Mary's Assumption: A Protestant Critique w/ Dr. Gavin Ortlund

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

I appreciate y’all’s time putting this together. Thank you both.

[@AlixPrappas]

Gavin, brother, you are a phenomenal speaker: clear, articulate, and fair. Thank you for your research and sharing it with us.

[@thecatholictypologist5009]

The woman in Rev 12 represents Daughter Zion, whom the OT presents as both the mother of the Messiah and the mother of the new Israel. The woman in Jn 16:21 is likewise presented as Daughter Zion. Moreover, both women are presented as the new Eve. Since 16:21 points to 19:26-27, the woman in 16:21 is Mary, which makes the link to Rev 12 very plausible indeed!

[@thecatholictypologist5009]

@@tony1685 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all dead, and yet: "‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mt 22:32). Likewise, Moses died, and yet he appeared alongside Christ at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:3). Even so, Rev 12:1-5 would appear to be an apocalyptic version of the Passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus as described in John 18-20 - in which case, Mary was still living, in the earthly sense of the word. And of course it's symbolic, the Woman of Rev 12 symbolises Daughter Zion and Eve. Alas, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with you.

[@thecatholictypologist5009]

@@tony1685 If its the resurrection that is decisive, shouldn't Jesus have said that the Father "will be the God of the living"? Its 1260 days, not years. Moreover, you tell me Revelation 12 is symbolic (I agree!) and yet you read it literally ("was Mary given wings?"). Please make up your mind.

[@thecatholictypologist5009]

@@tony1685 I didn't say the resurrection wasn't the subject, I said it wasn't decisive to the matter we were discussing. Regarding days/years, does this mean Daniel is referring to 1335 years in Dan 12:12? That's an awful long time for someone to have to wait (whilst not dying). So you're saying the woman doesn't have wings, but the church does? Sola scripture = how many denominations that can't agree on what the Bible says? It's a shame that for 30 years, the Church failed to properly catechize you. It failed to properly catechize me too, but that just meant I had to do my own study, not jump ship to a tradition which is no older than 500 years and, I'm guessing in your case, to an independent church which has existed for no more than 20.

[@johnsayre2038]

I always enjoy your content Cameron, and Dr. Ortlund as well. Highly recommend Dr. Matthew Levering's book on the Assumption.

[@TheRoark]

I thought it was funny how Ortlund gave a ton of evidence against the dogma being early and Cameron’s response was “so you’re saying it’s inconclusive?“ 😂 love the content, keep having doctor Ortlund on!!

[@Ari-xv8qr]

I love Dr. Ortlund. God bless him.

[@matuskaandme5408]

Dr. Ortland gives a very good effort in navigating the Catholic views, people's view of the Catholic views, and a protestant approach to working through all of this. Many thanks for doing this video. I'm an Orthodox Christian priest serving three different Mission churches in the OCA. I wanted to clarify that there are quite a number areas in which Catholic Mariology diverges from what is held by us Orthodox Christians. These divergences are substantial ones too. It's certainly a challenge for many folks to view our teaching, see the agreements that Catholics have with us, but also to see the divergences. It is definitely a bit confusing from the outside looking in. In terms of the historicity of the falling asleep (the Dormition), "Mariology" is not really dividable, as the various teachings and feasts in the Orthodox Church are part of Holy Tradition. I empathize with a kind of forensic approach, but for us Orthodox, Holy Tradition isn't really a philosophically arrived at set of principles, it is a faithful handling down of the Apostolic teaching. Our approach is Paradosis. Dr. Ortland covers a lot of this ground. He points out that bishops and clergy and all types of folks never heard of an assumption, yet he also provides evidence that some folks knew of the tradition of the Virgin Mary dying. The Ecumenical councils show that many things about Christ were not necessarily understood or heard of (or accurately believed). I'm afraid if we applied Dr. Ortland's metric of judging the Dormition (or death of Mary and her being assumed body and soul) to Christology, the Hypostatic Union, the Two-Wills of Christs, even the Two Natures of Christ would be up for debate. On typology, I thank Dr. Ortland for bring that up. Many Church Fathers called Mary the Ark of the Covenant and very early on too (both St. Hippolytus (died 236) and St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (died 270).

[@glennlanham6309]

we may diverge from you, but not from the bible...what Apsotle started the OCA? or is it another man-made denomination that just borrowed aposotolic succession? see my book recommendation at the top

[@ninjason57]

Except you can use similar metrics. There's much more evidence for doctrines like the two wills and nature of Christ than the assumption of Mary. Whether or not it's true, Gavin's primary concern is that the Catholic Church is saying you MUST believe these things to be part of the church which can dangerously be interpreted as a necessary belief for salvation.

[@JeanRausis]

What Protestants think: "Marian dogmas are recent inventions, look at the dates" (see 6:37) The truth: These dogmas have always existed among Catholic beliefs, it's historically factual, Gavin didn't look that hard, and the Church was so careful before declaring them definitively, that it took more than 1800 years of thought and prayers before doing so. Sometimes the way things are presented changes the game.

[@anthonywhitney634]

Can you provide the historical sources you think Gavin missed?

[@aaronbarkley539]

@@anthonywhitney634 apparently not since he never responded

[@JeanRausis]

@@anthonywhitney634 of course, but is it really important since protestants will just "sola scriptura" me back?

[@anthonywhitney634]

@@JeanRausis I'm just curious about what historical sources you think Gavin missed. I don't want to debate you on the subject.

[@finnpope7745]

Thanks Cameron and Gavin, great discussion!!

[@jennytrudel3178]

Are either of you familiar with Dr. Brant Pitre? He can explain very clearly who Mary is. Please consider checking him out.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

The bible doesn't say a whole lot about Mary. The bible tells us clearly who Mary is. What she is not: mother of god, sinless, assumed, ever virgin.....Thats all from the rcc with zero biblical support.

[@cheryl9856]

Does Dr Pitre address the historical points Dr Orlund makes? If so, can you point me to a video or website where I can find more information? Thanks

[@lyterman]

Glad you're exploring Orthodoxy, Cameron. I'm hopeful that you will become Catholic, but many rush into it too quick and stumble when looking into Orthodoxy.

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

Yeah I experienced that myself

[@lyterman]

@@lucidlocomotive2014 I'm sorry to hear that. I hope all is well, brother.

[@prime_time_youtube]

Me too! I cannot wait seeing Cameron wearing an Indian Headdress apologizing for all the evil of the world while Christians are murdered everyday! Or he could kiss the HOLY Qur'an as JP II did. Even better, now that Salman Rushdie is on the news, Cameron should condemn Rushdie's book for being BLASPHEME like the Vatican did on the L’Osservatore Romano!!! Cannot wait to see Cameron doing this stuff!

[@lyterman]

@@prime_time_youtube This is very immature, and I think you should take it to prayer.

[@prime_time_youtube]

@@lyterman ...and that was the best you could say about that information. Bravo!

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

Love Dr. Ortlund. Such a fine scholar.

[@scotthutson8683]

Well done Gavin! Excellent research, clear articulation and winsome but strong delivery for doubting the assumption of Mary. Grateful for your work.

[@joyhenry-dp8nd]

As a Protestant believer who very recently joined the Church- join it soon! It’s the most freeing/wonderful thing to realize that you are under the authority of the Church and the magisterium and papal authority (which is VERY rarely used) - and the realization that we aren’t our own pope. Honestly, under the sola scriptura or even general Protestant of any kind or even an Orthadoc church- one is required to research and determine every single thing for oneself. Ie: Have you researched scripturally everything in each of the basic Councils that even knowledgeable Protestants agree with? What about the natures of Jesus and His single personhood? Have you researched Those Things to make a final call on them? Maybe the councils got them wrong! Submitting and resting in the authority of the Church from the Lord really allows one to delve deeply into loving and learning about the Lord vs just taking each theological conundrum as a puzzle you have to compete. Don’t get me wrong- I love thinking on theology too but the humility that comes with submission truly is freeing and amazing. We are the adopted children of God and children need authority structures and guidelines. :) As for determining orthodoxy- how many (and which ones) councils of foundational church teaching involved the orthodox churches vs the Catholic Church? Just one question out of many that come to my mind… It’s all good and fine to think through, research and pray on these things. In fact so needed! But at the end of the day I think one needs to ask two questions and act on them: 1. Am I willing to submit to the authority of the Church if I believe they have that authority? 2. Am I sinning to delay if/when I believe the Church has this authority from Christ? All to say- come home and receive the other sacraments from the Lord! ☺️

[@jfitz6517]

Loved the discussion. I learned a lot. I so much appreciated the graciousness & respect communicated through the critique. The more I look into the theology of Mary, the more I’m reminded of a couple of quotes from my philosophy professor in grad school: “Just because an idea coheres doesn’t mean it corresponds to reality” & “I’ve had a lot of beautiful theories that died on the back of facts.”

[@toddupchurch1028]

Thankfully Mariology isn’t a theory, it is a reality.

[@Henry._Jones]

@@toddupchurch1028 That's it. You persuaded me. I was about to write a Martin Luther-esque screed, but referencing it as "fact" sold me immediately. Where's my swimsuit? I'm jumpin' in the Tiber! 😉

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@Henry._Jones Your comment was very persuasive as well. What a wonderful rhetor.

[@Henry._Jones]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Indeed it was! ... especially considering I didn't pretend to argue the point about Mariology. Really, I was just razzing the guy a bit for giving a summary conclusion w/o really discussing the point. I meant it in good nature, but in all honesty, I can't process the KZbin phenomenon of simply asserting stuff without discussing it. Why should anyone care if I say "x is fact!"? It communicates virtually nothing.

[@toddupchurch1028]

@@Henry._Jones Oh that’s exciting! I am glad that is all it took, because the truth doesn’t need some long, verbose explanation. Furthermore, Luther had a deep devotion to the Mother of God. Don’t go into the Tiber, the Pacha mama got tossed on there. 😉

[@MrPeach1]

When Ignatius of Antioch was eaten alive the faithful kept his bones. John and Peters burial places are known. Why would the faithful have a massive blind spot for Mary?

[@phoult37]

Seems like a good buttressing point doesn't it?

[@whatsinaname691]

Because the church destroyed them all? Because she died a hundred years before people developed this weird bone thing? Because the bones attributed to her were discredited and the documentation removed? There’s a lot of arguments far more believable than bodily ascension

[@MrPeach1]

@@whatsinaname691 are you a christian?

[@whatsinaname691]

@@MrPeach1 Yep

[@MrPeach1]

@@whatsinaname691 did your original comment disappear I cant see it?

[@marcelcid182]

I think we can all agree that Mary was an important figure to the first Christians at the very least by relation to our Lord, so to be sure that no one knew what happened to Mary makes even less sense. It could be that the first Christians simply never considered that she was assumed, and were left with “I don’t know she just disappeared and it’s a mystery”, rather than that she was not assumed into heaven, died, was buried, and yet everyone was left not knowing anything about that

[@fluffyone2728]

There also is some historical basis that she was as scripture says taken care of by John and may have went with him to Ephesus and lived out her life there. There is also a tomb in Jerusalem credited to be the burial place of Mary. I agree Mary was a very blessed woman but it seems apparent to me that out of extreme respect and love for Jesus the respect for Jesus mother may have started these doctrines. On another note Goddess worship was very prevalent in Jesus time so It begs the question what unintentional role did this play in the creation of the Marian dogmas. And the fact the 2 most recent ones are under 200 years old came about with no new information available

[@marcelcid182]

@@fluffyone2728 Yeah that could have happened, there's also a tradition, though not a dogma, that she was buried, and when they returned to her tomb the body was gone and only lilies were left. The claim isn't that she was never entombed, nor is the dogma that she never died, because the eastern churches (even the catholic ones) believe she did and the west typically don't, but neither is it binding. Also don't forget, the Catholic church condemned Collyridianism in the 4th century, which was the literal worship of Mary as a goddess. As for recent ones being 200 years old, remember, a teaching becoming dogma doesn't mean it was invented at that point and was never taught or believed prior. Think of the change from the Apostle's Creed to the Nicaean Creed. It was expanded in response to heresy. In short, something becomes dogma to clarify what we should be believing because of what the Church knows to be true, instead of allowing someone to think otherwise. And besides the Marian dogmas all have to do with who Jesus is, because if Jesus is the Son of God, and also is God, then logically she is the mother of God, (and daughter of God and spouse of God, because the one God is three persons). And if John saw the arc of the covenant in heaven, then saw it immediately replaced with a pregnant woman (wearing a crown of stars, over the moon, clothed with the sun, all things used to describe heaven) that gives birth to Jesus, and she was literally the dwelling place of God on earth for 9 months, and we pay attention to allusions between references in the OT of the Arc, and Mary in the Gospels, then its hard NOT to see that she is the new arc, of the new covenant, and also a Queen, in heaven. And if Jesus is the new David, king of the new Jerusalem, of heaven and earth, then just by default she definitely is the Queen Mother of the new Jerusalem, of heaven and earth. And if we can see that she is the Eve thanks to subtle but undeniable connections in the gospel of John and Genesis, and we believe Jesus' human nature was created without sin, as the new Adam, (just like Adam, and Eve were created without sin), it stands to reason that she was also created without sin. Also, her perpetual virginity is just a matter of reading and understanding the original languages at the time. Plus, why wouldn't Jesus have left His mother with a blood brother instead of John? I definitely think that love and respect for Jesus had something to do with the doctrines, but not as the root of them.

[@fluffyone2728]

@@marcelcid182 I do I admit I am not fully aware of the full doctrines of Mary, I tread carefully forward while investigating alot about Catholicism I do agree It is from the Original church Peter put Clement as head over the church in Rome, I have recently been studying alot to understand the Catholic view point as I myself am evangelical and embarrassed by the path our church and protestantism as a whole is headed down and I think there's alot to like about Catholicism I am still working through some of these issues such as Marian dogmas and Intercessory prayers as another I struggle to see a definitive scriptural interpretation of I recognize the verses in Job used and verses such as the prayers of a righteous man avails much. I see Mary as definitely the Mother of God definitely the most blessed woman to ever live but I don't see her as Wife of God or having perpetual virginity as she had other sons. I understand the viewpoint from Catholicism that God cannot be in contact with sin and that's were alot of this comes from but I also believe God is sovereign and can do as he sees fit. That's not to discredit the viewpoint of Catholicism I just personally have not seen enough evidence to reconcile this in my own mind to be intellectually honest with myself.

[@fluffyone2728]

@@marcelcid182 Mary having other children would in no way have made her less of an amazing woman. Is the issue original sin bestowed upon all at birth?

[@marcelcid182]

@@fluffyone2728 I agree, but I think that her having children is actually a more recent idea, because I don't think early protestants believed she had other children either.

[@st.thomasreporter9350]

In order to understand the importance the Marian dogmas hold for Catholics, it is absolutely necessary to keep in mind what they reveal about us as Christians. The simplest argument a catholic can give for the assumption is that since she is without sin (showing how intimately tied this dogma is with that of the immaculate conception), the saving work of Christ having been accomplished, she would receive her glorified body before the resurrection of the dead at the time of the last judgement. It follows from this argument that she would have no reason to have to wait to enter, both body and soul, into heaven after her death. This is dogma because it reflects the good news guaranteed to all who are saved. Namely, that we will not be disembodied spirits in heaven, but rather fully alive in both body and soul, no longer slaves to sin. Since we Catholics believe Mary is without sin from the moment of her conception, she has no reason to not enter into heavenly glory with her body immediately after her death. As our highest ideal only after Jesus (an only that is infinite in degree mind you), Mary, being only human and not God, entering into heaven both body and soul is a great comfort and example of the glory that awaits all the church triumphant at the end of time

[@paularoberts866]

Interesting, thanks

[@anthonywhitney634]

Unfortunately Protestants see no evidence for Mary's sinlessness either, scripture actually goes against the idea (1 John 1:8-10).

[@paularoberts866]

@@anthonywhitney634 your right As a Christian as protestant is far too liberal a term.I don't see biblical evidence of Mary's sinlessness

[@bethanyann1060]

Beautifully said.

[@haronsmith8974]

@@anthonywhitney634 Except John is a letter talking about people in certain circumstances, hes not talking about Mary. Mary was referred to by an angel as "being full of grace" Normal people like you and me received our grace by Jesus death on the cross, however Mary had grace before Christ was even born. The only answer here is if she had been born without sin. Which makes sense as Mary is the new Eve as Jesus is the new Adam. Adam and Even were born without sin, as Jesus and Mary also were.

[@cactoidjim1477]

Protestants: "Catholics make a weird big deal over bones of the Saints." Also Protestants: "Catholics make a weird big deal of not having any of Mary's bones." Now, this is rather tongue-in-cheek, but it's something that needs explaining. Why do no Orthodox or Catholic Churches claim to have the relics of Mary?

[@jacksonstone693]

In my view as a Protestant this is the only historically based evidence I’m aware of. RCC folks love them some relics

[@jacksonstone693]

I would be curious though of a couple things, 1. When the popularity of relics was at its height (was it before or after the 450 date) 2. Were there talk of Marian relics prior to the 450 date where we start to see folks claiming in writing Mary was assumed, that were later destroyed or discredited

[@bethanyann1060]

💯

[@meghanyoung8416]

One thing I wish was discussed was WHAT ARE THE THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS (if any) of believing Mary was bodily assumed? Does it make way for additional Marian dogmas down the line? Put another way, if Mary was assumed...so what? If she wasn't assumed... so what? It doesn't seem to have any bearing on the three other existing Marian dogmas.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

As a historical matter, considering the Eastern Orthodox have always had virtually the same view of the assumption as the Catholic Church and never reneged it, there's just no place to insinuate that it's some form of late development. Others have pointed it out but the fact that the dogma was defined in the 20th century has nothing to do with whether it belongs to the deposit of faith. Dr Ortlund complains the 5th century is too late but even those dates are earlier than the formal definition of the biblical canon.

[@AndyReichert0]

the trouble is that no matter how you slice it, things that don't show up until centuries after the apostles just don't work as things that can be assumed to have always been around. that'd be like saying Donald Trump or Joe Biden represent the same views as Thomas Jefferson. Without a biblical basis or a shockingly early source, there's no case for it not being a later development when the evidence shows that it is.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@AndyReichert0 Sure, this is how I know sola scriptura is false.

[@AndyReichert0]

later development =/= false many christians have developed awesome ideas centuries after the apostles. i'm really glad that christians developed cool things like genetics, calculus, apologetics, and hospitals. did the apostles teach these things? not that we have any record of, so the intellectually honest will infer that they were later developments, but that doesn't make them false. i like to think that hospitals really do exist, even if they don't show up until long after the apostles. there's no shame in admitting when something is a late development.

[@phoult37]

@8:00 Come on Dr. Ortlund, you are well read enough to know that the year in which a Catholic dogma is defined, is not the same as when it was first held. The Immaculate Conception was defined in the 19th century, but held MUCH earlier by the Church...it's not a "new" dogma. Martin Luther himself held to the Immaculate Conception (Immaculate Ensoulment, to be more precise).

[@JeansiByxan]

That might have just been carelessness. The teaching was newer is what he meant. That it would be codified so late is strange and implausible.

[@phoult37]

@@JeansiByxan Not at all. Look at the doctrines that the Council of Trent codified, roughly 1,500 years after the Church began. Also, is the Assumption a "newer" doctrine than say faith alone salvation or eternal security? This is what makes Ortlund's entire argument so odd...it's self-refuting against Protestantism. Regarding the development of doctrine more generally, the Church's understanding of dogma and/or doctrine can develop and become more precise, but it cannot contradict. So the best argument against the Assumption would be to show a contradiction between it and previous doctrines/dogmas, but of course, one can't do that.

[@shanehanes7096]

I look forward to the Catholic critique of this video. 😃

[@Sarah-fe1hh]

Its coming!

[@shanehanes7096]

@@Sarah-fe1hh there is already one. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3PRiad8eNyWiK8

[@glorianiaga2111]

Sad to see Suan gone tho

[@jaydyle4800]

it's coming... and then gavin boy will cry about it, Mark my words

[@Matt-ck3pp]

@@jaydyle4800 Why would you want that? He seems like a good and genuine person

[@veskibateman2070]

Very grateful for your videos Cameron. I feel like the topics you cover really are close to you and to your journey - I really appreciate that.

[@dennischanay7781]

RCC convert here. Terrific job gentlemen. I never get tired of learning from Gavin. If he represented a unified Protestant position I could perhaps switch back. But the problem for me is that Protestant positions are so all over the map. When I was a boy I was part of a Baptist church that split over tongues. They condemned each other over that. Where is any authority or anchor in Protestantism? Does Christendom have any authority to appeal to?

[@michaellawlor5625]

A ship with no captain at the helm. A team desparate for guidance. No guidance, no standards. No standards, no consistency. No consistency, chaos!

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@tony1685 aren't you a millerite?

[@michaellawlor5625]

@YAJUN YUAN can you troll somewhere else, and stop chatting nonsense.

[@Iamwrongbut]

Rejecting Protestantism because it doesn’t have an ultimate personal authority (like the Pope) doesn’t make sense. It would be similar to rejecting Catholicism because it does have a Pope and I don’t like that. Either way you go has nothing to do with the truth of a position, it’s just personal preference.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@Iamwrongbut that's the chief reason why some protestants who convert to an apostolic church turn to Eastern Orthodoxy in lieu of Catholicism. It still doesn't answer the question of whether the papacy is a feature of the fullness of communion.

[@neodaltiair8624]

Man looking back it’s so clear Cameron wanted to be Catholic here lol. He’s giving so much charity for the Marian Dogmas

[@ericgatera7149]

Congratulation to Dr. Gavin and his wife for the new baby coming on Monday. I recommend your soon to be larger family to the intercession of the blessed virgin mother - Mary. Welcome to the new baby.

[@mikekayanderson408]

Agree with all you said in the Q&A about Mary and her importance being blown way out of proportion almost placing her on a par with Gods himself.

[@glennlanham6309]

Read Dr. Brant Pitre's book, Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary, blows this guy away

[@ajafca7153]

I think it all goes back to the immaculate conception of Mary. If Mary is the pure vessel, chosen from before time by God to host His very presence and towards that end Mary was conceived sinless, fully redeemed by the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, then it follows that she (being sinless) will share, as much as a creature can, the glorious fruits of the cross and the life of our Lord. Being also, in imitation of our Lord, raised up after her death. I think this is a deeply beautiful, smbolic and Christian belief, which shows us how we can participate in God's story by emptying ourselves by becoming pure vessels of the Holy Spirit, bearing His fruits. Historical analysis will only get you so far, after all, can you prove the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God historically? Or that Jesus was (is) God? I love Gavin Ortlund, btw. He is my go-to for understanding Protestant theology. Thank you guys for this video.

[@andrewk9037]

Mary was Not Sinless ... One of Her Parents Came From the Lineage of King David and Both Parents were Sinners . Jesus was Conceived through a Miracle By the Holy Spirit in Fulfilment of Bible Prophecy. Mary's Womb was Borrowed , She was Not Sinless . 1 Corinthians 15:22 AMP For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

[@lordzorg2498]

“fully redeemed by the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ” As a Protestant, we would agree with this part of your statement. Through Christ’s substitutionary and fully atoning work on the cross, Mary, and you and me, and every single Christian, are counted in the eyes of God as sinless - fully justified by Jesus on the cross.

[@michaelhines2987]

@@andrewk9037 what sins did she commit?

[@Henry._Jones]

@@bersules8 Whatever the truth is on various the immaculate conception, your argument cannot stand. God made us all, yet we're not all perfect. Of course it isn't because he made us corrupt, but rather because we fell. If the argument is that someone must *necessarily* be perfect (even post-lapsarian) merely because God made them, then the rest of us disprove that. If the argument is, rather, that God was *able* to make her perfect (again, post lapsarian), then sure, yes he could have-- but that is hardly an argument for the doctrine so much as it is for the theoretical possibility. So far as I know, Protestants don't argue against this doctrine on the presupposition that God is unable to do it. The Protestant argument is simply that Mary was a fallen human like the rest of us, *not* that a special dispensation for an immaculate conception was beyond his power.

[@andrewk9037]

@@jpc9923 You Are Wrong ! . Both Mary's Parents were Sinners and One was of the Lineage of King David . Luke's Genealogy Goes Back to Adam . In Adam All Die ... Because of Sin . Jesus was the Only One on Earth who was Sinless because He is God and the Only Means of Redemption . Mary Could Not Possiblly Be Sinless Because She is Not God . Her Womb was Borrowed in Fulfilment of Isaiah and She Was Impregnated by the Overshadowing Miracle Work of the Holy Spirit .

[@josephpotter7547]

Cameron are you going to have someone come on in defense of the assumption?

[@samuelblackmon]

If revelations 12 is good evidence for bodily assumption then it is also good evidence against perpetual virginity

[@matiaskoivulehto5880]

The wrath of the apostles peter and paul is surely interesting. What will they do to me if I'm convinced by Gavin's arguments?

[@Wgaither1]

Wonder why the Catholic Church didn’t include the wrath of Mary lol

[@philomela1102]

Perhaps there are many things, but this is issue numero uno that kept me from considering Catholicism more seriously… and there is so much appealing to me about Catholicism! Thanks for the thoughtful commentary.

[@FullMetalThomist]

That's interesting. I'm a Catholic convert from an Evangelical background and the Assumption wasn't a big deal for me. I always figured if Elijah was assumed into Heaven it makes sense that Christ would assume his mother. There's also a vision of her in Heaven with her body in Revelation 12. I think the Immaculate Conception and the Communion of Saints were much bigger hurdles for me. Obviously, I got past those hurdles and over a decade later I am very happy that I did. The Church has been an incredible blessing for me, a more concrete theology and a rich tradition of writings from great theologians and martyrs like St Ignatius of Antioch, St Jerome, St Augustine and many, many others has been amazingly beneficial. Peace be with you.

[@catholicapologetics7263]

Why would you have a hard time accepting such when the Church teaches Mary is the new ark ? Revelation 11:19 says the prophet saw God's temple in heaven opened, "and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple." if Mary is indeed the New Ark which she is , based on why the church teaches it , it should not be problematic , notice the typology , what was contained in the Original Ark ? The tablets of the 10 commandments which is the word of god , a bowl of manna , and aarons the high priests wooden staff which had a flower bulb on the end of it , what was contained in the womb of Mary who is the new ark ? Jesus who is the word of God , Jesus who is the true manna from heaven , and Jesus who is the high priest and notice when the wooden staff was removed from the Original ark what happened ? the flower bulb on the end of the staff would bloom which represents the ressurection of Jesus ! , so yes if our Blessed mother Mary is the new ark , then go back to Rev 11:19 God certainly assumed her into heaven with purpose

[@phoult37]

The Assumption was your number 1 objection to Catholocism? Like honestly, or are you just saying that for some likes?

[@philomela1102]

@@phoult37 wow! I almost never comment on KZbin, and here I get three responses from Catholics, including one that questions my sincerity! That’s my favorite. In short, yes, late tradition becoming forced dogma is my number 1 problem with the Catholic Church. No one need like or comment.

[@phoult37]

@@philomela1102 I am questioning how much you actually have thought through your position. Think for a moment that even Martin Luther held to the Immaculate Conception/Ensoulment (16th century) and that we already have 3 other examples of bodily assumptions prior to Mary in the OT. The Assumption of Mary, while officially defined in the 19th century, was long held prior to that and not at all a sensational claim given the other dogmas surrounding her. I mean, she was called the Mother of God in the 4th or 5th century? It's just a weird claim to push back against as your number one problem with Catholocism...hypothetically, you accept that Jesus instituted the Petrine papacy, that Mary is the Mother of God, and that Mary was immaculately conceived, but NOT that Mary was assumed like 3 other OT prophets before her...like, really? Maybe it's a good thing you don't comment on YT much because that is a nonsensical position to hold if you are being sincere.

[@BryceCarmony]

Was Mary's assumption even a question during the reformation? Protestants hoping Mary's body is decaying somewhere is so weird. But protestants going to protest

[@BryceCarmony]

@@tony1685 where's her body?

[@BryceCarmony]

@YAJUN YUAN I don't know so I don't declare I do . If Christ's church says he is in heaven I'll accept that. What random prot church should I attend. 1/50,000 chance I guess right sounds great

[@BryceCarmony]

@@tony1685 yeah Matthew 16:18-19 Peter's successor had the keys to the kingdom. I follow the Bible

[@BryceCarmony]

@@tony1685 Matthew 18:17 says the church gets to settle our disagreement. Will you obey the word of God and submit to church authority or will you deny God's holy word

[@BryceCarmony]

@YAJUN YUAN Mary was alive during the primitive church of course it would be unknown. Matthew 18:17 says if we disagree the church gets to decide. Will you honor God's holy word or reject it?

[@johns.9659]

The same church that preserved the scriptures, preserved the feast day, I trust in the apostolic witness of the church that handed down both

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

Did they also preserve liturgical abuses?

[@johns.9659]

@@wilsonw.t.6878 not sure what you mean by that comment?

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

@@johns.9659 You said that the church preserved X, and therefore implied X must be true. Do you mean to tell me that the sale of indulgences in the 15th century was preserved? Do you trust what the church had to say about that (the many, many bishops and priests who proclaimed those liturgical abuses)?

[@johns.9659]

@@wilsonw.t.6878 can you show me where the church in question issued doctrinal documents or dogmatic statements concerning the licit sale of indulgences?

[@thomasfolio7931]

Re-viewing this video, another thing struck me. The attack on the Dogmatic pronouncement of the Assumption because it was the most recent Dogma defined by the Church. Historically the Trinity which all orthodox Christians believed in was not defined dogmatically until the attacks on the nature(s) of Christ. In our secular world, worm holes and Black holes are a fairly new scientific topic, but that does not mean that they have come into existence recently, as too Gravity existed before Newton described it with a scientific formula. So I don't buy that because something is defined recently it is a new "invention"

[@flyswatter6470]

the virginity of Jesus has yet to be dogmatized simply because nobody has ever challenged it.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

Well, gravity can be proven long before Newton slapped a name on it. The trinity is all over the bible. Christs dual nature was discussed at Nicea because of Arius who had a major following and it needed to be put down. There was no attack on Mary's 'assumption' prior to it being defined. Have you read DEIPARAE VIRGINIS MARIAE? It was a letter sent out by Pius 12th 3-4years prior to the actual definition of the dogma. All hes asking is basically for a popularity poll. "We think this is a great idea, how about you?" "Let us know." Pius 9th did the same thing prior to defining Marys IC. It was a letter called Ubi Primum. No attack there either.

[@thomasfolio7931]

@@ContendingEarnestly yes I read it in preparation for a paper I submitted on the lead up to the definition. I also am aware that there were a number of reasons that the time was seen as opportune. The World had just come out of dark days in which humankind had seen the worst attack of one group against another, the rise of atheism and attacks on religions, both Chrisitan, and Jewish. Modernism and Secularism was the proposed answer to what had happened, asking modern man to reject the supernatural, and the idea that there was a good and loving God, if He would allow what had happened. Direct and indirect attacks on religion in general and the Church including among some attacks on Mary, her virginity, and role as an example of perfect submission to God's will. While overt attacks on the belief were overshadowed by more sinister attacks on belief, they were not non-existent. As to Newton. I'm well aware that it was described before he defined it. The point is the Assumption too was described and believed before it was officially defined. In the past few years more and earlier evidence of the belief have been uncovered. In Spain two sarcophagi from the 2nd Century were found in a Chrisitan Cemetery with Christological themed carvings including depictions of the Assumption of Mary, and there is the research of Stephen Shoemaker in his article "The Ancient Dormition Apocrypha and the Origins of Marian Piety: Early Evidence of Marian Intercession from Late Ancient Palestine" which can be found on peer reviewed the online Academia.com website. He too shows sources from the 2nd Century that Dr. O seems to not have been aware of.

[@Superman111181]

The black hole argument doesn't work because, with modern physics, there are unexplained phenomena that hypotheses such as black holes help to explain. There is literally no reason to hypothesize the assumption of Mary. It adds nothing to Christian doctrine, explains no phenomena, and it actually serves the undermine previously agreed upon truths

[@LoganDickey37]

Hello Cameron I've watched many of your videos for quite seek time now. I have seen the struggles you havw went through just like I have in many ways. I would encourage you to continue studying this and engaging all sides of this. But I recommend giving honest time to Conservative Anglicanism. As someone who went through so much turmoil between Protestantism and Catholicism I found a solid resting place in Anglicanism. Anglicanism is not without its own issues but it will give you the ability to stand firm on some very core protestant convictions and to at the same time embrace and accept many aspects of Catholicism that may seem beneficial without having to embrace what could be seen as the extreme theological views of both mainstream evangelicalism and Catholicism. Anglicanism will give you room to grow and room to form many of yoir own opinions. Anglicanism is deeply rooted in historical theology and in my humble opinion embraces the best of what historic catholicity is. God bless you in your endeavor.

[@Henry._Jones]

I'm not Anglican myself, but your comment brings C.S. Lewis to my mind. A believer of his philosophical and theological stature having been Anglican lends some weight to what you're saying.

[@itssmorphintime8496]

Could the same not be true about Lutheranism

[@MrWoaaaaah]

Hi logan, I've been where you are now once, but ended up becoming catholic instead. For me, I couldn't reconcile Anglican ecclesiology. From my reading of the Scriptures and the Fathers, their ecclesiology to me seems to be that there's one visible communion and that schism removes someone from 'the church'. Of course, modern Catholicism has a nuanced view--there are true chrisitans outside who are still partially connected to 'the church', but nonetheless they aren't fully connected. Whilst this is often seen as offensive, I do think it's the biblical/patristic view. Schism is a sin that separates someone from 'the church'. Anglicanism depends on a different notion and ecclesiology. Thoughts? God bless.

[@thinkinggamer701]

The veneration of Mary influenced the Islamic view that Mary is part of the Trinity. Look at Surah Al-Maidah (116) where Allah asks Jesus “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” When told to say not three (Trinity) in Surah An-Nisa (171), Mary is mentioned again feeding the presumption that Mary is part of the Christian trinity.

[@JM-19-86]

Mary is the mother of God in the same sense in which Mary's mother was the grandmother of God, and Adam was the distant ancestor of God.

[@joecardone4887]

Not at all. That makes marriage and being parents seem almost unimportant when you look at it that way

[@JM-19-86]

Well, if you're talking about "mother" in the biological sense, then there's no difference. Jesus had a bunch of biological ancestors. But if you're talking about the role of motherhood, then Joseph played the role of father to Jesus, so why not call him the father of God? Either way you slice it, this obsession with Mary is weird.

[@jourdan4am]

@@JM-19-86 I don't get your point because being the mother of G-d is far more important than any other earthly relationship because by being the mother of G-d she carried G-d within her that makes her analogous with the old Testament ark of the covenant.

[@charlesudoh6034]

There are three things to consider here. Conception, Gestation and Birth. Mary’s gestation and birth of Jesus was natural and biological and so that makes her the biological mother of Jesus. However, her conception of Jesus wasn’t natural and so there is no biological ancestry of Jesus

[@charlesudoh6034]

The ancestry of Jesus spoken of as the Son of David was in a legal sense, not a biological sense. Joseph being the biological descendant of David became the legal adoptive father of Jesus and so Jesus became a legal descendant of David

[@jeffreymcdaniel1947]

Orthodoxy is beautiful, led me to the Catholic Church. I pray for unity.

[@TheChurchCounselor]

So I know you had said an argument from silence isn’t really an argument but then gave a lot of credence to the argument from silence. Doesn’t that work both ways though? For instance from what I’m seeing during a time where relics of martyrs and saints were a treasured possession and also the early Church having to condemn worshipping Mary with the Colerydians. If Mary was to have died as the rest of the saints wouldn’t there be a gold rush for her bones. Being that she was the Mother of the Lord? I don’t think that’s a solid argument but I think it’s as good of one as the argument from silence of not seeing clear writing of her assumption in the lists of assumption. It’s almost the exact same thing

[@MBarberfan4life]

Sometimes an argument from silence IS a strong argument. But that's only if there's a strong expectation that something would have been mentioned.

[@mw-ys1qq]

I mean relics came later. I’ve read quite a bit of the very early church and I haven’t even come up with one example so far of the use of relics in the first volume of the ante fathers. If relics became a major part of the church’s worship at the same time or later than Mary started to be seen as being assumed why would people try and find some.

[@TheChurchCounselor]

@@mw-ys1qq 156 ad in a letter from the Church of Smyrna in regards to the martyrdom of Polycarp talks about taking his bones to a special place and celebrating the birthday of his martyrdom. Plus the existence of things like St. Peter’s bones in the Vatican would be indication that they did practice veneration of icons that early. But I could be wrong I’m no expert.

[@mw-ys1qq]

@@TheChurchCounselor that’s not exactly relics though. I mean it fits the technical definition sure but we don’t call veterans cemetery’s in the us relics. All that really says is they took his body and buried it someplace they can visit. You don’t get anything close to a full catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the his body being given some power from god. Frankly every culture takes care of their dead. I’d propose that it wouldn’t be until relics became viewed as the vessels through which god works miracles that people would start trying to get as many as possible and people would want to go find Mary’s bones.

[@PiotrDrzymkowski]

More dr Ortlund in this channel, even today :)

[@EJ-gx9hl]

While Cameron says it’s not good to just go off of feelings because the heart can be deceptive, one must also be careful in trying to go with the brain so much because too many times people become too intelligent for their own good.

[@mariateresa9965]

🙏🙏🙏

[@Indorm]

And still Bertuzzi decided to convert?

[@hannahkoala9347]

Good one, thanks.

[@Jabariada]

I'd be interested to hear Mr. Ortlands opinion of section 79 of the Panarion of Epiphanius, and why he did not include ot in his explanation ? "Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death"

[@MBarberfan4life]

I didn't even know about this doctrine until this year. I still find it to be a stretch, but perhaps I'm just ignorant. With that being said, when someone cites apocalyptic literature in support of it, (i.e. Revelation) I roll my eyes. That argument is bunk, regardless if the doctrine is true.

[@jourdan4am]

I don't see why it is a stretch. Enoch was taken because he walked with G-d and if that is the case how much more should Mary be assumed into heaven who walked with G-d even before he was born and all the way to the cross and how much more should she be assumed into heaven because of her relationship to our L-rd which was far more intimate than any other on earth? You can say a lot of things about this dogma but I don't think it's a stretch.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@jourdan4am You are committing a non seqiutur, brother

[@jourdan4am]

@@Ttcopp12rt that would be a bad analysis of my comment I merely said that is not a stretch I didn't say the assumption followed this argument.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@jourdan4am You are clearly implying it. Enoch/therefore Mary. It is fallacious reasoning

[@jourdan4am]

@@Ttcopp12rt once you establish that it is at least reasonable or not a stretch the validity of the assumption is accomplished by the necessity and power of the magisterium and the Marian apparitions. The necessity of the magisterium to resolve doctrinal disputes that have eternal consequences this necessity is unavoidable because no other mechanism is able to do this definitively. The quality of the miracles of the Marian apparitions is of the highest quality both in power and fruits is also a good argument for the assumption of Mary.

[@asgerdk]

I became catholic because of authority of the Pope, now some years later I have studied Marian dogmas and they are beautiful, deeply rooted in scripture and history. Tim Staples, Brant Pitre and Scott Hahn have great books on this matter. Hope everyone will see how enriching and true these dogmas are. God bless

[@matthewbroderick6287]

If Dr. Ortlund thinks time lapse negates an article of faith , how about the man made traditions of faith alone and Scripture alone, that came 1500 years later!

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat). In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Please don't be like Dr. Ortlund!! Dr. Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers! Saint Jerome ALSO TEACHES "Make sure you DO ALL THAT JESUS CHRIST TEACHES which is necessary to avoid Hell!". Faith ALONE? No, obedience too! If we are being honest with regard to the Church Fathers and Holy Scripture! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Jerome (347-420): Being justified therefore from faith. The matter having been handled, that no one is justified from works, but all from faith; which he proves by the example of Abraham whose sons the Jews deemed themselves exclusively: he shows by argument, that neither descent nor circumcision, but faith alone, makes sons of Abraham, who from faith alone was first justified. Which argument being concluded, he exhorts them to have peace: because no one by his own merit, but all equally by the grace of God, are saved. For translation, see George Stanley Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837), p. 122.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303Jerome ALSO TEACHES, "do not forget to do all that Jesus Christ teaches is needed to be done to escape hell". You conveniently left that out! Jerome is refuting pelagianism! Works apart from God! Yet, Jerome confirms "it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24), in cooperation with God's grace, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Jerome (347-420): For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed in God. So great was the faith of Abraham, that both his former sins were forgiven him, and it alone was declared to be accepted above all righteousness. Afterward, he burned with great love, that he prepared himself for the performance of all good works. And it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Therefore he hath glory with God, according to that which the law approved. Now to him, who worketh, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. For it is the part of a debtor to do things which are commanded: and; unless he obeys, he is condemned. But, if he does them, he has no glory: for he still is called an unprofitable servant, who does nothing more than is commanded. Righteousness is not given unto him freely: but a reward is paid for his former works. But to him, who worketh not but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for righteousness. When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not: otherwise, on account of his deeds of ungodliness, he ought to have been punished. Observe: he doth not say, that a sinner is justified through faith, but an ungodly man; that is, one who hath lately become a believer, according to the purpose of the grace of God: who purposed to forgive sins freely through faith alone. For translation, see George Stanley Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837), pp. 120-121.

[@Davisme1]

Thanks Dr. Gavin. I learned a lot!

[@winstonbarquez9538]

The immaculate conception is the cause and the bodily assumption is the effect.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

And neither are in scripture.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

@@ContendingEarnestly does not say in Scriptures that everything should be found in Scriptures.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@winstonbarquez9538 Two dogmas of the rcc aren't anywhere in the bible. And thats your response? Thats the remark catholics make when they agree their doctrines and dogmas aren't in the bible.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

@@ContendingEarnestly we are not a Bible-alone Church because Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@winstonbarquez9538 This isn't really a sola scriptura discussion. Dogma has to be believed in the rcc or else. Why wouldn't you want to see with your own eyes in the bible where is states what your popes have said is dogma and necessary to be believed? Or do catholics just blindly follow the pope on whatever he declares as dogma?

[@Npm4374]

Awesome video

[@thecatholictypologist5009]

It all rides on Mary being the new Eve. If antitypes are superior to their types, and Mary is the antitype of Eve, then because Eve was created sinless, Mary has to have been created sinless. Because death is the fruit of sin, but Mary didn't sin, she was not subject to death and decay. Therefore, she fell asleep (the Dormition), and was taken up into heaven to take her place at the right hand of her Son.

[@prime_time_youtube]

Nope, we all know that anyone can derive all kind of type/antitype models that will lead us anywhere they want us to go. When you play with symbols you can get anything, even Tertullian, who is for Catholics, either a hero or a villain (depending on how convenient is to summon him) saw Mary as a "figure" of the synagogue that rejected Christ (On the Flesh of Christ, c. 7) Let's go with Fathers and Saints: We all know that John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria clearly taught that Mary was not sinless. Though Augustine clearly thought that Mary was sinless, his teachings deny the Immaculate conception. Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe denied the Immaculate conception too. preferred

[@thecatholictypologist5009]

@@prime_time_youtube Rather, let's go with the Bible, specifically the Gospel of John. If John is presenting her as the new Eve (and this is where the debate must begin), and antitypes are superior to their types (which is biblical - Mt 12:6, 41, 42), then we are on our way, both the the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

[@prime_time_youtube]

@@thecatholictypologist5009 Red Herring Fallacy. You were so desperate that you chose to ignore my whole comment. Again... your symbolic models are irrelevant, playing with symbols we can get Mary being the symbol of the synagogue that rejected Jesus as Tertullian literally said. Also, Fathers, Saints and writers of the Church taught that Mary rejected the Immaculate conception or even considered her a sinner. No one should affirm these dogmas because there is no conclusive evidence (and I am being generous).

[@alfray1072]

@@prime_time_youtube When and where did St. John Chrysostom says that Mary was a sinner? The early church fathers believed she was sinless. That is part of the Sacred Tradition of the church that is why the Assumption and The Immaculate Conception was easily declared by the church.

[@prime_time_youtube]

@@alfray1072 Chyrosotom: _"For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son"_ Homily 44 on Matthew FYI: Superfluous vanity is a sin. There are other quotes , but this should be enough. *That is part of the Sacred Tradition of the church* Nope, many Fathers, Saints and Writers (to add Tertullian and Origen somewhere) rejected those dogmas of what you now call "Tradition." The great Augustine did not even believe in the Immaculate Conception. That is aaa big problem for Tradition.

[@danim2897]

That “feeling” is called the holy spirit. The faith is so that it will make sense to a child. Jesus came, established a church, left people in charge and you should trace that church to the beginnings. Miracles will prove that church for those who doubt. Done

[@5BBassist4Christ]

The Marian Dogmas are really the biggest hurtle for me (although I'm skeptical of the Papacy also). It is kind of like fundamentalist YEC who say that those who don't believe in a literal six days creation are not true Christians. Just like YEC say if we can't trust the creation account we can't trust the Bible at all, so too if we can't trust the Catholic dogmas, then Catholicism isn't the truth (or at least isn't the ultimate truth). So why is the age of the earth not an issue but the dogmas are? The truthfulness of Christianity isn't tethered to the age of the Earth; it's tied solely to the Resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 Paul connects this link. If then the truthfulness of Christianity hinges on Christ's Resurrection, then the age of the Earth can't disprove it. Some may have serious problems with Genesis not being "correct", -I understand that very well, but Christianity doesn't stand or fall on it, because Christianity itself at its core establishes only the Resurrection as the necessary truth. Again, Paul claims only this as necessary in 1 Corinthians 2:2. So YECs are wrong, -the age of the earth doesn't dismantle Christianity, -not even Biblical Inerrancy. But core Christianity stands regardless of the inerrancy of the Bible or the age of the earth because the core doctrine is Christ resurrected. Where Catholicism differs is that they do ground themselves in their dogmas. Unlike "Mere Christianity" -which grounds itself on Christ crucified and Christ risen, Catholicism necessitates a number of additional things. It all hinges on if the Papacy is truly infallible or not. But because it all hinges on the fallibility of the Papacy, anything that the Papacy confirms to be authoritative and unalienable dogma which proves to be fallible proves the Papacy fallible. And if the Papacy is fallible then Catholicism is false. For this reason, Catholicism stands or falls on the Papal Infallibility, and if the Papacy is proven false in any asserted unfallable doctrine, then the Papacy looses its credibility.

[@JoeDiPilato]

Most Catholics are safe if they base their epistemology on papal dogmas though. There can’t be defeaters as long as they take papal authority as their prime source of belief. Just don’t point out the circularity.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@JoeDiPilato this makes zero sense, what are you even referring to by "papal dogmas"?

[@alfray1072]

The only fallible is protestantism and sola scriptura which has created 40K+ protesting cults and sects and fallible bibles

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

@kenton Park how true!

[@CRHE]

Great video!

[@curiousgeorge555]

Seems logical that if this were an essential doctrine for salvation that God would have made it much more clear.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Not really, the Bible isn't a manual and core doctrines like the Holy Trinity aren't exactly explicit in the Bible. Even when we're talking about the basics of salvation, even when they're explicit in scripture, some protestants deny: baptismal regeneration, confession and even the Eucharist.

[@curiousgeorge555]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Speaking for myself, I have a deep, intimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ and I don't adhere to the Catholic doctrines of baptismal regeneration, confession and the Eucharist. What could account for this if these doctrines are essential to salvation?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@curiousgeorge555 that you're reading the bible wrong

[@curiousgeorge555]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj My point is that if the Catholic Church is the one true church and one cannot be saved apart from her, why is it that I have been regenerate and have deep fellowship with God in Christ? I do not belong to the Catholic Church. I believe and know that regeneration can be found outside of Catholicism. I confess my sins directly to God. I believe the Eucharist is symbolic.

[@JoeDiPilato]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj what does it mean for those doctrines to be “essential”? What would happen to someone who doesn’t believe them to be the truth.

[@elizabethburns1449]

Merriam Webster: worship - to honor or show *reverence* for as a divine being or supernatural power

[@halleylujah247]

There is more than one definition.😉

[@elizabethburns1449]

@@halleylujah247 Right. They all say the same thing. I didn't want to be rude and overstate my point with all the definitions. People can look into themselves! :)

[@BryceCarmony]

If Webster says women are anyone who identifies as women you'll accept that?

[@John_Fisher]

Hi Elizabeth. I'm assuming you are thinking of 'worship' as being due to God alone (the word has been used differently in the history of the English language, but that's what it's common use now has come to be). I think you're highlighting the wrong part of the definition, and the complete definition is important. When you highlight 'reverence', it seems that to you the operative part of the definition would just be "worship - to honor or show reverence for." By that definition, anyone we revere we would be worshipping - that would be bad. But by that definition, anyone we honor we would also be worshiping: We would be worshiping our parents by following the commandment to honor our parents - that would also be bad, and God's word would have a contradiction in it. If we instead highlight *as a divine being or supernatural power* , we then see the important operative part of the definition. It is not worship if we appropriately honor our parents and ancestors (both by blood and in the faith) - as long as we don't honor them *as divine or supernatural* . Likewise, it is OK to show reverence (deep respect) for those things and people which God has made holy, as long as we don't revere them *as divine or supernatural* .

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@elizabethburns1449 so persistent misuse of a word defines the category? What we offer to the virgin Mary and the saints is properly called _dulia_ which is merely reverence akin to the one a person admires their parents, an athlete, a hero of some sort. These are just the heroes of the Church. What you want to conflate this with is _latria_ which is to recognize God as the creator and lord of all things, including the saints. Dictionaries like Websters have to put the broadest definition possible because they have to account for whatever any sort of pagan religion or atheist might think qualifies as worship. You're resorting to literally paganizing the definition of what's due to God alone in order to smear Catholicism.

[@andys3035]

I believe Dr. Outland is a Calvinist but to say he honors Mary is only lip service. There is no practice in Calvinism where Mary is honored, celebrated or recognized in the everyday Calvinist life. I use to be Calvinist and so I appreciate Dr. Ortlund's demeanor and approach to these topics.

[@geomicpri]

“Lip service” as opposed to what? Actual worship? Well, yeah.

[@andys3035]

@@geomicpri wouldn't that be a false dichotomy? Either Mary is honored or she is worshiped, one extreme against another. Its an unnecesaary either/or. Not only that, Orthodox and Catholics don't worship her. So at best, it's a misrepresentation.

[@geomicpri]

@@andys3035 well, my question is, how do we honour someone like that? We praise or laud them for their virtues (lip service), but then what?

[@andys3035]

@@geomicpri you keep saying and "then what", pushing a false dichotomy. It would be like me saying if you don't honor the blessed virgin, then what? Then you must hate her. I'm mean, thats just ridiculous. Besides, Orthodox don't worship her, that's idolatry so you're just way off. Right now, the Orthodox church is celebrating the dormition of the theotokos. You as a Protestant don't do that, so yes, lip service. She is memorialized each year, you don't do that. The problem with you Protestants is you present these either/or paradigms when there is no need. I get you want to avoid idolatry , we do too. Just be honest in how you represent the other side.

[@geomicpri]

@@andys3035 No, I wasn’t presenting a dichotomy. I was asking, then what? You could have just answered, “Well you could celebrate days in the year that mark her accomplishments” or something like that. That’s an acceptable answer. I’d point out that Protestants tend to be hesitant to make holy days (beside Sundays) about ANYTHING, some even refuse to celebrate Christmas! So I would just say that we simply don’t see that as an appropriate way of showing respect. It’s a little ritualistic. We respect saints by referring to their examples. “Look what Abraham did”, “Look what David said”, “Look how Paul reacted”, etc. We see that as a more meaningful way to honour them than observing a day in the year for them. But ok, I suppose “marking days of celebration for” is a good example of honouring that isn’t worship. Thanks. Anything else?

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

Just the many hours of talking about Mary seem to me a distraction, Christ says if I be lifted up I will draw men unto me." The devil must be having a ball as we pontificate and pontificate and pontificate.

[@melissaminder5534]

If you haven't already, could you ask him about the current Catholic Church's practice of indulgences? Thank you.

[@findingtruth7323]

idk if he is being ignorant or just dishonest with presenting evidence that we have for assumption, please Cameron bring people like Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn or Wiliam Albrecht to show evidence for Mary's assumption properly, why didn't he mention the eagles in revelation that carried the Woman into heaven? Why didn't he mention Epiphanius' later change of mind on the mater? Makes me question if Gavin is being actually charitable here

[@Fasolislithuan]

If someone that study the Bible and the Church Fathers cannot get as true the doctrine of regenational baptism it's not surprising at all he denies another doctrines less unanimous in Church Fathers or with some development in history of the Church. But when these people oddly affirm another doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc... that has havent any development in the Church until 1500 years after Christ I fell inclined to suspect they're not completely sincere

[@hometownapologist7879]

This is 100% accurate. I enjoyed listening to Ortlund for quite some time and at least appreciated his willingness to engage with the ECF. But as soon as he decided to take the route that baptismal regeneration wasn't virtually unanimous, that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. At that point I knew he was either not a serious interlocutor at best, entriely disingenious at worst.

[@sillysyriac8925]

@@hometownapologist7879 absolutely! You can make a good argument on bodily assumption but to deny baptismal regeneration is absolutely bunk and reeks of being disingenuous.

[@HisLivingStone241]

@Ed Fasolis so you haven't read any Patristic Church Father?

[@whatsinaname691]

Question for Catholics: if Mary was sinless, then why does she side with Jesus’s brothers against him? It might not be a sin, but it’s not helping the case for her having lived perfectly either

[@joecardone4887]

What are you referring to?

[@whatsinaname691]

@@joecardone4887 Mark 3:31-35, and the parallel verses in Matthew and Luke, plus John 7 all indicate that Mary was siding with Jesus' (step)brothers/cousins and trying to interfere with his ministry.

[@virmariannmedado7408]

I don’t think this man is more intelligent than the great Saints of the Catholic Church, at the end of your Life you will regret doing this , the Blessed Mother is the perfect disciple, HerHumility ,Her Love and Faithfulness to GOD makes Her Blessed among women and all humanity and that is why She was chosen to be the vessel of the Son pf God. You can only find Truth to the only Church the Son of God founded

[@LovedandSavedbyYah]

Hmmm "Bertuzzi"...An Italian saying he's "a protestant" to then come out very publicly as a "proselyte to catholicism". 🤔😊😅😅😅 The term "Controlled Opposition" comes to mind...

[@vanorum3804]

If there's one term that I find absolutely infuriating when Protestants talk about Mary it has got to be "vessel (of the Lord)". it just sounds yucky and doesn't do justice to our mother. I would even go as far as saying that it disparages her.

[@Henry._Jones]

I think you may be reading too much into that. Alternative words might be plenty acceptable too, but "vessel" seems to be a plenty neutral, non-pejorative word that simply refers to something containing or carrying something else, like the Ark of the Covenant did, which is the typology Catholics themselves use when discussing Mary's role in redemptive history. I'm Presbyterian, but I certainly aim not to be disrespectful or cavalier in discourse with Catholics, and I've never understood that word to mean anything crass or coarse.

[@JM-19-86]

She is not your mother or my mother... She's been dead for 2000 years.

[@inthesprawl]

Papists use that term all the time though.

[@JoeDiPilato]

In what sense is she your mother?

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

Are you as offended about the many derogatory ways Christ was treated and spoken about? Do you experience the same rage? If not, why not?

[@anithasangma829]

I,am proud to be a Catholic 👍👍👍👍😋🙏🙏

[@RoyCarter]

Catholic thinking is tricky when you come at it from a protestant view point. I overheard someone questioning why a person would be praying for a family member who had already passed away. The reply was that while we move along in a very linear way through time, God isn't under any set time and knows your prayers and can respond (in our past) even if the event has passed by for us. We don't do good with that kind of thinking, and come up with stuff like Calvinism and predestination. When Jesus gave the binding and loosing authority, Mary would be bodily assumed when she died, because his church said so, even if it was 1955 years after the fact. Time isn't a factor, there is no "lateness". It is fun thinking about this stuff though, but its more contenting and peaceful to rest in mother church, get your sacraments regularly, and get on your knees before God the Son each Sunday. And try to pray a rosary every day. Peace be with you!

[@Iamwrongbut]

Wow there are so many assumptions in this comment with no biblical support. Please show me a verse that talks about God being outside of time like you describe.

[@1984SheepDog]

You are totally wrong. The justification for praying for dead non catholics or fallen away catholics is very different from theological facts of history. Mary was assumed into heaven because she was predestined to do so, and the binding power of the church doesn't make it so but the church only "binds that has been bound in heaven".

[@1984SheepDog]

@@Iamwrongbut you are wrong

[@kennylee6499]

that seems like a very untenable cop-out

[@kronos01ful]

again and again... Mary Don't intercede for anyone! our Lord and savior was very clear, you pray to the father in my name and I will do according to do according to his will. scripture says pray for one another not to one another.

[@AndyReichert0]

Cam's next fundrasier should be making/selling awesome bleach dye shirts like the one he's wearing.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Many of the Protestant reformers totally disagree with modern day Protestants on Mariolgy! Many of them taught Mary was the Mother of God, pure and free from sin and was always a Virgin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Ty1 Yes! Mary was saluted by the Archangel Gabriel as being full of grace, even before baptism, which removes sin, as Mary is the foretold woman in Genesis at emnity with Satan! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Ty1 Yes, for just as God was very specific about how the Ark of the Lord of old was to be designed, a pure dwelling place for Him, all the more Mary, the Mother of the Lord, created like Eve, full of grace to give allow the Author of Grace to dwell! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Ty1 My pleasure! Mary was saved from sin by God's grace and her cooperation with God's grace! Eve, like Mary, was created without sin. Mary was created by God free from sin, full of grace, to be His worthy dwelling place, she the foretold woman in Genesis at emnity with Satan! Mary was saluted by the Archangel Gabriel as being full of grace, even before baptism which removes sin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@charlesudoh6034]

@Ty1 _”as a human, how did she remain sinless for the entirety of her life”_ That was possible because her nature wasn’t tainted or corrupted by sin. You see, when we talk about original sin and being born with it, we don’t mean we have done something wrong, what we mean is our human nature is corrupted and we would all experience a *tendency* to sin which we inevitably give into by committing an actual sin. Its sort of like a round and smooth object, like a ball (humans), on the floor that has a tendency to roll (sin) if pushed (tempted) a little. It’s because of its shape (nature). The human nature of Mary on the other hand was preserved from the corruption of sin and so she didn’t experience the tendency to sin. To answer your question, Mary, as a human remained sinless her entire life because there never was a tendency to sin. Think of my example earlier, Mary would be a square box on the floor, it won’t roll (sin) even if pushed (tempted) because of its shape (nature). It has no tendency to roll (sin).

[@charlesudoh6034]

@Ty1 Well, this was indeed how humanity was and is meant to be. We weren’t created with a sinful nature. We weren’t created with a tendency to sin. That’s the whole idea of “The Fall”, the sin of our fore parents comprised the nature of all that came afterwards. Now, you must be thinking, if our fore parents didn’t have a sinful nature and a tendency to sin, how then did they sin? After all, I said Mary was sinless because she didn’t have a sinful nature, why didn’t Adam and Eve remain sinless since they didn’t have a sinful nature either? I should point out that while not having a sinful nature means no tendency to sin, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible to sin. If you factor in our free-will, we do have the freedom to sin. It just means sin is very unlikely. It was very possible for Mary to have sinned even though she had no tendency to sin, just unlikely. Same with our fore parents.

[@Ternz_TV]

here is my straight up question to Gavin, "would God be mad if catholics believe in the Marian dogmas? If yes, why?", cause I dont see why believing that Mary was exulted by God would make God mad at us. 🤔

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

God would be angry that based on your view of her you pray to her. You call her the advocate. You call her the gate. You call her the intercessor. You call her the ark of the covenant. You have given her titles and worship that should only be for the Christ. It is the sin of IDOLATRY that He God would be bothered by. He said I am sending my son for your sins,. YOu have insisted that he should also send his mother for your sins. And yes, while you would never admit that in words you perform it by your deeds.

[@Ternz_TV]

@@thelinkeducationalsupports2949 none of those title to Mary meant "worship". Clearly you don't know the biblical understanding of worship, what you only knew about worship is HOW PROTESTANTS DEFINE it.

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

@@Ternz_TV Just because you say a thing does not mean worship does not mean it does not. Jesus says I AM THE WAY. I AM THE TRUTH> I AM THE LIGHT. I AM YOUR INTERCESSOR at the right hand of God. Mary is seat of wisdom. Hmmm..Refuge of sinners. Morning Star.Cause of our Joy. Man Mary is God. And whether you admit it or not, my dear YOU WORSHIP MARY and accord to her titles that are for Christ and Christ alone. But I understand, you are too near to what you are doing to SEE the error of your PRACTICE. May God, have mercy on you especially if you are doing it out of naivete...out of a sincere search for Him; Here is the good news of the gospel. Only God knows your heart. If you are looking for him he has made you a promise. : If you seek ME, not Mary, YOU WILL FIND ME. isnt that a marvelous promise. No one wants to end up in HELL. You dont and neither do I. Let us keep calling for God to show himself to us throuh his SON. He Christ was the perfect expression of the Godhead.,

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

@@Ternz_TV So why have you not told me the biblical definition of Worship? Why have you dangled before me your knowledge of worship but refrained from sharing it. Is that kind or cruel? I know, you have assumed I would not wish to hear it. That way you can justify calling me a PROTESTANT. Is that a loving way to handle someone? Hmmm..

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

@@Ternz_TV kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJXdg4WJfJJ6Y5I This confuses my understanding of the role of the magisterium and priesthood. It is not a one off. It is a culture of such practice. And this is only what we have been told. The magisterium dont believe that you are a hireling when you do this? And so you stay on to do it again and again. And because the Magisterium does not deem it the thing to do God's little girls and boys are daily violated. What an awesome magisterium! Packed with men, who satiate thier lust on all and sundry. Who hide under long black gowns to hide thier blackened hearts. Are all priest guilty NO! NO! NO! Do protestants pstors do the same? YES . YES. YES. but because we have no head to guide us, perhaps that is why according to Catholics we might be in this fallen state. But you are not fallen! YOu are hand picked by God to show the world how to live for him. Help! I just need understanding of WORSHIP, of blatant Sin, of how to know Christ of everything. I am sure you are at peace about it all.

[@EthanLington]

It’s alright Cameron, when you’re ready the Catholic Church will make you sit through RCIA before you can truly receive the Eucharist. It’ll take months of study and understanding even when you’re “ready” in your own mind.

[@JoeDiPilato]

Sounds exciting

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Did it take "months of study" for the 1st Century Christians to "truly receive the Eucharist"? What does it mean to "truly receive the Eucharist"?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 catechumens really did take a long time to get ready for baptism

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj You speak correctly, and I have also pondered why; considering the earliest record of "the church" as recorded in Acts, did not wait to baptize people. Why did the practice of baptism "develop" to something different than was practiced in the earliest recordings?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 So you think the Church died within the first century?

[@aaronbarkley539]

Imagine saying: “this is a moderate piece of evidence.” About something that if you don’t believe you go to hell. If this isn’t true then you are required to believe false belief or you go to hell according to Catholicism.

[@haronsmith8974]

I'm Catholic, what you said is wrong. Faith isnt a checklist of things you need to believe before you die or you go to hell for eternity. People who repent and join Christ in communion go to heaven. Your judgement isnt going to be a theological exam.

[@platospaghetti]

If the Marian dogmas are false at worst and highly questionable at best, how is that not a defeater of RCC? Papacy demands you to believe this on the basis of their authority, and if the Marian dogmas aren't part of the Gospel, then RCC is distorting the gospel and should be anathema 👀 not saying that it is, but the consequences are terrible, I think, if the dogmas are false.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

"if"

[@platospaghetti]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj yes if, that's the question Cameron asked 😅

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@platospaghetti I mean, I agree. The whole point is that they're true so it really is a counter factual to the Catholic Church's claims of authority if they were false.

[@platospaghetti]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj ah yes, then I understand 😅 I just feel like this is a vital piece of evidence against RCC since its lacking in the apostolic deposit (to borrow from Dr Ortlund), and even some RCC Apologists (or so I heard in the video) argue for them simply because of the Papacy. How can we come to see the Papacy to be true if all it takes is for the Papacy to say that the Papacy is true, similarly to the Marian dogmas. We must be able to test the claims of RCC against some standard, otherwise it's all completely arbitrary 🤔 or am I missing something? 🙂

[@charlesudoh6034]

@@platospaghetti Not being a part of the Gospel doesn’t mean a distortion of the Gospel. That’s just wrong and the misconception most protestants have when the issue of Scripture and Tradition comes up. Unbiblical or Unscriptural doesn’t mean not in the bible or scriptures, it simply that which is contrary to what is in it. Unless you are saying the Marian dogmas are contrary to the information and revelation of scriptures (in which case I would love to know how), I don’t think your point of distorting the Gospel is valid.

[@accordingtoluke8712]

Are there any Christian channels like this, but in German?

[@_Gormakesh_]

If she wasn't taken into heaven, where is her body?

[@kennylee6499]

6ft under??

[@rubenmartinez4346]

Nah. We have many relics, Catholics would have dug her up a long time ago.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@kennylee6499 classy.

[@Super_bus_machine]

Her body decomposed

[@Iamwrongbut]

Where was Moses buried!? Sometimes the Bible doesn’t care to comment on it. This is a horrible argument.

[@pigetstuck]

"I need to slow down and take time to go through these different issues"... three months later... "I'm converting!"

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

From what to what? (smiling)

[@pigetstuck]

@@thelinkeducationalsupports2949 what?

[@heidigabalski6335]

Thank you both for this ✝️❤️🙏

[@lyterman]

Where are you at nowadays with the annihilationism thing? Still undecided?

[@BryceCarmony]

Where does the Bible say Mary Died? I guess I just assumed God was Sovereign

[@Iamwrongbut]

It doesn’t say either way. It’s ironic then that her bodily assumption is simply an assumption by Catholics. There is no evidence of it for the first 400 years after Jesus’ ministry.

[@BryceCarmony]

@YAJUN YUAN Matthew 18:17 says the church decides disagreements between us. Will you accept the divine word or will you reject God's word?

[@doctorg.k.spoderminsr.2588]

13:02 - This is a simplistic syllogism with vague terms that isn't going to change anyone's mind or bear any dialectal fruit. Protestants are reluctant to affirm "Mary is the Mother of God" because of how incredibly ripe that statement is to be exploited by equivocation and pre-loading of various assumptions into it. The idea that this an easy litmus test for whether we "understand the incarnation" is arrogant and absurd. The incarnation is perhaps the most mysterious and paradoxical thing within Christianity. We "understand" very little about it and we cannot put it under our thumb with neat little syllogisms.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@Doctor G. K. Spodermin, Sr. I'm not sure which Protestants you're referring to, but magisterial Protestants--confessional Protestants--are by and large bound to the Chacedonian Definition, which states that the Christ was "before the ages, begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-Same, for us and for our salvation, was born of Mary the Virgin, Theotokos as to the Manhood...." So the context is very specifically delineated and simply cannot be, in any effective sense, "exploited by equivocation."

[@mikejurney9102]

Do you really think Peter or Paul would have been caught dead bowing down to statues and burning incense to them? Do you think Peter would have claimed infallibility?

[@jesusstopsbullets5111]

God commanded Moses to make two statues in Exodus 25:18. I bet some prayers were said in front those statues. Do you think that Solomon bowed to pray to God. In front of the statues he made in 1 Kings 6:28-38. I wonder how many prayers were prayed to God, in front of those statues. Or how about the other statues he made in, 1 Kings 7:36.

[@jesusstopsbullets5111]

We don't bow down to the actual statues buddy. We are Praying to God, not the statues. The statues are nothing more than an artistic representation of the Saint. That statues are getting payed to.

[@mikejurney9102]

@@jesusstopsbullets5111 I've been there. I've watched them. They light a candle that is in front of a statue of Mary. They get down on their knees. They put there hands together, and they pray. I've watched the priest offering incense on the altar (wherever the notion of an altar comes from) and they bow to the statue of the crucified Christ. And I'm sure the ancient Romans said the same thing about only bowing down to a representation (they called it the image) of their gods - that the statue itself is not the god they worship. That's way too much syncretism and religiosity for my tastes.

[@jesusstopsbullets5111]

@@mikejurney9102 they pray to God, not the statue. 🤣🤣🤣

[@jesusstopsbullets5111]

@@mikejurney9102 Jesus is God so bowing down to a crucified Christ is perfectly fine. Idolatry is the worship of false gods. Jesus is not a false god buddy.

[@alexd4066]

Hey Cameron, love your content, any chance you’ll have these on Spotify?

[@numbernine8571]

no. no chance. never gonna happen. ok?

[@BryceCarmony]

Saint Epiphanous affirmed the bodily assumption in 350. He didn't affirm Sola scriptura oddly

[@Fasolislithuan]

Exactly. No one affirmed Sola Scriptura at least until 1500 years after Christ but many protestants afford to deny ancient doctrines like Theotokos or assumption of Mary because they were not full articulated in the first 200 years. An exercise of inconsistency

[@yochananandreas3148]

Why should a non RC care? On top of that, using a 350 quote is historically bad when it comes to 1st century issues.

[@Fasolislithuan]

@@tony1685 So then no one follow truth until Luther. Protestantism is hilarious. And, of course, absurd.

[@BryceCarmony]

@@yochananandreas3148 who mentions sOlA sCrIpTuRa in the first century?

[@JoeDiPilato]

If I had a nickel every time a Catholic picked on sola scripture as if it was a dichotomy…

[@bethr8756]

A frequency argument?? The Bible says all have sinned! Does Bertuzzi read the Bible?? I don't think he needs a program yet, till he studies more

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

The assumption is not just a Catholic belief.. all the apostolic Churches share this teaching and it didn't start in the 50s with munificentimus Deus, the orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) the Assyrian Churches of the East also believe this... Go to orthodox shahada's channel and see how orthodox celebrate this also.. Trent Horn and William Albrecht have done refutations as well.. and p.s. Gavin Ortlund is already whining...

[@defeatingdefeaters]

Re. Introductory statements here: I agree the issues are extremely complex and there aren’t any *silver-bullet* arguments one way or the other to settle the matter. This is true in many domains of thought. Does that mean ones seemings or experiences (Cameron mentioned he feels drawn to the Catholic Church) are relevant to decisions made about becoming Catholic or not?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

they're always relevant, that's how anyone decides anything at all. Cameron's own experience with this interview is something he now has to take into account for example.

[@defeatingdefeaters]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj the part I’m trying to emphasize is the thing I said about *silver-bullet* arguments not likely being available. At some point a person will need to make a decision about X, but they shouldn’t be surprised (or too concerned) if there remains some countervailing argument. Those are expected to exist.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Romans 3:23 Mary is part of the "all" here. That is, she is a member of the human race.

[@mccra9480]

We all know that statement is a hyperbole to mean that we all fall short, but actually Jesus was 100% human too, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and yet we cannot say He is part of that "all" who have sinned. This can also mean that Mary, can become an exception too, being that she is the New Eve of the New Creation. If Mary has ever sinned, that means there is no difference between her and the Old Eve. That's not how typology works. The fulfillment is always better and grander than the prefiguration. Mary is the real Ark of the Covenant who bore in her the Word Made Flesh, the eternal King of the heavenly Jerusalem and all creation, and the true High Priest- Our Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was hailed "full of grace" by the angel Gabriel as her grace was sustained by God for being the God-bearer. If you knew your Old Testament, you would understand the role of Mary in God's divine plan of salvation, and God has sustained her holiness and blessedness, being the first fruit of the Jesus' work on the Cross.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Jesus is the exception because he is 100% human and 100% God. He got the 100% human part from his 100% human Mom. It was necessary and fitting, in God's eternal plan of salvation, that Jesus' mother be a sinner just like the rest of us. It was the only way that Jesus could offer a perfect sacrifice in our place.

[@mccra9480]

@@rolandovelasquez135 Mary is the fulfillment of the old testament figure of the Ark of the Covenant, in which the following were kept 1.) the 10 commandments 2.) Aaron's staff 3.) the Manna in the desert. In Mary's womb, she carried Jesus Christ Who is 1.) the Word Made Flesh (prefigured by the 10 commandments) 2.) the true High Priest (represented by Aaron's priestly staff) 3.) the true Bread of Life (the Eucharist), which was prefigured by the miraculous manna/wafer-like bread in the desert. The old Ark of the Covenant was kept in the Temple of God's Holy of Holies and is overshadowed by the Spirit of God. If Mary is the true Ark of the New Covenant, then where does the new ark belong? It belongs in the heavenly Holy of Holies, and not just Mary’s soul because it wasn’t just Mary’s soul that’s the ark that carried God, It is her body. So, it is fitting that being the real Ark, that at the end of her life, her body would be taken up into the heavenly temple to be with God, overshadowed by God the Holy Spirit. Pope Benedict XVI said in his homily on the Assumption of Mary, August 15, 2011, “If Mary is the new ark, it makes sense that her body would not experience corruption, but would be brought up into the heavenly Holy of Holies.” Remember, the old ark was made of incorruptible wood, and so was the body of Our Lady- the ark of the NEW covenant.

[@mccra9480]

@@rolandovelasquez135 it is NOT fitting for the New Eve to be a sinner. If Mary, the new Eve, was not sustained by God's grace to be free from sin, then what's the difference between her and the old Eve? Typology does not work that way. The FULFILLMENT is always BETTER than the prefiguration. Mary is part of the New Creation, as inaugurated by His Son, Jesus Christ- the new Adam. Just as the fall in the Old Creation was participated by both the first man and the first woman, so to is the redemption in the New Creation, where everything is perfect, and is accomplished through the cooperation of the new Eve with the new Adam. "the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary." -St. Iranaeus

[@rolandovelasquez135]

@@mccra9480 great human reasoning I will admit.

[@gordonkalamasz121]

As a catholic I can say this was very well spoken I was watching this video more of a judge of the channels quality (which id rate very highly so far so great job) then actually questioning the topic myself I would say I’m very strong in my catholic faith and do trust the papacy all that being said I have very few problems with what was said 1 I’d like to suggest that it is at least possible 3 competing theory’s came about around the same time because of tension over what was true that would give credit too the guy that said nobody knows and then for the next 1500 years (which seems like a reasonable Amount of time to wait before declaring dogma) the Holy Spirit had revealed this truth to us and 2 as for one of those last questions of was Mary sinless I do not believe it is catholic teaching that she was only that she was born without original sin but not that she remained perfectly sinless her entire life I do believe I had a third thing but for the life of me I cannot remember it

[@BryceCarmony]

Matthew 18:17 says to take disagreements to the church. If Gavin disagrees with me he doesn't get to study it out. He doesn't get to say whatever he wants. TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH. When Gavin reads the Bible he might head out someday

[@JoeDiPilato]

Don’t believe it based on evidence, believe it because you have to.

[@mikekayanderson408]

The Gnostics were around when the early Church was in its infancy and they were condemned by the Apostles as false teachers

[@anujose8493]

Enoch and Elijah were assumed to heaven with their body. So why wouldnt Mary the Mother of God be assumed? I just dont know why Protestants have a hard time with her. She is the best , highest human being who ever existed (Given that Jesus was God and Human). God exaulted her. Its foolish to assume that she is a common human like everyone else. And also.. in the old testament its written clear that the Mother of the King holds power. If Jesus is King of Kings, how is it possible not to feel reverence for Mary? We imitate Jesus only if we love Mary! Cant face Jesus in afterlife when you hate or ignore Mother Mary.

[@yochananandreas3148]

No they weren't taken into heaven. If they were, that would mean that Jesus was wrong in John 3:13.

[@yochananandreas3148]

Mary was the blessed mother of the Lord, but glory belongs only to God. All humans have sinned, none is righteous, not even one. If God can make the blessed Mary sinless, he would have done it with all of us without the need of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

[@anujose8493]

@@yochananandreas3148 Mary did the will of the Lord completely! The Angel Gabriel said "Hail Mary ful of grace, the LORD is with you". She is not to be compared with us sinners. Even at the cross she does not condemn people for killing her son. She is full of forgiveness and does what pleases God. When she arrives Elisabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit. While she is a human, there is not one who is greater than her.

[@anujose8493]

@@yochananandreas3148 In John 3 Jesus talks about being from heaven. That the son of God come from heaven to testify and save. Not literally " he first ascended then desended to then ascend again" .

[@yochananandreas3148]

​@@anujose8493 Read carefully sister, no one has ascended to heaven except the on who came from heaven. Elijah and Enoch were transported somewhere on earth not into heaven, or at last not into the heaven that we in the post NT period understand. Study the text again. We in the EO church sing that as well, but we do not believe that marry was without sin. Some church fathers believed that she was without an others didn't, but logic and scripture dictate that she was just a human in the end, which makes the birth of Christ even more magnificent. Was she a better believer and human being then me? Most likely. But when it comes to my salvation, I put it in the hands of the Lord in Whos name I was baptized, his sacrifice tore down the curtain which separated us from God and now we are free to approach our Father without guilt. Nor the blessed Mary neither the saints need to intercede for us. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 Be blessed sister

[@Ternz_TV]

Gavin "I dont think Mary was assumed to heaven" except that the bible has two OT figures assumed to heaven (enoch and elijah) and Paul said those who are alive at the second coming will also be assumed to heaven (1 Thess 4:17).

[@nancybarry4150]

Do you believe in going to Purgatory????? Confessing to a Priest? What was the point of Jesus dying for ALL our sins, if you accept your not completed absolved, therefore go to Purgatory? Ridiculous! I confess daily and directly to God. No need for a middle man. While there are aspects of Catholicism that I do believe in, the Eucharist being one of them. I’m praying you really examine your heart and your Bible. Once saved, always saved.

[@mccra9480]

What you are actually saying is that you don't need God, you just need yourself. Because God, sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to be incarnate of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to complete a mission. To save us- yes, through His passion, death, resurrection, and ascension- yes, but also, He established a Church (Matt 16:18 Now I say to you that you are Peter [which means ‘rock’], and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it") and His sacraments here on Earth for our sake. Christ commissioned a Church to continue His mission on earth (John 20:21 “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you"), while He interecedes in heaven. He instituted the sacaraments so that His Church here on earth are be able to physically be with Him, personally be able to receive His pardon and absolution, and be in communion with Him for all generations, through His sacraments- made efficacious by the power of the Holy Spirit, celebrated by His ministerial priests who all act in the person of Christ, until He comes again. Christ said, he will never leave us orphans, and while He physically sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, He is also here present with us on Earth through His sacraments, animated by the Holy Spirit. John 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, BUT YOU WILL SEE ME. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and SHOW MYSELF TO THEM.” To deny Christ's Church and His Sacraments is to deny the giver, who is ultimately GOD.

[@joecardone4887]

If you believe you’re once saved always saved does this mean you believe once you’re “saved” you can do whatever you want with your life and still go to heaven?

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@user-wg5dm6oc3t *Nowhere in the New Testament does it say we should confess our sins directly to God.* You mean like this one? 1 John 1 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Thats us confessing directly to God. I don't have time to correct the rest of your post. But there simply is no purgatory. If you die with sins not atoned for you are going to hell, not purgatory. Your ccc 1475 says you expiate your sins in purgatory. Expiation is part of the definition of propitiation. Romans 3:25 says Jesus is our propitiation, not you. He atoned for our sins, not you.

[@jimmydavid1993]

25:25-40 is a hallmark of Protestantism's 'my own interpretation' strategy and consequently irredeemable arrogance. Hopefully, you don't follow your wife's advice in all matters even when it is beyond you.

[@mc07]

If anyone person in history was sinless, they would not need the forgiveness of Jesus on the cross. Contrary to probabilities/frequencies that Cameron was talking about, the Bible is clear that no-one is righteous, not one. That's why we need Jesus.

[@mccra9480]

Why do you doubt that God can create a sinless person by merit of his Son's work on the cross? Do you underestimate the power of God? He created two other sinless man and woman in Genesis, until they fell. For they were created, and were "very good" Gen 1:31. We must remember that. Therefore, it is not impossible for God to create the new Eve to be "full of grace", as the arcangel Gabriel hailed Mary to be, for NOTHING is impossible with God.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@mccra9480 Mary wasn't created, she was born of two fallen parents. Adam and Eve were created. Big difference.

[@mccra9480]

@@ContendingEarnestly "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you" Jeremiah 1:15 Are you saying God could not have created Mary, nor any one of us, because we had parents? Are you saying that God does not have a hand in every human being's creation because we were born of another person? Be careful now. Because of your stubbornness, and hardness of heart, you are falling into the temptation of limiting God's power and greatness according to the scope of what you allow yourself to believe. Also, following your logic, that would mean that Jesus would have also had original sin since He was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who you assume to have had original sin as well, being born of St. Anne, and so on and so forth. I hope you don't mean that, because that's blasphemy. It's a temptation to trust in our own understanding rather than trusting in the Lord's wisdom through His Church. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight." (Proverbs 3:5-6) May God give you eyes to see and ears to hear.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@mccra9480 *Are you saying God could not have created Mary, nor any one of us, because we had parents? Are you saying that God does not have a hand in every human being's creation because we were born of another person?* Sigh, yes God created us. You compared Mary with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were not born of fallen parents, Mary was. Apples and oranges. But i'm sure you know exactly what i meant. And there isn't a shred of scripture to suggest Mary was sinless. *Be careful now. Because of your stubbornness, and hardness of heart, you are falling into the temptation of limiting God's power and greatness according to the scope of what you allow yourself to believe.* Ya right. I'm just reading the text. I don't have to READ INTO the text what i want to see. You apparently do. Why would the n.t. say Jesus is without sin multiple times and not say it about Mary even once? Because shes not. *Also, following your logic, that would mean that Jesus would have also had original sin since He was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary,* You left out an important part. Why did you do that? Not trying to cheerlead for rome are you? Jesus was born of Mary AND....? I'll let you finish that thought. So no, Jesus would not have inherited sin since He is not the product of two sinful fallen human beings. Catholics love to throw God under the bus when their marian dogmas are questioned. *It's a temptation to trust in our own understanding rather than trusting in the Lord's wisdom through His Church.* You trust in your church, i'll trust in God and His written word.

[@mc07]

@@mccra9480 full of grace doesn’t mean sinless. She was indeed blessed to be chosen by God to give birth to Jesus. And God was no doubt pleased to bless her in such a way. And I have no doubt she was a faithful Christian. But theologically, the Bible teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. All have sinned. It doesn’t say God preserved or kept Mary from sinning. Or that she was sinless. The Bible teaches that humanity is sinful. It’s not whether or not it’s possible for God to create a being that will not sin, it’s about what did happen and what the Bible teaches.

[@alexjurado6029]

If Catholics / Orthodox and Protestants really are moving further and further apart from each other on this issue, it’s only because Protestants are the ones who have moved further and further away from ancient, Apostolic Christianity. The original Protestant reformers had very high Mariology, especially compared to modern Protestantism.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@Alex Jurado. In point of fact, the Protestant argument is that CATHOLICS have continued to move farther and farther from ancient, Apostolic Christianity, not declaring the dogma of the Assumption as De Fide until 1950. You can make somewhat reasonable arguments for the earlyness of Mary's Perpetual Virginity or for her life-long sinlessness, but you simply cannot take a credible stand for her Assumption. It's not there in Scripture, and it's not there in the Apostolic Fathers. It's totally absent.... (And you actually can accept the four main Marian dogma's without having a particularly "high Mariology." Most Protestant academics--as Dr. Ortlund noted--have no difficulty proclaiming the BVM as "Theotokos." And the other three dogmas don't really change much of anything, as long as you don't embrace the veneration and invocation of Mary, which are also utterly missing from early church texts.)

[@alexjurado6029]

@@ericcarlson9885 Yes, I’m aware of what the Protestant argument is. And it’s ridiculous. If the Protestant claim is that the Catholics are the ones who have been moving further and further away from ancient, Apostolic Christianity because the Church defined the Assumption of Mary in 1950, this very poor argument shows the deficient understanding that Protestants have of Catholic doctrine. What happened in the year 1950, was that the Pope exercised the EXTRAORDINARY magisterium to affirm what had ALREADY been consistently taught by the ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL magisterium for nearly 1,900 years. This is why the other ancient and Apostolic Churches like the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East ALL believe in the Assumption/Dormition or Mary. Not only that, but all of these Eastern Christian would affirm that to deny this doctrine is to deny the faith altogether! So how can it be that these other ancient, Apostolic Churches that broke away from communion with the Catholic Church in the first Millenium dogmatically believe a doctrine that the Catholic Church didn’t define extraordinarily until the year 1950???? Because the doctrine ITSELF is ancient and apostolic and was also taught definitively by the ordinary and universal magisterium! So for Protestants to say that the Catholic Church moved away from ancient, Apostolic Christianity with the definition in 1950, when all the other ancient, Apostolic Churches ALSO hold to this belief INDEPENDENT of the Catholic definition of 1950, is just RIDICULOUS! Protestants are the ones moving further and further away from ancient, Apostolic Christianity. Martin Luther and John Calvin would consider almost all Protestants today as heretics. Also, if you can affirm that Mary was sinless (as you have already admitted, this is present early in Church writings) the Assumption actually follows from that, so it shouldn’t be an issue. The Assumption is the logical theological conclusion to the sunlessness of Mary, especially when one properly understands the details of Mary’s sinlessness (Immaculate Conception). Oh, and the veneration and invocation of Mary IS present in early Church texts! We have prayers to Mary that are dated to the early 3rd century, and I think one that’s dated to the middle of the 2nd century. With this being said, I find it VERY ironic and also very inconsistent on the part of Protestants who criticize the dogma of the Assumption of Mary because it “appears late” in Christian writings, when their very own foundational doctrines likes Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidei don’t appear until 1,000 years LATER than the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in Christian writings! This is Embarrassingly ironic and wildly inconsistent.

[@alexjurado6029]

@a development of doctrine and CHANGE of doctrine are 2 very different things. The Catholic Church has NEVER changed a single teaching about anything having to do with faith and morals. And I challenge you to prove me wrong. Find just ONE doctrine that the Catholic Church has changed in its 2,000 years existence. Get back to me on that.

[@alexjurado6029]

@a nope. Sorry. That doesn’t work. And I knew you were gonna say that, by the way. The Catholic Church did NOT change its teaching on the death penalty. Read what the Catechism actually says. The Church did NOT go from saying that the death penalty is moral to saying that it is immoral. What the Pope has called for is for the restriction of the USE of the death penalty in the fully developed world. This is a matter of PRUDENCE not a matter of the objective morality of capital punishment. What the Pope has said is that the use of capital punishment should be avoided in fully developed countries that have other means of keeping the common population safe. And this is so that those who are deserving of capital punishment have time to repent. It’s not about doctrine, it’s about pastoral care. Also, the Pope made this prudential decision based on a serious problem that’s been happening in Latin America (where the current Pope is from). And this problem is that, in Latin America, capital punishment was being used hastily, and a lot of people were being put to death without due-process. And a lot of the people who were being put to death who were later proven to be INNOCENT. And this was happening too often, so the Pope acted on it and called for a pause in using the death penalty so that innocent people would no longer be wrongfully put to death. So no, the change is not about the objective morality of the death penalty itself; it’s about the MISS-USE of capital punishment. So you’re gonna have to try again. You said you have 10 more, right? Lay them out.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@@alexjurado6029 Unfortunately, nobody but traditional Catholics come anywhere close to believing such a whopper! And here's my main problem with it: it just makes it appear that you all are unwilling to take responsibility for clear cut error. You just end up making yourselves look arrogant. Not only that, but most Protestants, by now, know better than to engage you on the topic. We grow tired of the extreme sophistry required for Catholics to maintain their church's asserted infallibility. Indisputably, you all have changed on slavery, torture, religious freedom, and EENS. But you can save your breath defending your so-called infallibility. It's not an infallibility worth defending.

[@gussetma1945]

The silver bullet is AUTHORITY. There is only one plausible candidate for the the entity which has the authority to declare correct Christian doctrine. You know what that entity is. If you say that the locus of that authority is NOT the Catholic Church, then you must be content with a Christianity where NO ONE has the authority to declare correct doctrine. BTW dress like a kid at a skate park does not encourage respect for you views.