be to fall into Pelagianism, of which Pius IX is surely not guilty. The operative words in his statement are: "through the working of the divine light and grace." It is this that effects salvation, provided, of course, that people freely cooperate with divine grace."' (Ralph Martin. Doctrinal Clarity for the New Evangelization: The Importance of Lumen Gentium 16) Also, note the continuity with BC and LG: Baltimore Catechism (Lesson 11: ON THE CHURCH. 121.): All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved. Lumen Gentium (LG14): Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. I hope this helps clear things up a bit. This is where I think Dr. Ortlund's argument kind of falls apart. He seems to want to show there is a contradiction or error where there simply isn't one. God bless!

[@MrCastleJohnny]

Jay dyer often makes those claims. What's your thoughts on his views on protestantism? He made the video "top 10 reasons why i'm not a protestant" We would love to see your thoughts on that video..

[@duckymomo7935]

Jay dyer is a former Protestant but he doesn’t make any valid points against Protestantism Also he’s kinda just flat out rude, avoid him

[@Athabrose]

Nobody wants to interact with Dyer anymore. He’s burnt too many bridges and his scholarship and use of scripture is abysmal. He largely just saber rattles to his base.

[@Joshua12w2o]

@@Athabrosehe recently got destroyed by Christian b Wagner

[@myselfpoker88]

After the devil himself, there is no worse folk than the pope and his followers. - Martin Luther

[@calson814]

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists - that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."- Martin Luther

[@JM-jj3eg]

There'a another important point re: the doctrine of the Trinity as it develops from OT to NT. In the NT we have new revelation from God, with new scriptures, backed by unprecendented signs and wonders done by Jesus and the apostles. That's why we believe the NT doctrines like the incarnation, Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection, the Trinity etc. We have no such miraculous display to support the move from Florence to Vatican 2, whether you want to call it a "change in meaning" or "development in understanding".

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

The doctrine of the trinity isn't found in the First Testament, so there was no biblical development of the doctrine whatsoever. The entirety of John's Gospel account shows that the Word did not exist as the Son until He became a human being. That is one of the many logic holes in the idea that the trinity is biblical.

[@JM-jj3eg]

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I agree with you that the Second Person of the Trinity didn't become the Son of God until the incarnation. Before that He was the Word of God. But this view can reasonably be called Trinitarian, what's the problem?

[@lolhey6954]

I’m not Catholic simply because I believe the Papacy is a political development. It was not around in the beginning.

[@thecatholicdad]

A Catholic could argue that definitive magisterial teaching is protected by the Holy Spirit, and therefore in a way the author of Pope Eugene's Papal Bull is both Pope Eugene and the Holy Spirit. This would be similar but not identical to how Holy Scripture has both a human author and a divine author. Now the "intent of the author" could be understood not only as Pope Eugene's intentions, which may have been faulty, but as the intention of the divine author (the Holy Spirit). Therefore, even though no Catholic in the middle ages or even Pope Eugene himself understood his teaching in the way expressed later in the documents of Vatican II, we could argue that the Holy Spirit intended the teaching that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" to be understood in the way that the teaching was expressed later in the documents of Vatican II. In that case the intent of Pope Eugene and the understanding of the Catholics of the past would be inconsequential. I'm just thinking out loud and I am not a trained theologian, but I'm trying to harmonize my understanding of "doctrinal development" and "divine security" with Gavin's historical and literary criticism.

[@BibleLosophR]

Unitarians like to point out that the second "Lord" in Ps. 110:1 in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text is "adoni" and not "adonai." The problem with that claim is that the Masoretic text standardized the vowel pointing *AFTER* the beginning of the Christian era. The original Hebrew didn't have vowel pointing. So, the Masoretes may have had a vested interest in pointing it as "adoni" rather than "adonai" in order to remove a possible Christian prooftext. Some Trinitarian apologists like Jonathan McLatchie (and I believe also my favorite Trinitarian apologist Anthony Rogers) and others claim that the "adonai" in verse 5 is likely the same person as the 2nd Lord in verse 1. They've made arguments for why that's likely given the context. In which case, "adonai" might be the right vowel pointing of verse 1. Moreover, the "Lord" in Malachi 3:1 is "ha adon" in Hebrew. Adon is usually not a reference to Yahweh, however with the definite article, "ha adon" is always in reference to the one true God of Israel. And the NT applies Mal. 3:1 to Jesus. Hence, Jesus is also Yahweh with the Father. Zechariah 3:1-2 references the Angel of Yahweh, and in verse 2, the Angel is merely called "Yahweh" and has Him saying "Yahweh" rebukes Satan. So, there are two Yahweh referenced there as in Gen. 19:24 where there is a Yahweh on earth and a Yahweh in heaven. Michael R. Burgos Jr. wrote in chapter 2 of "Our God is Triune" regarding Gen. 19:24: //Malone has attempted to explain the third person reference via illeism.[lxxxii] However, the explicit personal distinction in Genesis 19:24 annuls such a reading: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” The prepositional phrase מֵאֵת יהוה מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם (“from Yahweh from heaven”) indicates via spatial and functional distinction that two persons who are both Yahweh are in view, namely, Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh.[lxxxiii] Aside from these examples, there are several other passages which indicate trinitarian plurality, if taken in tandem with the other biblical data.[lxxxiv] ENDNOTES: [lxxxii] Malone, Andrew S. 2009. “God the Illeist: Third Person Self-References and Trinitarian Hints in the Old Testament,” JETS, 52/3, 501. Elledge follows Malone here, and in his dissertation on the subject he completely neglects to assess the significance or impact of the divine Angel. Elledge, E. Roderick, The Illeism of Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of the Use of the Third-Person Self-Reference in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and its Implications for Christology, PhD Diss., 2015, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 4-5; 85-86.

[@marianweigh6411]

The discontinuity found within the conciliar texts are therefore due to breaking away from historical circumstances which have encrusted themselves into Church life. Vatican II is hence a combination of continuity and discontinuity. The Council is continuous in teaching the deposit of faith while breaking from historical contingencies. This combination leads us to a true understanding of the reform Vatican II intended, for _“it is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists.”_ Benedict XVI gives Dignitatis Humanae as an example of such concerning the continuity with doctrine while breaking away from a historical attitude that was necessary at previous times but no longer (while of course affirming the truths put forth by the 19th century papacy). This continuity and discontinuity of the Council is significant not only for its reversal of historical decisions but, most importantly, that it preserved the Church’s nature and identity: _The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity._ www.lenouvelesprit.com/vatican-ii-hermeneutics/hermeneutic-of-discontinuity

[@CCiPencil]

So basically we can not read text plainly and as intended until the teaching office of the Papacy informs us of how to read a sentence. The issue with Catholicism is the contradiction with the word of God. It’s a big issue.

[@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370]

There has been no change in meaning. There has been misunderstanding. “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. That statement is true. Anyone who, given the fullness of truth concerning the Church Christ founded, rejects the Catholic Church for whatever reason, perishes. That truth has been around since the New Testament gospels. However, it is not our job to judge whether someone has attained the “fullness of truth” in this matter. That is for God to decide. Where the problem arises is when people begin to make excuses for the individual in that, doubt is created as to whether he has actually reached the “fullness of truth”, and so, the person in question is still deemed to be invincibly ignorant and therefore the possibility for salvation remains open for him. notwithstanding any of that, if a person rejects this truth about the Church Christ founded and his conscience has been fully informed, undoubtedly he will perish. In Luke 13:22-30, Jesus tells us the door is narrow. Jesus founded a Church (Mt. 16:18), the Catholic Church. Its bishops today can trace their line of ordination right back to Peter. Then Jesus said, “whoever hears you, hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me.” (Luke 10:16) If you reject the Church Jesus founded, you reject Jesus and bring condemnation upon yourself. You cannot reject the Body of Christ without rejecting Christ, himself.

[@duckymomo7935]

Then there’s no reason to become catholic Those verses are used out of contexts

[@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370]

@@duckymomo7935 yes, that argument has been made many, many times. That is your call to make after well-informing your conscience. However, obstinacy is not an excuse.

[@JHH1027]

Gavin, I am a Catholic and so appreciate how you are charitable and knowledgeable. I love listening to you even with our differences.

[@CMartin04]

It's kinda frustrating for me to address these verses that allude to the trinity especially because non-trinitarians like Jehovah's Witnesses object these verses by saying that that translation is wrong, and they procede to enter to the gramatical area and cite scholars that backup their translation, and everything gets more complicated. Dave Armstrong has a 4 part debate with a Jehovah's Witness called "Dialogue with Jehovah's Witness on Christology and Trinitarianism" where they addres Psalm 45:6 in part 2, and that topic ends with no solid conclution because Dave didn't know greek. Everything ends with a war of who has more scholars to quote.

[@Mygoalwogel]

That's why when I wanna bug a JW, I start with New World Translation John 1:3. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. Major Premise: How many ‘things’ is the Word? One. Minor Premise: How many things came into existence without the Word? Zero. Conclusion: The Word did not come into existence without the Word. i.e. The Word is uncreated. Next I go to: 2 Pt 1:1---our God and *the* Savior Jesus Christ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 2 Pt 1:11 our Lord and ___ Savior Jesus Christ This proves objectively that the New World Translation is just as biased as the normal Trinitarian rendering of John 1:1

[@CMartin04]

@@Mygoalwogel Yeah the first reasoning sounds correct to me. In the second verse you are applying the Granville Sharp Rule. Greg Stafford, who's a non-trinitarian JW has some critiques about the application of this rule. However I'm not an expert in greek so I can't say too much

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@CMartin04 I think the point of the 2 Ptr 1:1/11 argument is not that 1 needs to be "our God and Savior" but that translating differently two identical phrases betrays bias. This allows the conversation to get off the Jn 1:1 horse. We can grant that Jn 1:1 is possibly ambiguous without granting that the JW translation is better.

[@FalconOfStorms]

Before I start the video my instinct is to say yes it is, in a very good way. Christianity is devised as a rational faith. Perhaps the only rational faith, distinguishing it from every other religion in the same way that grace distinguishes Christianity from every other religion. God gave us brains and we are expected to use them. There are so many statements about rationality and reason in the Scriptures -- not that the Roman Catholic Church of old wanted us to be able to read the Scriptures.

[@MortenBendiksen]

I think texts are often fruitfully interpreted in new ways that were not intended originally and was not understood initially. I kind of view this as almost a requirement of being an inspired text. That is sort of what they do. But, the text must be itself, after being reinterpreted, supportive of the idea, we can't just ignore a text by interpreting it such that we find a loop hole in it, so that it allows our new ideas, while still pretending to uphold the text. Then we rather need to find some other reason why that text is not to be emphasized in the same way. But then make it clear we are doing that, not trying to just make it seem everything is consistent.

[@tonywallens217]

Hi Dr. Ortlund, how would we deal with the Scriptures that say that one must be born again in order to be saved? To my understanding this was also taken quite seriously for most of history, allowing for baptism by blood or desire very early on, but as you say not much outside of that. Should we be strict in interpreting this how the early Church did, or is a modern one that allows say for implicit faith to be preferred? And would preferring the latter leave Christians open to the accusation of “revisionism”?

[@nathanieljamal3836]

While there was strong correlation with the two, it was not unanimous. If you read the Anonymously written Treatise On Rebaptism you'll find that the author affirms that baptism is often efficacious and normative for salvation. But the water itself only signifies being nominally added to Christ, not being salvifically necessary. Now that belief of necessary baptismal regeneration did exist in the 2nd century and some of the 3rd, but around the time of the Novatian Schism (when On Rebaptism is written) there is an understanding of baptism in a couple senses, that are related but not consequentially tied together. A lot of this belief (and that of baptism before death) are taken from the Shepherd of Hermas, which was previously seen as Canon by some and eventually fully disposed of. Tertullian rightly criticized Hermas but the effects of canonizing it caused this idea of baptism ONLY saves (see Hermas Vis. 1). So this may have been found in the early centuries of the Church, and baptismal regeneration (which I would in some sense affirm as a Presbyterian) stuck around for awhile. But this "baptism only" mentality is foreign to the bulk of patristics and Church history (i.e. Gregory of Nyssa didn't think infants needed baptism to be saved). Hope this answers your question

[@MBarberfan4life]

I don't understand this argument from many Catholics. I mean, at some point, one would have had to make the decision to become a Catholic? And, why submit to the Catholic Church instead of Eastern Orthodox or other branches? I just don't think this epistemological argument is very persuasive.

[@jonhilderbrand4615]

"Doesn't rule out _implicit_ subjection...doesn't rule out _informal_ joining"?_ What does this even _mean!_

[@Jackie.2025]

🙏🏼🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

[@jambangoni]

I wish I had the knowledge you and Michael have haha

[@duckymomo7935]

You can, just pick your specialty and work your way: read and do research I specialize in NT and Christian anthropology but I am very bad at OT and other fields I really dislike ecclesiology 😒

[@he7230]

“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Leviticus 25:44‭-‬46 NIV I have a hard time believing that this is inerrant.

[@duckymomo7935]

Look into anthropology and history Buy and sell are generic words to mean acquire and let go, today we tie everything to monetary value but we still have phrases like “I don’t buy it” Additionally, historically slave class is necessary and backbone of civilization Free market economy doesn’t exist yet. We’re reading this verse from capitalist or Marxist lens

[@danielcarriere1958]

00:00 - Introduction As per Lofton, you are redefining the term skepticism from what you had defined it previously. You said that there are people who would have a problem reconciling Florence with Vatican II. And then you said, "do you see how a non sympathetic audience might not be convinced". This was your definition that Michael was responding to. Not the redefinition that you present here where you change the meaning to be just plain obstinate refusal to believe something that is just plain clear. That was not Lofton's use of the term skepticism and neither was it yours in the previous video. And so, there is no basis to sharply divide your skepticism of how the church reconciles its statements in church history from how you would reconcile passages in scripture that seem to be contradictory. Because the basis of this skepticism is that of a non sympathetic audience, like the Jews, Muslims, or atheists. As Loften states, such as these would not be sympathetic to apparent contradictions in scripture such as God's goodness or the Trinity.

[@TruthUnites]

I never defined "skepticism" as a non-sympathetic audience, Michael just misconstrued that. Quite obviously "skepticism run amok" is a negative label and different than mere non-sympathy.

[@danielcarriere1958]

@@TruthUnites not true. A charitable, irenic interpretation of Michael's words would be to see that he is defining that in the way you characterized non-sympathetic audience. You are just being slippery here or intentionally obtuse.

[@gtobs3181]

Salvation is individual, we are only saved by Grace thru faith and we need to persevere to the end. A smaller catholic sect pre Vatican II say no one is saved post vatican I. I believe this is a bit fanatic. The scriptures area quite clear how to come closer to Christ and be saved. The issue is the lots of confusion within reformed protestants and speaking to protestants they do sound like skeptics about several issues.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

4:37 the interpretation you mention that the Roman Catholic apologists do to make the Council of Florence and Boniface's ex-cathedra teachings fit with Vatican II is the same thing what Sola Scriptura advocates do. Funnily, Sola Sciptura is the primary target of Roman Catholic apologists when attacking Protestantism. How should someone call this?

[@blakevanwinkle6666]

Could it not be knowledge of the communities being referenced as well as their change over time? Also, Pius 2/3 understood infallibility as something that is from a future point, which may allow an interpretation to morph as still be infallible.

[@MortenBendiksen]

I think those who pull up the geo-centrism argument, either for it, or against it, or as an example like in this video, profoundly are missing something important. Like, the big overarching point of the Biblical text and of holy communities itself has not gotten across to them, at least not intellectually. That point is not easy to out into words at all. But is is quite related to the inability to express it in human formulaic terms. If one has an inkling of it (intellectually, of course not in the heart, where I can't know), I don't think one would pull up that argument, bacause it is so obviously irrelevant. Not only irrelevant, but it is obvious that anything ever written by, for, or to humans, must be embedded inside what ever world view those humans already hold, and the whole magic is that somehow God is able to talk to us through that fallen approach, and give us the bigger reality, let us trust him, and not bow down to our own particular system and concepts and communities. What ever I'm trying to say here is, as far as I know, the most single important message of the entire Bible, because without it, none of the other things make sense, because that barrier constitutes our falleness, and what ever else we do is just an idolatrous version, and we just remain content with our system.

[@psalm1413]

Dr. Ortland, what would you say to this? I think you and Michael are talking past each other a bit. You find a conflict of meaning between your (and your source's) understanding of what the council fathers meant at Florence with what the council father's meant at V2. What you mean by meaning is a difference in intention. In this, you are committed to a speech-act hermeneutic in your interpretation of the councils (like a Gricean sort of approach). If you think that is fair, how do you square this pragmatic approach with V2s stated realist semantics in Dei Verbum? Based on DV, it seems like V2 wants to harmonize the substance of the signified in Florence, not the various intentions of the various fathers. This would be because the V2 father's believe God is speaking through the Bishops at both councils and therefore their meaning has substance which transcends the intended meaning of the text of the councils. Long time listener first time caller. Thanks for your work.

[@tonywallens217]

Interesting distinction. That seems to be where the rub is I agree. Maybe it’s comparable to how prophecy can work. The prophets of old may well have intended to mean something for their own age,m. Something being fulfilled in their own day could have been the expectation and intention while God’s authorship entails a meaning beyond their own. Infallibility is different than inspiration, but I’m sure the same property can obtain. Especially since, as Lofton pointed out, the ex Cathedra and authoritative statements do not rule out the viability of implicit faith in their formulation, regardless if contemporaries and predecessors did rule it out as individuals not in an irredeemable way.

[@psalm1413]

I think that could be right, at least analogous in that there is a more complex semantic picture than mere historiography. The more I think about it the more intolerable the intention as meaning hermeneutic would be in the case of councils. What about cases where we don’t know the intentions of the fathers of this or that council? Does that mean we don’t know its meaning?

[@1984SheepDog]

@@psalm1413 excellent point

[@zakkonieczka6811]

This calls for a crossover episode

[@boanergesbrothers8687]

The issue is that Vatican II nowhere states that you can obtain salvation outside the Church. With regards to baptized non-Catholics, like Orthodox and Protestants, it's very easy to see how they could be saved. They are part of the Church and have their sins remitted by virtue of their baptism. Since they can only lose their salvation by mortal sin, which requires both full knowledge and full assent of the will, only those who were in material (not formal) schism/heresy would be automatically damned. So it follows trivially from medieval scholasticism that you can be a member of the Catholic Church in the state of grace while being outside of the visible church due to a schism by your bishop which you did not know about/assent to. When it comes to the unbaptized, medievals also held baptism of desire, so the question is only whether it's possible for that desire to be implicit in the case of the invincibly ignorant, and this is the only part where's there's development of doctrine on the part of later Jesuits that is affirmed by Pius IX and Vatican II. There's no contradiction with Florence, since it nowhere states that only explicit desire is a basis for the Holy Spirit to extraordinarily concede baptismal grace

[@duckymomo7935]

Why didn’t council of Florence say that then? Why did Florence explicitly wanted to spite the EO?

[@duckymomo7935]

The RCC used to maintain the donatist heresy that baptisms and sacraments from other faiths were invalid

[@boanergesbrothers8687]

Because they were bothered at the Orthodox for refusing to come back into full communion for poor reasons. But a general attitude (just like the "Spirit of Vatican II") isn’t infallible, and infallibility is negative, not positive (doesn’t imply the Council has the final word regarding the topic it’s talking about, just that it doesn’t fail in what it does say) (I have edited a bit here to clarify, BTW)

[@boanergesbrothers8687]

Any magisterial source for that?

[@johnmendez3028]

Dr. Orlund, It’s an Interesting premise about skepticism. While it’s certainly possible for skepticism to be present on both sides, from Protestantism and Catholicism. From a historical perspective the idea of a protest is more often consistent with a skeptical argument being present. The idea of the apostles, having enough manuscripts to have a Bible study over Genesis to Malachi seems highly implausible In Hebrews 1:8-9 it would be a matter of interpretation. The more likely interpretation would be that Saint Paul is simply clarifying that this is our God that he is speaking about. The less likely interpretation is that God has his own God.

[@johnmendez3028]

@Thoska Brah again it would definitely be a matter of interpretation. Two problems with that interpretation: 1.) the interpretation “that God has another God” forces God to break his own commandment “ 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3 RSV-CE This would likely bring in to question whether God is all powerful, etc. This would give us reason to question which God is the more powerful one and which we should follow. Becomes a Slippery slope really quickly… 2.) But the more reasonable and consistent interpretation would be to recognized that Jesus is speaking of his father and of her God, he’s already made this point in John chapter 10, Given that Jesus has already said, “..that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." John 10:37-38 RSV-CE, 10 chapters earlier it seems reasonable to conclude that he is describing another person in the trinity, not a separate God. 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." John 10:37-38 RSV-CE

[@johnmendez3028]

@Thoska Brah interpreting either passage to say God has another God would force God to be inconsistent and likely break his own commandment 3 "You shall have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:3 RSV-CE Opening the question whether we are worshiping the right God. Becoming a slippery slope.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

Orthodox address this in their view of Monarchican trinity. God is the source of divinity. Jesus is begotten of the father, of the same essence as the father but is not the source of Godhood. So, Jesus has a God in the sense that the Father is his eternal source of Jesus's divinity. People (trinitarians in general) also say that Jesus is a man (who is also divine), so as a man he has a God.

[@johnmendez3028]

@@OnTheThirdDay Sebellianism ( or the Sebellian Heresy) By Jimmy Akin Principal Error Denial that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate Persons of the Godhead; claim instead that they are modes, aspects, energies, phases, or offices of a single divine Person. Doctrinal Notes Known as Sabellianism, after the third-century Roman priest Sabellius, who developed it, this heresy has had a number of other names, based upon different facets of the heresy and various conclusions that follow from it. Sabellianism emphasized the fact that God is one, wrongly concluding that in the Godhead there is a single (mon-) principle or rule (-arche). Thus the heresy was also called “Monarchianism.” Sabellians explained their position by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three Persons, but three functions or modes of a single divine Person, so they also were called “Modalists.” It was further recognized that if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all “modes” of a single divine Person, it followed that the Father, being the same Person as the Son, suffered and died on the cross, and so in the West this heresy became known as “Patripassianism.” How one divine Person could appear in three different ways could be explained by analogies: by appealing to the way an actor can play different roles in a play by wearing different masks; to the way water can exist in three different forms, solid, liquid, and gaseous; and to the way one man may have three separate roles as the son of one person, the husband of another, and the father of a third. Sabellius said that in God there are three modes in the same way that the sun is bright, round, and hot. It is not clear whether the modes were thought of as things between which God switched back and forth (as in the mask and water analogies) or whether they were qualities exhibited simultaneously (as in the relationship and sun examples). Some Modalists claimed that when the redemption was finished, God would put away the three masks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and manifest himself as a single-mode Person. Catholic Response “Sabellius was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I (c. 220). Sabellianism was rejected by the early ecumenical councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. These councils affirmed that God is one, but made the distinction between Person and nature, teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate Persons who share one divine nature with the Father. In 382 the Council of Rome, with Pope Damasus I presiding, condemned the heresy, stating, “We anathematize those also who follow the error of Sabellius in saying that the same one is both Father and Son” (Tome of Pope Damasus, 2). Important responses to Sabellianism were written by Tertullian (Against Praxeas) and Hippolytus (Against Noetus and Philosophumena). ➡️These authors pointed out absurdities implied by Sabellianism, such as that the Son must be his own Father.⬅️ (Side note: Hippolytus was then an anti-pope heading a schismatic congregation in Rome. Later he was reconciled to the Church and eventually was martyred.) Modern Parallels Sabellianism was revived at the time of the Reformation by Socinius, a Reformer considered a heretic even by other Protestants. Modalism arose in America during the nineteenth century and is today taught by several Pentecostal churches, the best known being the United Pentecostal Church (founded 1914). Modern Pentecostal Modalists claim that “Jesus” is the proper name of the single divine Person who appears as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This notion is also known as “oneness theology” or the “Jesus only” position. Its proponents tend to be active proselytizers. They reject baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and instead baptize in the name of Jesus alone.” www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/sabellianism

[@OnTheThirdDay]

@@johnmendez3028 Funny thing, but as I said, Monarchican Trinitarianism (Monarche of the Father) is a common Orthodox view of the trinity and in no place does it affirm that the Son is the same as the Father. In fact, the word monarche just means one source and many trinitarian fathers (considered saints), e.g. the Capadocians, refered to monotheism by saying monarche. I believe this includes Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (not filoque). The Father is the only person of the trinity that is "a se", meaning who exists by His own self (having "aseity") whereas the Son and Spirit are eternally "caused" by the Father, are distinct persons, are not made, and are eternally existent with the Father. I recommend Beau Branson's discussions on KZbin about this. He is an Orthodox scholar of the trinity. He cites Orthodox theologians who agree with him. His doctoral research was on the Capadocian fathers who he says hold this view. InspiringPhilosophy said in one of his recent shorts/reaction videos that he holds to the Monarche of the Father. If you want a crash course on it, I recommend Jeem Apologetics video on it but Branson has a lot of videos, not all of which I have yet seen. In fact, Branson said Catholics hold to the Monarche of the Father in some senses but not in all. For instance, the filoque is related to this issue and is partly why it is viewed as super serious by the Orthodox. Note: I am not Orthodox, but this is interesting to me.

[@gracenotes5379]

Thanks!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks very much!

[@alexrdy1986]

I think the tension can be resolved if you say that in Heaven everyone is in communion in the same, true and only Church. The Catholics say that that Church is fully present in the Catholic Church on this Earth. I guess the medieval didn't have the view that you could have different levels of participation in the Only Church in this Earth. Moreover, I understand that the Dogmatic teachings on this matter are to be interpreted in a way that means: God doesn't wish his Church to be divided in this world. He really desires one Church. And to attempt against it's unity consciously is something truly serious.

[@historyclarification5881]

He mentioned that the Eastern Orthodox have some statements of exclusivity, but I don't think he cited one. Are there any examples?

[@matthew7491]

He's addressed that specifically in more detail in other videos.

[@Silverhailo21]

Doesn't it seem kind of odd to be objecting to being called a skeptic when skepticism of the Catholic Church is a prerequisite for being a protestant?

[@johng.7560]

At ~3:00 minutes into the video, the claim by the pope that you must be subject to the Roman pontiff to be saved is enough to throw Catholisism out the window and move on. Dr. Ortlund you are way too nice and polite.

[@bethsaari6209]

Excellent.

[@DanielWard79]

Well there are material schismatics and then there are formal schismatics someone born into a schismatic church is not guilty of the sin of schism. Pope Eugene the 4th is referring to formal schismatics not material schismatics. So yeah Mark of Ephesus is not in the Church

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

Protestants and skeptics all come from the enlightenment. Reason must be in submission to authority and communion (Holy Communion)

[@HearGodsWord]

They don't all come from the enlightenment.

[@darrenplies9034]

I am 100% skeptical of Roman catholic presuppositions, yes. Ark of Noah ?

[@geoffrobinson]

Not letting you gaslight me with historical retcons. How I would put it. Also, anyone familiar with 2nd Temple Judaism’s literature knows there was proto Trinitarian thinking.

[@sergioayala4379]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you 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. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. 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. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Chapter 9. Honour the bishop Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

[@eduardodelgado5378]

Yes

[@BrewMeister27]

Dr Ortlund, I think it's important to acknowledge that the concept of invincible ignorance was not unknown in the medieval age. In Dante's Inferno, the virtuous pagans (and unbaptized infants) are in hell, but they are not punished. So while this isn't an authoritative text, it sheds light on the mind of medieval man. When Protestants critique the development of Catholic doctrine, I think they tend to argue like atheists. They will present challenges to the belief without clearly stating their alternative, and the problems that accompany that. For example, an atheist will belabor the problem of evil to disprove theism but won't acknowledge that his position eliminates the existence of objective moral standards. Pointing out tensions in Catholic doctrinal development is fine, but you should be upfront that you're not simply rejecting the Catholic Church in particular, you're rejecting the concept of historic continuity of the Christian faith. Personally, I'd rather tackle the difficulties of doctrinal development than claim I'm the first person, in post-apostolic Christian history, to understand the Gospel. Because what other option is there, if everyone before you has disagreed with you about some element of the faith?

[@1984SheepDog]

I'm sure that he would respond that he has put out videos in support of the particulars a Baptist belief in light of scripture and tradition. I think the problem is that the evidence he gives is quite underwhelming 🥴

[@lyterman]

I'm happy to say I'm skeptical of Sola Sctiptura. I would just be happy to go further and say it is clearly not patristic and self-defeating.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Oh boy here we go again. No, sola scriptura is not self defeating.

[@Golfinthefamily]

I see it as necessity...clearly Peter was infallible, nor have the Popes been, and when we go to resolve what is true and good, where do we go and where do we appeal? Scripture. Yes, I know the fathers helped identify what was scripture, but it was broadly well known what was canon and what wasn't (of course with some debates). Man is flawed and will err. Scripture cannot. I think everyone agrees with that.

[@gabrieln3836]

@@Golfinthefamily Whose interpretation and application of Scripture?

[@philagon]

I don't think you understand how "skeptical" is being used here. It is not "I am doubtful about" but "I have an unwarranted standard for evidence which prejudices me from believing."

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@gabrieln3836 Not a single soul has ever had a comprehensive, epistemically perfect interpretation of the holy scriptures at large. Rome’s failure to recognize such an implication of sinful humanity is a huge flaw.

[@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370]

Skepticism: a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.

[@johndouglas4826]

Where in Vatican II does it suggest that Muslims can attain salvation outside of the Church or that of Jews? I'm quite interested in the quotes of this directly from Vatican II?

[@Golfinthefamily]

CCC 841... it says that muslims adore the same God as Catholics...which is false... and proves the church's teachings are false. Muslims despise the trinity and reject Christ as the messiah. They don't adore the same God.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

Heres one quote from the ccc. 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." Thats official teaching of the rcc that they (muslims) worship together with catholics the one true god. Now maybe catholics and muslims do worship the same god. Christians don't have the same God as muslims and i would go as far to say as catholics too. The jesus in the eucharist isn't jesus nor is it god.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@ContendingEarnestly Either Catholics think Muslims worship the same God, or Catholics believe that Muslims think they worship the same God... both are wrong. No way to interpret that correctly. so much for infallibility.

[@dri-fit9712]

@@Golfinthefamily Muslim here. The one whom both Christians and Jews refer to as “the Father” would appear to me to be the one true God. As for the trinity, Muslims hold it to be idolatry.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@dri-fit9712 If you deny Jesus as God, then you don't have the Christian God. But I do follow what you are saying. Interesting that you are watching this channel! How did you arrive here? Are you searching for Jesus?

[@sebastianinfante409]

To put us or you in the level of an atheist really bothers me. Like, really??

[@thewayfarersjourney6336]

Gavin, you're a doctor. Lofton isn't. You don't need to go down low to his level. If it isn't at least Scott Hahn arguing against you, don't waste your time.

[@EatMyKos]

That's not quite fair. Yes Gavin has studied a doctorate, but that doesn't mean Lofton is any less intelligent by any means. Did Jesus have a doctorate in the same way Gavin does? No. Do we listen to Jesus? ABSOLUTELY :)!

[@theknight8524]

@@EatMyKos Lofton doesn't even do a fair criticism!!

[@jaikelr]

Michael Lofton is a graduate of Christendom College Graduate School of Theology, where he received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies (Cum Laude) in 2018. He is currently working on a doctorate in Theology with Pontifex University and is writing a dissertation on the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

[@thewayfarersjourney6336]

@@EatMyKos because he is God?

[@thewayfarersjourney6336]

@@jaikelr exactly. Not yet a doctor.

[@Jackie.2025]

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[@bds8715]

15:14: “If you conclude from evil that God doesn’t exist, you lose your ability to call evil evil in any robust sense.” This isn’t a video on the POE but this sent alarm bells off in my head 😆 If we define evil as any bad thing, then clearly natural disasters and diseases are bad regardless if God exists. It’s a fact that diseases and disasters tend toward disvalue states and away from value states. (Value states being the real moments of virtuous happiness that real creatures really experience AND inanimate states of reality which give rise to the former; trees and rocks and bodies of water have value too (“and God saw that it was good”)). In the case of moral evil, this will depend on your meta ethical system. Mine says first that there are objective mistakes in reasoning. You ought to reason well (denying this is self-refuting). Therefore you ought to reason well in moral contexts. So I reduce moral facts to facts of reason; in other words, if something is evil, then necessarily there are reasons to refrain from the action such that performing the action is unreasonable. And I think reasons / virtues are objective. (Eg, if someone says Hitler was virtuous, they are making a mistake.) This is controversial but so is the idea that God is needed for moral facts. Indeed, divine command theory can imply that morality is ad hoc, based on God’s whims. Going the 3rd option like WLC does only pushes the euthyphro dilemma back a step. Is God good because He is God, or is God good because He is virtuous? If the former then goodness is arbitrary; if the latter then we don’t need God. We just need the virtues.

[@FalconOfStorms]

If I go outside right now and slip on the ice and smack my face into the sidewalk, the sidewalk is less real than the laws of morality. Morality is intrinsic. I did not understand this until I was indwelt with the Holy Spirit. I don't think I was capable of understanding it without the guidance of the Spirit. Morality is REAL, and it is inherently right and good to submit to the Sovereign, Who is not like us (Psalm 50:21).

[@Ternz_TV]

Gavin always after hearing a catholic explain catholic documents "MY OPINION IS...this is not an authentic intepretation of the document". Very Sola scriptura mentality "your intepretation is wrong, mine is correct". Duh, I think Gavin should at least consider that catholics are at least capable of understanding their own documents instead of him inserting HIS OPINION of what catholic documents should mean.

[@JM-jj3eg]

"Gavin always after hearing a catholic explain catholic documents..." Yeah, well that's just your opinion man.

[@theknight8524]

That's just your opinion

[@Ternz_TV]

@@theknight8524 yeah, its my opinion of gavin's opinion of what he think about catholic documents. These video of him is all based on his opinion which of course bias to him.

[@Ternz_TV]

@@JM-jj3eg yup, its my opinion of his opinion.

[@theknight8524]

@@Ternz_TV Do you have the permission of magesteriam to talk like this? Also you don't have apostolic succession!!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Once again, Jesus Christ, as well as His Church, allow for salvation through ignorance, if moved by God's grace to show mercy to another in need, and those seeking Truth, but are die before being formally admitted into the Church. Michael Lofton did an amazing job providing context, which Dr. Ortlund refuses to allow. The same Dr. Ortlund who does not provide the complete writings of the Church Fathers, but picks and chooses randomly apart from the whole! Dr. Ortlund is in my prayers as he journeys toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@YAJUN YUAN Michael Lofton did an amazing job refuting the ignorance of Gavin Ortlund who takes things out of context, in councils, and leaves out the council's complete writings, just as Gavin does with the Church Fathers. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@YAJUN YUANNo. I will! Once again, Dr. Ortlund leaves out the Church's teaching, as well as Holy Scripture, of ignorance and desire! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@danielcarriere1958]

Gavin. If you object to the phrase skepticism run amuk, then please retract you labelling typology run amuk. They are both unhelpful and serve nothing other than to score rhetorical points.

[@JW_______]

Skepticism can run amuk, typology can run amuk. Because it can doesn't mean it necessarily does in an individual instance. Gavin's skepticism doesn't. Suan's typology does.

[@jesushernandez-eo8fq]

Atheists accept the word skeptic since they dont believe in an infinite all-powerful God. Therefore, it's not an issue but rather an appropriate term to use as michael had previously mentioned. For the first 1000 years A.D. every follower of Jesus was a Catholic, then initiated the orthodox church. 500 years later, Luther took it too far and cause a revolution within the church.When Jesus told his apostles to forgive and retain sins which would be bound or loose in heaven, how on earth could you make the claim our Lord was been symbolic. An unrepentant mortal sin will put you in hell for all eternity, so a grave matter as such must be taken literally.God is infallible, which indicates he got it right the first time 🙏

[@Golfinthefamily]

Your claims have largely been dealt with by Dr. Ortlund if you wanted to interact with them.

[@JW_______]

It's really ahistorical to say that the eastern orthodox church was initiated in year 1000. The Bishops in Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch date back just as far as Rome, and their bishops denied the pope's later conception of his supremacy frankly as early as the Pope started to make that claim. Which side of the Orthodox-Roman Catholic split was correct is of course a long, involved debate, but to saye that Orthodoxy was initiated at the time of the split comes nowhere close to the truth even if Catholics were correct in that debate.