Did John Chrysostom Affirm Purgatory?

[@Joe10e84]

I know it doesn't need to happen often, but from time to time, it's comforting to watch foolish mockers have their silliness dismantled. Thank you for this excellent response!

[@CurtosiusMaximus828]

You didn’t watch his video did you? Just this one, I’m sure.

[@Joe10e84]

@CurtosiusMaximus828 I'm not too interested in watching a ton of Agnus' videos. I did watch this one. Agnus reminds me of the approach of some people I knew in a cult. Everyone who disagreed with them was a liar, idiot, or bad person, similar to Agnus. There just isn't the emotional capacity for reasonable dialog.

[@CurtosiusMaximus828]

@@Joe10e84 well if you watched it, then you’d have seen that he called out Gavin for reading a quote by Chrisostum and then saying that Chrisostum didn’t appeal to the authority of the church, when literally one sentence after the point where Gavin stopped reading, Chrisostum appealed to the authority of the church lol. Which means either A) Gavin was being dishonest, or B) Gavin lifted the quote from someone else who was being dishonest without reading the full sermon for context. Either way, it’s dishonest on Gavin’s part because he tried selling the point as someone who is familiar with Chrisostum. It’s not cultish to take a blatant example of someone leaving out information that’s inconvenient for them, especially when it’s literally in the very next sentence after the point where they stopped reading and say “hey, this seems intentional”. And, Gavin, of course, didn’t even address this part in this video. Instead, he took a part of the video that had nothing to do with the actual point and decided to address that. But if you watch Agnus’ video, he says literally in the next sentence, “I’m not saying in this example Gavin did anything wrong”, and AGAIN, Gavin cut that part off. So before being a fan boy maybe you should watch both videos and be a fan boy of truth and honesty rather than being a fan boy for a person who validates your opinions.

[@Joe10e84]

@CurtosiusMaximus828 Are you discussing Homily 3, or Homily 33? Agnus references addressing Homily 33 in a different video (the video I did see was so bad I didn't feel the need to watch that earlier video). Agnus' response to Homily 3 is bizarre. He gets quite worked up over the use of ellipses in Gavin's quote, which is a normal practice. Then he assumes that weeping and lamentation can't be the same thing as prayer, which again is bizarre. I could go on, but it's not worth it. You're making silly, baseless accusations like I didn't watch Agnus' response video. It just shows the inability to approach these discussions with reasonableness or maturity, same as Agnus.

[@CurtosiusMaximus828]

@@Joe10e84 my friend, the part with the ellipsis was in the same video. And Agnus, in that exact part with the ellipsis that Gavin showed, says “this isn’t quote mining” and Gavin cut that part out. AND Gavin didn’t address the REAL issue which was stopping the quote right where it started to get inconvenient. But yeah I can see how Gavin gets away with his fo-intellectual work. Apparently his viewers just take him at his word and don’t do any fact checking of their own. Which sucks, because you can’t be saved outside of the church established by Christ, and this wolf in sheep’s clothing is dragging you all to hell and you’re too lazy and too apathetic to even care enough to do your own research. Prayers

[@ScroopGroop]

The accusations made by Agnus Domini do nothing to further The Great Commission, or assist in bring healing and unity to The Church. I also do not believe the intention is to win people to his side, rather, it seems the mission is to merely insult and belittle those who do not agree with him. This response is far more characteristic of one filled with the Holy Spirit. God bless you and your ministry Gavin.

[@samueljennings4809]

@drjanitor3747 Why not the Orthodox Church? Why are these objections always framed as Protestant ones while ignoring that the Orthodox Church also has these disagreements? Yet, Catholics seem to direct their focus towards Protestants awhile ignoring Orthodox arguments on the same topics altogether 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@KnightFel]

@@drjanitor3747yawn

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

He actually explains why he sounds "mean" at times. This and outside of the thumbnail he is really calm in the video itself, only in his last video he loses patience with Gavin.

[@FalconOfStorms]

As far as he's concerned, Agnus Dominoes is a part of the "one true church" and critiques of that institution feel like attacks on his identity, so those critiques must be lies and he must take on the role of protector of his tribe to save other Roman Catholics from being deceived and leaving Rome.

[@stevemcniel9515]

​@@drjanitor3747 Just because the RCC says that doesn't make it true.

[@theepitomeministry]

This is a masterclass on the difference between Christ-like criticism vs bad faith and uncharitable criticism. You will know them by their fruits.

[@padraicbrown6718]

And Dr Ortlund still gets it backwards. Literally every Church Father that he mentions as not believing in post mortem purgation is literally quoted in the Catechism as support for the belief. Even just reading along with Gavin, I'm at a loss as to where he pulled his thesis out of. I don't know who these scholars are that he relies on, but I do know Chrysostom and Cyril and Gregory the Great and Paul and Jesus. I'll go with them thank you very much! I know his goal is to wrest Protestantism out of the Fathers, but it just doesn't work. All the rhetoric about Protestantism being the true early church, once you scrape away all the "accretions" from Catholicism. In all charity, it just doesn't make sense. The problem with that logic is that it literally fails. If you scrape away any real or imagined "accretions" from Catholicism, you can not end up with Baptism. Or Lutheranism. Or Calvinism. What he will end up with is 11th century normative Apostolic Christianity --- essentially what we see in extremely high church Catholicism and in all of Orthodoxy, all of the ancient traditions, all of the same doctrines, all of the same liturgy, all the same sacraments, all the bells and smells and ancient chants and icons and all the rest. Plus the pope.

[@davecorns7630]

thats why i don't trust frogs

[@chanano1689]

@@davecorns7630frogs do be frogging

[@TheOtherPaul]

Only just starting; very nice new setup, even if temporary.

[@thelonelysponge5029]

Hi @TheOtherPaul !!

[@TheOtherPaul]

Sup @@thelonelysponge5029

[@westlakechurchnyon2477]

A reasoned, well-argued, and appropriate response to frankly scurrilous, false, unfair, and vitriolic accusations. Thank you for the content and the way you present it

[@westlakechurchnyon2477]

@AgnusDomini I think you need to think seriously about the tone of the accusatory language you use about fellow believers. I also have to confess I have a low level of trust for people who use pictures rather than their own image on KZbin channels, it feels like they are trying to hide behind anonymity rather than express their views with authenticity

[@lemmingkingyt5618]

​@@westlakechurchnyon2477 I'm not a fan of AgnusDomini's tone either. But I recommend you watch the response anyway. Ortlund is a bit incorrect in that he transposes AD's allegations of deception onto earlier sections of AD's video, even though AD explicitly clarifies he is not alleging deception for the first few minutes of his video. Orltund is thereby lowering his audience's perceived weight of AD's allegations by responding to an allegation that isn't actually an allegation.

[@westlakechurchnyon2477]

@AgnusDomini The fact that you are not a career theologian is very clear but the idea you need to "protect your identity" as a KZbinr blogger and catholic apologist is patent nonsense and I hope actually is because you are embarrassed by the language and tactics you use

[@raphaelfeneje486]

​​@AgnusDomini You're trying to save face after lying about Gavin. "How can anyone take Gavin serious." Yet couldn't even prove your claim. You're an embarrassment You think calling a spade a spade means to insult people?? So you can't share truth without ad hominems. You'd better repent!

[@zekdom]

Time-stamps 2:27, 3:37 - scholars 4:24 - should scholarship be wielded uncritically? Of course not! 5:33, 5:48, 6:25 - online culture 6:50 - The question: why do scholars take that view? 7:24, 7:40 - What is quote mining? 8:34, 8:57 - What is in the ellipsis? 9:37 - Gavin’s response 9:55 - There’s nothing in the removed portions that’s relevant. 10:38, 10:48 - Gavin makes an excellent point: How much text do you have to quote? 10:53 - Another point: If you’re going to accuse someone of quote mining, you have to show how something else is relevant. 13:20 - Gavin’s take on John’s view. 13:45, 14:06 - John’s language of immediacy. 14:34 - summarizing the initial position 37:50, 38:18, 39:20 - Does this portion show that John Chrysostom believes in purgatory?

[@javierperd2604]

Incredibly classy response as always, Gavin. Great stuff 👏 It's especially commendable given the pure hatred and vitriol oozing out of Agnus Domini's content. It never ceases to surprise me just how much anger can blind one to the weak spots in one's arguments. While it's often better to ignore the less serious critiques and bad faith actors, I find it's good to address them from time to time and lay their arguments out bare. Again, great work.

[@Galmala94]

Yup. Just to quote mine Peter: 1. Peter 3:15 "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" Unfortunately, sensationalism and aggressiveness appeal to many on the internet. Make fun and accuse the other person of being a liar.

[@PhrenicosmicOntogeny]

@@Galmala94 How could you misrepresent Peter like that? Lol

[@PaxMundi118]

@@Galmala94 Do you hate lies and false information about our faith?

[@ninjason57]

Gavin your work on purgatory has been invaluable to my own study and beliefs. Would you consider doing a video on indulgences in the modern age since indulgences are directly connected to purgatory?

[@gpapologetics]

Argued with class and respect. Thank you Dr. Ortlund🙏🏾

[@Djessie11]

Gavin Ortlund W as always

[@mavericktheace]

You deserve better critics. The sad thing with online spaces like youtube is we are able to see how many people fall victim to poor grade sophistry.

[@amandarink5791]

This is exactly why we need truth unitus in this you tube world. Thanks for continuing to share even when others seek to put you down while you are acting with kindness and clarity. You are appreciated!

[@GadierCasiano]

So funny the face Ortlund makes in minute 10:53 hahaha. “How much text do you have to quote?” 😂😂😂

[@joeoleary9010]

As a Catholic, my apologies for our typically fervid but often clueless Catholic apologists. PS: Anyone who features Pepe as the signature icon of their channel is not to be taken seriously.

[@HSuper_Lee]

We've definitely got the like in the Protestant branch of the family as well. I guess we just have to take it as a humbling reminder that not everyone that agrees on an issue agrees for good reasons.

[@joeoleary9010]

@@Kitiwake Gavin says it all. His claim that John Chrysostom *didn't* affirm purgatory is sound, and is in no way diminished by the Pepe Catholic's critique. And at risk of repeating myself, I find most Catholic apologists overly legalistic and vituperative. Pepe's Catholic's channel is a good example of that; his insulting thumbnails about Gavin tell the story.

[@duckymomo7935]

Unfortunately They suck from both side but I unfortunately hold that Rome doesn’t have consistent teachings

[@haronsmith8974]

@@joeoleary9010 Pepe's channel literally has 600 followers. It seems like Gavin picked some low hanging fruit today.

[@dman7668]

@@duckymomo7935 What teaching of the Catholic Church is inconsistent? (Catholic here).

[@raphaelfeneje486]

God bless you immensely for your work. Despite the uncharitable videos towards you, you still stand on the truth!✝️🙏❤️

[@ProfYaffle]

47:00 i've been praying for revival in my town since Gavins video on Asbury. Before that i was cynical. Now I am full of faith for it.

[@bethl]

Is that the one with his father on revival or a different one?

[@ProfYaffle]

@bethl yes. And I had a few questions on the Scriptural precedent of praying for revival, which Gavin answered. And it helped me see revival as a beautiful, calm but refreshing outpouring of the Holy Spirit first on the Church, not the hyped up sensationalism.

[@AZmom60]

@@ProfYaffle That was a great video!!

[@ProfYaffle]

@@AZmom60 yes. Pleased you agree 🙂

[@koyo3376]

Who makes a video saying "well, he's probably wrong" and doesn't bother verifying? I get that wasn't the whole point of the video but idk how someone could have so little shame.

[@mikesannicandro641]

Thank you Gavin just had a discussion on this subject with another brother in Christ we were both raised Catholic but this is just one of the problems we have with Catholicism

[@haronsmith8974]

Protestants believe in Purgatory, the east believe in the Harrowing of hell. It makes sense, because how could someone be in heaven that isnt fully sanctified but is justfied?

[@whatsinaname691]

The miner Gavin actually looks epic 😎

[@ProfYaffle]

I thought so too. Digging deep for the truth

[@tjkhan4541]

I personally struggle with pronouncing “Angus” and “Agnus” differently, so great respect to you for your reading and speaking skills!

[@fernandown]

Thanks for this content, Gavin We're whatching you from Brazil God bless!

[@michaelbarnard9087]

Hey Gavin, just wanted to let you know I SO appreciate your Hills to Die On book! I'm leading a book study on it next week at my church!

[@TheFIame]

Keep up the Excellent Work Gavin, and I love the new channel logo!

[@dman7668]

As a Catholic who watches the channel, no worries, Gavin. Reasonable people who have watched you know you are not a qoute miner. Even in instances where it might appear that way, you've been charitable enough that some grace should be extended that this isn't intentional or a trick to try to bamboozle people into a certain point of view. You are also polite in your disagreement and the other day I watched another KZbin video where a man was arguing my views to someone else, he was so rude about it I thought to myself "I don't want you on my side defending my views" It was a sobering reminder that without love it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong on these issues. If it's not done with love nobody cares if you are right. Even your fellow non Catholic Christians. We enjoy having you as part of the Christian "cinematic universe" also known as the CCU. Peace be with you.

[@purgatorean]

I also agree that Gavin is genuinely courteous and polite in his manner as he denounces the Gospel, but we should never seize in our efforts to try and convince him of the Gospel Truth, for the Salvation of his Soul is at stake. For the only Biblically revealed way for a person to receive Saving Grace is through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, which indeed Gavin denounces as false doctrine. So how is it that nice guy Gavin will enter into Heaven if he denies the Grace giving Sacraments. Cudos for him should always be accompanied with correction of his false teachings. God bless.

[@dman7668]

@purgatorean By all means we certainly SHOULD argue our faith to non Catholic Christians. Ultimately God is going to decide a person's fate and like you I believe their is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. If Gavin, myself or anybody else is saved at all, it will be by their connection to the Catholic Church via the sacraments via baptism. 🙏 We will just keep talking and praying.

[@Nonreligeousthiestic]

@@purgatorean And where does he "denounce the gospel". You don't explain because your a slanderer just like your father.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

​@@dman7668 Is that what the Bible taught?? That salvation is true Catholics, by Catholicism, right?? I love that

[@raphaelfeneje486]

​@@purgatorean Rom.10.9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. If the scripture says this and doesn't attach Roman Catholicism as a means to be saved, I choose to believe the scriptures than an institution that has no evidences for its claim!!

[@romans1229]

Wow Gavin! Every time I listen I learn so much. Thanks!

[@philoalethia]

"No scholars agree with Ortlund... but if any do, they are kooks." Such rhetoric doesn't even deserve being addressed. Such people are not seeking truth, but only justification for their beliefs.

[@Galmala94]

You can't beat the guys you describe. First they say you don't understand the Church Fathers, because if you did, you would be Orthodox/Catholic and not Protestant. If you show that many scholars agree with you, then you will be accused of not having understood them correctly. If you show that you have understood them correctly, then scholars will be labeled somehow. Then if you show that they are Orthodox/Catholic Scholars in good standing in their church, then the scholars are liberal critics who cannot be trusted. And finally, you are accused of appealing to authority (although you only wanted to show that many scholars agree with your interpretation, so the interpretation is unlikely to be completely wrong).

[@raphaelfeneje486]

​@@Galmala94 They always are right and when their view gets challenged, you are threatened. This is worse than a cult

[@KnightFel]

@@Galmala94Catholics and orthodox make their system unfalsifiable. It’s awful.

[@burntmarshwiggle]

Thanks, Gavin!

[@dsotojr04]

Pastor Gavin, you are being targeted for being Biblical and when the early Church are also being Biblical, the Oral Traditionalists will just try to confuse all those you are showing what it is to be Reformed. Don't let a video like the one you are clarifying for distract you. Let others do the "fact checking" for themselves. God Bless.

[@missouriblake]

I appreciate your kind response to a less-than-generous criticism. I am a protestant who does not believe in purgatory, but I've been surprised that prayers for the dead were discussed by the church fathers. For my fellow protestants, I wonder if you ever pray for the dead and if so, what do you pray?

[@ScroopGroop]

Some Lutherans, and many Anglicans have held to this practice. I believe Luther was quoted praying something to the effect of "Lord, if this soul is capable of receiving your mercy, I pray you give it to them" or something like that. In general, prayers for mercy for the departed are common. Eastern Orthodoxy is a huge player against purgatory as well. The East professes prayers for the dead can actually be efficacious for the salvation of the departed! Even more forgiving than Rome on the issue! The idea that the east themselves deny the doctrine of purgatory makes it clear that it is not some clear and obvious teaching of the fathers!

[@ogloc6308]

An argument for prayer for the dead can be made if what we protestants call “apocrypha” is considered scripture.

[@sharqueeshajohnalaneesha2019]

@@ScroopGroop I was reading the Martyrdom of St Perpetua and St Felicitas and there’s a point where St Perpetua receives a vision of her brother Dinocrates, who had died some years earlier from cancer, suffering in the afterlife. She then prays fervently for him and she later receives a second vision of him clean and healthy, and believes that he’s been “translated from the place of punishment.” St Perpetua was a catechumen when she was martyred, and so it’s likely her brother died before even she came to the faith, thus dying a pagan. The fate of family members who died pagans probably weighed very heavily on the hearts of early Christians. I remember there was a section in the Shepherd of Hermas where it says openly that those who hadn’t heard of the Christian God when they died would be punished only lightly for their sins, compared to the grave punishment of those who had heard of God and still rejected him or lived in sin. This is probably where prayers for the dead started I think, for the benefit of deceased pagan family members

[@joekey8464]

So what do you do in funerals, do you not pray for the departed souls. Not praying for the our dead seems un-natural.

[@bman5257]

⁠@@ScroopGroopActually, the Orthodox view is practically identical to the Catholic view, as the Orthodox don’t believe those who departed unrepentant of their mortal sin can be moved into Heaven. The following is an article by Michael Lofton on Catholic Answers, where he quotes the famous Orthodox scholar Fr. Dimitru Staniloae: “‘This makes it possible for those in hell who are not radically different from those on the lowest levels of paradise to pass over to paradise before the Last Judgment, through the prayers of the saints and those on earth. . . . Up until the Last Judgement, those in hell who do not totally lack faith in Christ can also be moved to the paradise of communion with Christ. . . . These are persons who through their kindness and their reduced faith did not commit acts that damaged the life and salvation of others-acts such as homicide; abortions; unbecoming sexuality outside marriage; depriving others of necessary things . . . or those who repented of these things before death but not in a degree corresponding to their evil deeds.’ In other words, there are some who die with faith in Christ, but are imperfectly penitent. These souls can be aided by the prayers of the faithful, which will result in them being transitioned from hell to heaven before the Final Judgment. This is exactly the Catholic view of purgatory, as hell can refer to purgatory in Catholic theology, among its other usages. The Catholic view also says there is no postmortem repentance for those who die impenitent, but Staniloae is careful to note this transition is only for those who have repented of grave sins before death, though imperfectly. The group Staniloae describes refers not to those who die without repentance (the damned), nor to those who die perfectly penitent (the blessed)-but to a third group that dies in a state of imperfection. Simply put, this is what Catholicism identifies as the souls in purgatory.”

[@littleboots9800]

This kind of mean spirited content that attributes bad motives to others should make us all the more grateful for the good natured, charitable and intelligent Catholic KZbinrs like Trent Horn, Brian Holdsworth and others that have responded to Gavins work and also those who have come on to his channel like Eric Ybarra and others whose names escape me atm. Lets remember and lift up those in this online space who engage with each other in a respectful and fraternal manner. Each "side" has their own Agnus Domini's 😂, we certainly have our fair share on the Protestant side too!

[@stevemcniel9515]

So true. I'm Lutheran and Trent Horn and Matt Fran are my go to when expanding my understanding of Catholicism. I will say, however, and Gavin has confirmed this, most online Catholics apologists attack protestant videos like rabid dogs. Protestants are less likely to attack Catholic videos with such vitriol. They claim it's an attack on their identity. Ok, sure. But I can't help think that if one's identity is bound in the Catholic Church above Jesus Christ, one might be in the wrong church.

[@HearGodsWord]

Its ironic that in trying to call out Gavin this clown has actually exposed himself. A very good rebuttal video.

[@uchennanwogu2142]

watch the whole video, ortlund makes cut to make him sound worse

[@HearGodsWord]

@@uchennanwogu2142 I did watch the whole video. That Catholic guy got exposed for his own lies and hypocrisy

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Good work, Gavin! I sometimes wonder whether Agnus Domini's tone and apologists like him are masking their own insecurity. True confidence allows you to be charitable. I also think that, even for fathers who affirm some sort of interim stare, *this does not support purgatory* precisely because purgatory, as it develops in the medieval and Tridentine Era, is a retributive concept. It's a place you go to *not just* for medicinal remedy, but for punitive judgment to satisfy temporal debt (per the Catechism of the Council of Trent). But the notion of suffering in purgatory to satisfy temporal debt is certainly *not* widespread, even if you can find some things here and there. Most fathers who affirm some post mortem condition don't have the faintest idea of some system of temporal punishment which requires separation of Christ.

[@dman7668]

The Church isn't basing this dogma soley on the early Church Father's. We do know that even after sin is forgiven temporal consequences for sin remains. This isn't really a disagreement point for Protestants since their theology acknowledges temporal consequences for sin. The question is whether or not those temporal consequences can follow us into the next life. The Church teaches it can, and there is, at the least, explicit evidence from what we know of the Bible for this position. I support it because this same Church also said hey, there is a Holy Trinity. So I am hedging my bets it's just right about this too. We will find out for sure eventually 😅

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@dman7668 But the difference is that the doctrine of the Trinity emerges from the deposit of faith, and the retributive doctrine of purgatory does not (which is why it never gained acceptance in the East, among many Latin fathers, and elsewhere). The dispute decidedly isnt over whether temporal *consequences* follow. The debate is over whether temporal debt remains. Remember that the Catechism of Trent and the Council distinguish between the remedial function of purgatory and its punitive function. Now one might say there is no difference between temporal consequences and temporal debt. But this isnt correct. Roman Catholic teaching holds that all temporal debt is wiped away via Baptism through the application of the merits of Christ. Thus, a baptized murderer might still have temporal consequences (they might still go to prison) but no temporal debt; if they died right after Baptism, they would go straight to heaven. Satisfying the conditions of a plenary indulgence also gives one the complete remission of temporal debt. So here's what we object to: the notion that plenary indulgences have more intrinsic efficacy than the body and blood given through the Eucharist (because magisterial Protestants, Reformed and Lutheran, hold that the Eucharist is a complete renewal of one's Baptism), or that the church has the authority to restrict the merit given through union with Christ effected by repentant faith, and sealed in the Eucharist.

[@dman7668]

@@anglicanaesthetics Thanks for responding. I am by no means a theologian but allow me to rebuttle. Concerning your objection that pleniary indulgences have more intrinsic efficacy then the body and blood of Jesus Christ, this isn't what the Catholic Church is saying. We are not saying "Christ is not enough or less efficacious " however strange or foreign the practice might appear to you. What we are saying however, is that no imperfection will be allowed to enter into Heaven. Contrary to what protestant teaches that they are "covered in the righteousness of Christ and concealing in white over dung" so that we may go inside. We Catholics reject this idea 💡. If a soul is not intrinsically without defect it will not be allowed into Heaven. Purgation is not a retributional concept so much as it is a purification concept. Bodily death does not necessarily mean okay! You are presto change instantly made perfect and no longer have any imperfections and can go right to heaven after death. We are all works in progress and the deposit of faith teaches us that some refinement will be necessary for many souls. To qoute Catholics explained "Protestants unreasonably object to the Church’s teaching on Purgatory. They believe Jesus’ Passion and Death removed all need for punishment for those who are in Him. However, their conclusion is a non sequitur. Jesus did not die for our sins to redeem us from 👉all punishment. 👈Rather, He died to redeem us from 👉eternal death👈. He literally purchased us back from The Realm of the Just Dead (Sheol) into which Adam and Eve had sold the human race." It's not really a big issue to me that the Catholic Church (myself) affirms purgatory. It's means by which the imperfections are removed..protestantism may reject this idea but they certainly don't reject the idea that they are imperfect and thus should remain open to the possibility that such imperfections would require a step before entering heaven. 😊

[@daliborbenes5025]

@@dman7668 What you are describing can in fact be embraced by Protestants as a pious opinion. "Medicinal", purification purgatory does in no way conflict with any traditional Protestant theology. In fact, famous modern Protestants like C. S. Lewis liked to speculate on this kind of after-death purification. However, the council of Trent defines purgatory as: (Canon 30 from the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (Sixth Sesssion, 1547)) "If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, anathema sit [“let him be anathema” or excommunicated]." What Protestants absolutely deny is the part, not the purification of the effects of sin on our souls. This idea led to the sale of indulgences, the concept of the treasury of merit where the Church can dispense merits of Saints in Heaven, and others. These are amalgamations and innovations from the Augustinian legalistic language.

[@dman7668]

@@daliborbenes5025 I am not an expert on interpretation if big theological ideas. However I do agree with what the council of trent is saying here. There are temporal consequences for sin. We are all going to die someday, so can conclude that Christ's death on the cross is not changing that reality for any Christian. One cannot say that there are no lasting temporal consequences for sin is what Trent is saying here. One can view death as a temporal "punishment" for one's sins. You may be saved but sin has temporal consequences, and if you have not made full satisfaction of God's justice for those temporal consequences, purgatory is the means by which you will complete satisfaction of justice.

[@doulos5125]

Well thought out response

[@AdithiaKusno]

As a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition. I find to be more in agreement with Gavin Ortlund than with Agnus Dei despite we're both Catholics. Here's why. In the Eastern tradition we have Vespers and Matins where we offer prayers of supplication and deliverance for those departed. Whether they're already in heaven as Gavin Ortlund noted regarding St Gregory of Nazianzus praying to St Basil of Caesarea or for those damned souls in hell. If the Lord is willing I will be planning to host public interview and discussion with Joshua Schooping who I consider to be a friend in Christ. I want to show how as fellow brothers in Christ one can talk with respect and honor without slander or disgust. I want to promote irenic Christianity where we can talk on dogmatic disputes and be honest on the difficulties without name calling. We all want to pursue holiness and be truthful with the truth. I don't find any dishonesty in Gavin Ortlund. I would like to hear more on how he explains prayers for those already departed within Protestantism. Because the issue is not just Oh it's just an accretion. At Ephesus St Cyril preached seven Marian homilies on veneration of Mary as Theotokos versus Nestorius veneration of Mary as Christotokos. At Ephesus St Cyril closed the Ecumenical Council with an Akathist to Theotokos. This is formal meeting. If this is not heretical can a Protestant does what St Cyril did at Ephesus? I would to hear Gavin Ortlund take on this. God bless 🙏

[@wonderingpilgrim]

@AdithiaKusno You have given some good food for thought here. As someone who us always trying to learn and grow, I appreciate this new information. Perhaps a typical Protestant response might be that St. Cyril and other church fathers aren't infallible, and neither are the councils? At least, that is what I hear from my fellow Protestants when I ask such questions, though I think Dr. Gavin would be much more nuanced than that!

[@AdithiaKusno]

@@wonderingpilgrim when I was at Westminster Seminary Theology in Philadelphia under Carl Truman history class he argued that neither the consensus of the fathers nor consensus of the ecumenical councils are infallible because the consensus of Sanhedrin and Rabbinical Judaism contradicted the Gospels. This is why despite of historical fact where the clergy visited the Shrine of St Euphemia at Chalcedon during the sessions to ask for her intercession this is not accepted by Protestants because even ecumenical council is subject to Sola Scriptura. This is why John Calvin rejected the phrase "light from light, God from God, true God from true God" from Nicene creed arguing this is contradictory to Sola Scriptura. During his time at Geneva the creed omitted that. So the final arbiter is not consensus but rather Sola Scriptura itself. In Protestantism there's no Supreme Court to judge but rather the Constitution Text alone. If you disagree with Supreme Court you can secede from Union and create your own State so to speak in this analogy. In this analogy Supreme Court already corrupted. I hope you find my explanation fair.

[@wonderingpilgrim]

@AdithiaKusno So, just to clarify. What you're essentially saying is that you agree with my assessment in how most Protestants would answer that question? Also, I wonder what possible sola scriptura issue John Calvin would have had with that phrase in the Nicene creed. I personally think it's both a beautiful and reverent way to honor such a Majestic God!

[@AdithiaKusno]

@@wonderingpilgrim yes, I agree with your argument. I believe that's mainstream Protestant belief. Sola Scriptura is not Scripture alone without traditions. It's Scripture as the final arbiter. So using my analogy on Supreme Court and Constitutional Text. Protestantism argued Supreme Court at one point had lapsed into Great Apostasy. Gavin Ortlund and Joshua Schooping argued around St Constantine's time period. Because when he converted to Christianity many court officials converted as well to maintain power with the Emperor. During persecution many faithful Christians were martyred and due to lack of catechesis false conversion happened bringing people with syncretic paganism into the Church. So why the time of Ephesus both St Cyril and Nestorius already tainted by venerating Mary. The dispute was in what manner she ought to be venerated: Theotokos or Christotokos. Had the fathers were Protestants they wouldn't debate her title. Instead had Protestants existed during Ephesus the debate would be whether or not God was conceived in her womb and no debate regarding how to call her. In the Gospel of Luke St Elizabeth called her mother of my Lord, notice nowhere in Scripture Mary was called Theotokos. Carl Truman my history professor at WTS aware of this and admit Ephesus wasn't debating Christology proper but rather Marian veneration in Christological context. Because the crux was how she ought to be venerated. We see similar at Chalcedon when the fathers visited St Euphemia's shrine during the sessions. No Protestants would did that. Carl Truman argued that's why neither consensus of the fathers nor consensus of the ecumenical councils are infallible. There were no Supreme Court but the Constitutional Text alone. Protestantism is founded on the thesis that Supreme Court had lapsed into Great Apostasy. So now lower court can interpret it locally which create multiple denominations. I hope this explanation is fair and irenic to you. I have many Christ-like Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ and have nothing but respect for what they do for God in their lives. In anticipation of you asking how about Catholic and Orthodox analogy, I would compare it with Civil War where we have two separate governments. But I limit myself with Protestantism because that's what we've been discussing so far. God bless.

[@ProfYaffle]

This response is a perfect

[@innocentssemanda9646]

Thank you Dr. Ortuland

[@cassidyanderson3722]

Dr. Ortlund: Please don’t fall victim to the strategy being employed against you. Your accuser doesn’t really want to convince anyone that you are dishonest. He wants to put you on defense so that you spend your time responding to his accusations, as opposed to creating content. Political consultants get paid a lot of money to do what is being done to you in this instance. Don’t give them the pleasure of defending yourself. You owe them nothing. Keep up the good work.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

I disagree, at times upholding ones integrity and calling out people who boldly lie against you is necessary

[@FalconOfStorms]

I don't think that much thought was put into it. It's just a defensive tribal response. The tribe is under assault, and Pepe gets his ego from the tribe, and the wagons need to be circled to protect the women and the children.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@benjaminwatt2436 I highly doubt that most people even knew who the accused was, or that the accusation had even been made, until Dr. Ortlund responded to him/her. Of those that did know, how many had forgotten all about the accusation prior to the response video?

[@BrandonCSullivan]

A great response, Gavin. And remember the words of our Lord, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven…”

[@christianf5131]

Oh wow, first clip of this guy in, really friendly, charitable feller!

[@rexlion4510]

I have noticed that when I present evidence to Roman Catholics, they frequently have a tendency to come back with a claim that I haven't given and cannot produce any evidence to support my position. I attribute this to their spiritual condition. It is as Jesus said, Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

[@MissKristen-di4xw]

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” Galatians 5:22-23. Viewer, judge for yourself whether the spirit of Agnus Domini accords with the Scripture. For Gavin’s sake, I hope this is the first and last time he feels he has to respond to the slander of a stranger on the internet. His humble Christian temper and exceptionally well-researched content speaks for itself.

[@RevDavidReyes]

Most of the time Catholics remind me of KJVO. They simply say things they’ve been taught & not actually opened their bibles or done any wrestling with the research.

[@ShuunThreier]

The internet has really made it easy and even gives great incentives to be the worst type of people. The bearing of false witnesses against fellow believers is sickening and all too common in online spaces.

[@pigetstuck]

I like this new studio space. You should keep recording there.

[@JerichoLeon]

Regarding your current setting -- I think it works great as a studio! It looks good and the multitude of books in the background complements the depth of your research.

[@Nonreligeousthiestic]

Sounds like you have had a religeous narcissist on your case Gavin, there is plenty of them sadly

[@SahihChristian]

William Albretch was cheering him on. By their fruits you shall know them. Same spirit with Sam Shamoun

[@mapex2840]

Hi Gavin! I really appreciate your works here on youtube, you have provided me with so much confidence in my walk with God but not only that, you have inspired me greatly to dig deeper into the history of the reformation and church history. I am 16 years old from Sweden, and so, do you have any books that you would recommend for me to read, particularly about Protestantism, or theology in general?

[@tategarrett3042]

Is there any specific subjects you're looking to learn more about, or just the general history of Protestantism?

[@mapex2840]

⁠​⁠@@tategarrett3042Maybe a book about sola scriptura, or apostolic succession perhaps?

[@tategarrett3042]

@@mapex2840 hmm. I'll check a couple things - Gavin often gives book recommendations at the start of his videos so I'll check a couple I've seen from him to see if I can find anything like that

[@PhrenicosmicOntogeny]

@@mapex2840 There is a series by some collaborating authors called "The Five Solas" which is precisely what you read on the label. The treatment of Sola Scriptura is in the 3rd book, "God's Word Alone." It's written by Matthew Barrett. I'm sure there are many books you could read, and I admittedly have yet to get through them. But I've heard great things about the series from people whose opinions I respect. You could also look for a well-rated systematic theology book as a starting point.

[@1984SheepDog]

The catholic controversy by St francis desales

[@ianwilson1518]

I do not understand why these people continue to slander you. I wouldn't even waste my time on anyone who uses that stupid frog cartoon. They're just trolls. Love your content, and I look forward to it every week.

[@christopherastudillo2918]

Great content Dr Ortlund. God bless you.

[@thelonelysponge5029]

Yo Gavin, have you responded to patristic pillars? I don’t remember if you did or not, I remember he did a video Chrysostom and purgatory. Can you debate him? I think it would be interesting.

[@SahihChristian]

William is like Sam Shamoun. He's uncharitable

[@Steemunz]

Dr. Ortland, amazing stuff as always! I have benefited so much from all of your content, you have been my go to podcast on my commute! I particularly am so impressed as usual with the grace you extend those with whom you disagree, especially this guy who is just so obnoxious and disrespectful! It has made me consider how I engage people I disagree with. Keep up the great work!

[@kinusganyani8694]

I like the old logo more; I and many others dislike the modern simplification of logos.

[@dman7668]

Likewise I like the Old logo. But I am Old so I fear change by nature.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Ooh, that point you make in the last 5 minutes is so good. None of us can believe that the promises of protection and preservation mean absolute truth in all of the church's teachings. But if we agree on this, then a Roman Catholic cant press those promises to mean "the church is infallible when speaking under these specific conditions". The text just doesnt teach that.

[@micahwatz1148]

Heres the thing, it wouldnt even matter if he did! Because its not Biblical.

[@HearGodsWord]

Exactly

[@RevDavidReyes]

Yup

[@RevDavidReyes]

This is why debating Catholics is (sorry) useless. I don’t care what history says, people say, etc… What does the Bible say

[@KnightFel]

Bingo

[@soupeverywhere9565]

God Bless Dr. Ortlund

[@bionicmosquito2296]

In all of the Christian dialogue online, whether video or podcast, I too often find a spirit of mocking and demeaning. Then there is a spirit that attempts to live the teaching in the Beatitudes - meek, merciful, peacemaker. I find it difficult to listen to the former, as I hear in these an unclean spirit. Dr. Ortlund is a great example of the latter. The different spirits influence how I hear the arguments, and my perception of the credibility of the arguments.

[@scottie8365]

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. If the last generation don’t go to purgatory and are changed instantaneously proving God can change the living then why couldn’t he change the dead in the same way? I’ve never seen this Verse answered satisfactorily by those who believe in purgatory. Purgatory for me is filled with many problems Biblically and theologically and is horrific pastorally. God Bless all,HNY 🙏

[@thomasrutledge5941]

...John N. Darby in the 1830s. Scripture may be interpreted differently in 2286. Hermeneutics is so dynamic. =D kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZbWpWWGe6ljepYsi=AIvbGPUP8euEF0SO

[@antoniotodaro4093]

Nothing screams "Serious thinker" like Pepes and photoshop strewn in your response to an actual scholar

[@GratefulDisciple]

Hang in there, Dr. Ortlund, and stick with presenting good scholarship (along with helpful references w/ page numbers a la scholarly writing). I hope in due time your videos will vindicate themselves. I myself considers seriously to become Catholic, and your videos tremendously helpful to provide me some objectivity in regards to providing an alternate historiography in the history of theology and in the history of the church, SO THAT should I convert, I do it with eyes open.

[@lukedonckels3252]

Another great video! Thanks. was wondering if you have or plan to do a video on Faith alone And the difference between imparted righteousness and imputed righteousness?. it seems like i don’t see alot of videos about this difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants On KZbin right now. Is this still a relevant topic between protestants and Roman Catholics now and days it seem to have been in the reformation? If not, what has changed?

[@Onkuu]

Very nice video

[@dlayn208]

Hi Gavin, I just saw this video called “Why Science gives more Purpose than Religion”. I would really like to know you’re thoughts on the video, and the idea that science gives more meaning & purpose than religion. I love your videos!

[@thomasrutledge5941]

Hello. I know that your question is directed at Gavin. Every now and then I run across someone like yourself & I usually don't interact with them. I just read their comments over a period of months. The tension that you're experiencing between science/reason & religion is a good thing. IMO You think, a lot [you may have a bit of a hyperactive intellect?]. Often such people like watching Channels like, "The Atheist Experience". BTW, I think very highly of "The Atheist Experience". I especially like Forrest Valkai. kzbin.infogrYig5pehp8?si=lk6MPM3uIdorEiDe

[@FalconOfStorms]

As someone who got on the internet when it was new and I was young, it has been anthropologically interesting to watch discourse develop over time. Online tradcaths and Mormons are almost equally defensive and vicious in their separate styles of response to otherwise careful and fair critiques of their respective institutions. There seems to be something about being the "one true church" that acts as an ego-boosting drug.

[@lemmingkingyt5618]

Eh there are schizos everywhere. James White is a terrifying man but i won't start blaming it on Reformed Baptist ecclesiology, nor would i root it in any other kind of anthropological factor.

[@KnightFel]

@@lemmingkingyt5618James White terrifying 😂😂😂 He’s not even remotely toxic. He had a huge heart for the lost. He’s passionate about the defense of the gospel. Unlike Albrecht, Sam, and many other Catholic KZbin apologists who are deceptive and literally vicious and mock the otherwise. There’s nothing worse in the Christian space than KZbin tradcaths and orthobros that spew the same surface level historical knowledge and vitriol.

[@wondergolderneyes]

New background! Hope you're settling in well 😊

[@philippbrogli779]

I just bought and read _"John Chrysostom's Homilies On Marriage and Family Life"._ Now I finally have a mental image of the guy. Before I would just have thought he is a random church father and couldn't even remember the name.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

The tens of Catholic apologists who immediately do clean-up work after every single one of your videos drops, -they do more to convince me Catholicism is not true than anything else. The strawmans they make, the accusations they give, the ad-hominems, -it is something I'm more used to seeing from Muslim apologists, and it has no place in Christianity. P.S. I appreciate you're shifting more focus on Christian Apologetics instead of Protestant Apologetics. The Catholic/Protestant debates that have erupted sense Cameron's conversion has actually driven me away from apologetics entirely. I'm more interested in Christianity as a whole.

[@kazager11]

Can't wait for the "Ortlund Destroys..." memes!

[@MrAgonizomai]

The giveaway that an exposition of a contrary point of view is nothing more than wilful malice is the snarkiness. Gavin’s opponent (to honour said opponent too highly) Agnus Dei cannot help himself sneering and snarking. As a listener without a specific axe to grind against one or for the other, that just tells me that AD is jealous of some aspect of Gavin’s success or view count or follower count or something of that sort. I’ve seen probably 8-10 of Gavin’s videos, in which Gavin is always respectful to those who espouse views he speaks against, whereas AD just doesn’t seem to desist from ad hominem statements, attacking Gavin as an idiot or bad-faith actor; this instead of carefully showing his points to be incorrect and giving demonstration of why that is so. In all of his videos that I have seen, Gavin is thorough and thoughtful. I would be surprised to find he takes the tone and approach in those that AD criticises, as AD does in the sample segments seen here. In any contest of credibility between the two guys on the basis of what’s in this video, I’d say Gavin sweeps the board.

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

Personally I wouldn’t have even wasted my time with this particular person. Judging just by the first clip of his you posted he did came off as extremely disingenuous.

[@TheNinjaInConverse]

I always wish, after the fact, i uadthe discipline to read all the books Gavin does.

[@glstka5710]

19:56 Don't worry about the small fonts, they were perfectly fine on my laptop.

[@onepingonlyplease]

Angus domini…”lamb of the Lord”…Dr. Ortlund is the shepherd who perhaps is showing the importance of seeking the lost lamb…or the “lamb of the Lord” is using Dr. Ortlund to get views…or both. Purgatory is a false gospel. It’s likely impossible to pinpoint where the notion of Purgatory began…like seeking the origin of a virus. Discussions like this on the various fathers sort of helps close in the timeframe of when the deception began. That’s kind of cool.

[@carpediem5316]

I actually saw this video in my recommended feed. Skipped it because anyone who's watched your videos should know that you are 100% sincere in what you say. It's ridiculous that he accuses you of lying in the thumbnail.

[@barrelagedfaith]

Personally, I think Chrysostom simply had more of an Eastern Orthodox take on prayer for the dead and our own journey towards Heaven (which involves particular judgment and personal transformation). He writes, "Then we will need many prayers, many helpers, many good deeds, and a great intercession from angels on the journeys through the spaces of the air. If when traveling in a foreign land or a strange city we are in need of a guide, how much more necessary for us are guides and helpers to guide us past the invisible dignities and powers and world-rulers of this air, who are called persecutors and publicans and tax-collectors." (St. John Chrysostom-Homily on Patience and Gratitude). Ironically, Bellarmine (On Purgatory) in the 17th century believes that Chrysostom's view is a valid one for Catholics to hold among the many options/places he lists. So I actually agree with you in regards to the later Latin development that became dominant in the West, but I also think it is important to grasp the Eastern view of the afterlife as well (more like a 40 day journey), which isn't how most Protestants articulate it.

[@catkat740]

38:41 This is literally purgatory. You equivocate “a sinner” and “damned”

[@catkat740]

41:20 But Gavin, post-mortem cleansing doesn’t HAVE to look identical in all descriptions. And just because it was debated, as Daly points out, doesn’t mean it was an accretion. I feel like it could go either way. If there is attestation of it in the Patristics, then denying it completely could likewise be considered an accretion. Do you know what I’m saying? On this I feel like you should just concede “agree to disagree” 🤓

[@tategarrett3042]

Thank you for this Mr. Ortlund - it's very balanced and well laid out. If you are going to look at Adam and the flood, definitely best of luck to you, but I would also like to throw out some issues that I'd love to hear your thoughts on as you do, specifically concerning Adam: First, from what I know, the existence of a historical Adam who was the first man God created seems to be the historic belief of the church. Further, there are numerous references to him throughout the scriptures and specifically in the New Testament where Paul and others use the comparison between him and Jesus to build to important theological conclusions, and it would be peculiar to draw direct relationships between Jesus - who's activities and purpose in scripture really happened in history - and Adam, if he were a largely or entirely fictitious character from myth, legend, "mythohistory", or anything like that. Second, Adam being an actual, historic person who was who the Bible says he was, and did the things it recorded him doing seems essential to anchoring the whole of the Bible. Specifically, the theological points made in the New Testament are placed on unclear ground, but also the Imago Dei is put in jeopardy since if Adam was either a myth, or the descendent of apes (as the Theistic Evolution view holds), then the Imago Dei looses its clarity. Further, in the case of the mythological view (or really any non-historical reading of the account of his creation and activities in the Garden with Eve), it also leaves the foundation of gender roles, marriage and gender itself extremely vulnerable to reinterpretation since if the account of the creation of man and woman is myth, then all manor of challenges to Biblical views on these gain credence since it basically validates the modern criticism that the Bible is rooted in Ancient Near Eastern mythology and culture. Thus the gender binary for example can be seen not as the absolute order that God created, but rather a product of ancient mythology.

[@padraicbrown6718]

First off, I'd like to commend you for your charitable approach to those who disrespect you personally. Frankly Gavin, I wouldn't worry too much about people like the one you're replying to. Regarding the world of online apologetics, there are essentially two kinds, and they exist on the Protestant and Apostolic sides in equal parts. I have not seen A.D. before, but the snippets you showed seem to indicate a pretty low class of apologetics. (EDIT: I found Agnus Dei's video (you really should have posted the link to it) and watched it. It's not quite as low class as it seems from the presentation; but he does make some valid points. For example, when you read St John as NOT believing in purgatory, yet he is quoted in the Catechism in support of purgatory, you did kind of gloss over that. That would have been great if you had addressed that. Also, he called you out on your claims that the Church Fathers are some kind of circus of disarray rather than "Proto-Orthodox / Proto-Catholics" and that there is somehow lack of unity among them. Literally, all the Apostolic Churches rely on these same Fathers simply because they ARE Catholic and Orthodox in their teaching. It may come as a surprise to new-fangled Protestanisms, but we do actually have continuity of faith and doctrine that spans not decades not centuries, but millennia.) But there are also two kinds of audience, which I'm sure you're aware of. As Christians, we all have to discern. Whether discernment is of Truth vs falsehood, sound apologetics from immature, good understanding from misunderstanding. As a careful audience of apologetics, I can say that I have gotten pretty good at discernment in this area. My hope is that you will not be so affected by the personal vitriol against you! I found that Trent Horn had made a response video to your earlier talk on purgatory --- that one is definitely worth a watch! But on to purgatory! The Just and the Damned go directly to Christ or Hell, the language of immediacy. I don't see the issue here: some Christians do indeed go straight to heaven! Surely those who are very holy, very prayerful, entirely removed from sin. Also children and the newly baptised, which St John specifies. (Infant baptism, Protestants? Yep!) I would argue that if every Catholic and every Orthodox went to confession more regularly than we often do, and took the Eucharist more often than we are wont, very many more would indeed go "straight" to heaven! In so far as St John says that the righteous fly "immediately" with the angels to heaven, and the damned drop "straight" into hell, he neither denies purgation outright, nor specifically emphasises it. The Church itself even uses the same adverbs of immediacy you do when speaking of those who are already pure --- they go immediately to heaven! The question that might arise then is: is this a problem? I don't think it is. St. John might not be calling it Purgatory by name, but I do think it's clear from reading the entire passage, that he's not denying a purgation. He speaks of those who have "died in sins", the "unbelievers" (Pagans), the unbaptised, those who "died in wealth" but didn't look after spiritual matters. He also urges the faithful to put off the old Pagan mourning customs. In stead, he urges Catholics to help the dead by "praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. " The real question we have to ask here is really not "Did St John Chrysostom affirm Purgatory" for, clearly he did not specifically spell out the doctrine in so many words --- which no Catholic would ever expect of a Church Father anyway. But rather, the question ought to be "Did St John Chrysostom believe what the Church believes; and what exactly does the Church believe?" And further, does the Church believe that ALL Christians go immediately to heaven when they die? We can see that in Tradition as well as in Scripture, the Doctrine of Purgatory per se is not "affirmed" in that it is not spelled out the way it is in the modern Catechism. Just as the Doctrine of the Trinity is not "affirmed" or spelled out until later. Yet the foundation is laid in both Scripture and Tradition. As we can see in numerous example texts (which I had to cut out), no, not ALL Christians go immediately to heaven. Even St John Chrysostom specified that is the just or the righteous who did. As we can see in the others, there is a distinction between those who have been purified while on Earth and the rest of us who are not. We learn in scripture that only pure things can suffer being in God's presence, that not even the tiniest stain of sin can withstand. Only one human being was so pure by nature as to stand in the presence of the Father, and that one is the Son. All the rest of us have some attachment to sin: do we drink, do drugs, smoke, look lustfully at others, lie even tiny white lies, let our passions and emotions rule us, etc. If one can honestly look at oneself and say: yes, Jesus is my personal lord and saviour, but I sometimes lie and have stolen some small things, I get angry, there's people I don't like... Then we get, intuitively, that we stand in need of purification. Our souls demand it. That in some way, although God has forgiven us and we've been saved through baptism, we've been washed in the blood of the cross, God still needs to work with us a bit. There is still a process we must undergo before entering the beatific vision. This, St John pretty clearly does in fact affirm. Other Church Fathers do as well and more explicitly. Did some hold other opinions? Of course! Even now, the Orthodox hold a slightly different opinion, but not significantly so. Historically, Orthodoxy has held and continues to hold a view very similar to the Catholic understanding of purgatory. Lastly, as for the claim that the Doctrine of Purgatory is an "accretion" and the implied claim that "just because this Church Father doesn't explicitly affirm a doctrine, it is therefore not 'universal' and therefore something I can reject": obviously, the doctrine is not an accretion. At all. In fact, as with the Trinity, the foundation is laid in pre-Christian times. It is initially developed through scripture and is continued to be understood through the Fathers. Lastly, what is most important: the Church is not St John Chrysostom. Just because one Father doesn't explicitly teach a doctrine or just because another doesn't believe it, this doesn't mean that the Church conforms to the teaching of an individual Father; nor does it mean that the Father who disagrees or does not specifically affirm a certain belief is not a Catholic in his faith. Clearly, the belief is Historical, even antedating Christianity. The belief is Scriptural, not by name, but by general and specific context (your quip about how many verses do I need to quote, can by answered thus: all of them!). And the belief is Traditional and testified to in the Early Church. Is it developed over time by later Fathers and theologians? Of course! Are there differences of opinion? Of course! There are certainly "pious accretions" as well as "abusive accretions" that can, and must, be stripped away, such as using Purgatory as a way of making money by the SALE of indulgences. That the Catholics and Orthodox agree on; that, even the Protestants got right. But once we strip away the real accretions, what are we left with? The alternative you propose, that of EVERY Christian immediately zipping up to heaven, simply doesn't exist in the Fathers or in the Scripture or Tradition. Clearly some do! But not all. If the alternative you propose can't be found in Scripture or Tradition, while the concept of Purgatory can be, the only rational conclusion I can see is that the Church had it right in the first place: Purgatory is real. And that the Catholic reformers had it right that reforms were needed (and that the Protestant reformers concurred with them but went too far). And that what is left over is in fact the concept of Purgatory we see in its revelation in Scripture and Tradition.

[@dman7668]

Great comment! 👍

[@padraicbrown6718]

@@dman7668 -- Thank you! In all honesty, I wrote this before watching Trent Horn's response to Dr Ortlund's previous video on the topic. (I guess the one this Angus Dei responded to?) He said everything in greater depth and with greater clarity! I also think Agnus Dei's videos are worth looking into. Not much into irenicism, but does make some valid points.

[@mikekayanderson408]

You have to defend your integrity as well of course!👍

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

Cool office!

[@ClauGutierrezY]

As a cartoon myself, I wouldn't take too seriously a badly Mario Paint drawn frog anyway

[@jeroenvankooten]

The way some of these people attack others is just... not OK. And it misses the mark completely. It's sad because I totally disagree with Gavin's view of purgatory, but my "side" ruins a good discussion or debate. I think it is very clear just beyond any doubt that Chrystostom believed in post-mortem purification and prayers for the dead. All the early Saint- church fathers agree with this. I think you really have to turn and pick quotes to get out from this. But if you read all of the works for example chrystostom. It is clear he got some things wrong, but he agrees on prayers for the dead and purification. Anyway... keeping it civil is really important. And why make it personal? Just give the facts as you see them. Keep up the good work Gavin. Love you work, disagree with most things your saying haha, but that is the ok. Some people get all worked up and angry and frustrated. Love and understanding helps much more.

[@chanano1689]

It looks the majority of RCC scholars disagree. Can you give me the quote of Chrystostom

[@mikekayanderson408]

You have to protect the flock and address false teaching! 👍

[@EmilTennis00]

Great response but I wonder whether it is worth giving publicity to such a no-name, seemingly irrated Catholic layman

[@gabrielbridges9709]

I was saved outside of the church randomly over tik Tok in 2020 coming out of an atheist context knowing little about Christianity before I was saved i didn’t even know Christians believe in God. And believed in the resurrection of the dead of course because you can’t be a Christian without it but my reading of scripture with little to know presuppositions was that we died and there was no immediate after life until the resurrection which was a physical eternal afterlife in a new earth or a fully reconciled creation. I held the latter of this view because of the book of revelation and the former because of how many times Paul refers to those who passed as “sleeping” I then turned to believe in the chilliast view of Hades or shoel after a more carful reading of the scripture because of verses that we see in first Peter and so on. I think the belief that our body goes to a spiritual paradise in Sheol for the righteous and a place of torments of the condemned awaiting the resurrection of the dead is good and holds the resurrection of the dead as the key doctrine of Christianity and certainly a core if not the core doctrine. While a view of immediate eternity is distracting and gets people to focus on the hope of a instant eternity in heaven or hell with there soul separated from there body as opposed to the resurrection of the dead. This semi platonic view of heaven and hell as the soul being absent from the body in eternal paradise has no salvation without the resurrection of the dead and it confuses simple people who here it such as children who are focused on a instant eternity more then the resurrection

[@taylonsilvalima9716]

Thanks Dr Gavin. Did you just think talk about Near-Death Experiences? I think many people think that is a proof of purgatory. Though I don't think so, would like hear you about that.

[@SahihChristian]

Purgatory is different. Both aren't related at all

[@aericabison23]

It’s unfortunate that most RC believers I run into are arrogant, vitriolic types like this. I thought they were the true Christians or something?

[@uchennanwogu2142]

watch his actual video

[@SahihChristian]

​@@uchennanwogu2142watched it. So??? You love the insults and demeaning attitude, right?

[@uchennanwogu2142]

@@SahihChristian ?first of all i wasn’t speaking to you and secondly i had no attitude

[@SahihChristian]

@@uchennanwogu2142 Typical Roman Catholic 🥱

[@SahihChristian]

@@uchennanwogu2142 Typical RC 🥱

[@matthewbroderick6287]

John Chrysostom taught after death, we must first be cleansed before entering into the beatific vision of meeded! Holy Scripture teaches we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered and shall each be liable to judgment if angry with others, we shall each receive recompense for BOTH the good AND THE BAD we have done in the body, as we must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord! Dr. Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@SahihChristian]

Not again 🤧🤦🏼‍♂️

[@ansich3603]

repent heretic!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@SahihChristian i agree, Gavin again!😢 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@ansich3603 I agree, Gavin preaches a false Gospel! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

[@KnightFel]

Yes all that you said is true, that’s why you need the righteousness of Christ, not your own merit wrought by grace. So sad that you are blind to this. The Roman Catholic gospel is so depressing. The Mass doesn’t perfect you, you can go thousands of times and yet commit a mortal sin and lose it all at the end of your life. Absolutely horrific. Repent and believe the gospel.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

"Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon your forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act. For He who was here crucified is in heaven above. If after being crucified and buried He had remained in the tomb, we should have had cause to be ashamed; but, in fact, He who was crucified on Golgotha here, has ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives on the East. For after having gone down hence into Hades, and come up again to us, He ascended again from us into heaven, His Father addressing Him, and saying, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." Cyril of Jerusalem

[@ogloc6308]

that room looks sweet btw

[@victorrene3852]

It seems that what he's accusing you of, he is doing himself and to his own audience. Adds nothing to the discussion.

[@jamestrotter3162]

Absent from the body, present with the Lord-2nd Cor. 5:8.

[@walkingtherange5680]

“but we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” The verse isn’t saying if we were are absent from the body, then we are definitely with the Lord. It doesn’t disprove the possibility of a purgatory process of after death.

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@walkingtherange5680I take the word of God seriously. Nothing in the word of God remotely hints at "purgatory."

[@dman7668]

​@jamestrotter3162 It does mention purgatory in my opinion, I also do not see anything in the bible condemning a belief in a place between heaven and hell where final purification takes place. I don't view this as a threatening dogma of the Catholic Church and I don't think it's even a big deal that some Christians accept it.

[@walkingtherange5680]

@@jamestrotter3162 I was just pointing out that the verse you quoted doesn’t support the claim that when we die we immediately go to heaven. I’m not saying you are wrong or right, just that the verse doesn’t support it.

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@dman7668"For by one offering He has perfected forever them that are sanctified." -Heb. 10:14. That's all the purification necessary for all believers.

[@kazager11]

Where does the idea that an individual can effect the reward/punishment of anyone AFTER DEATH by ANY MEANS?

[@peterjory7531]

Why do we give so much credence and credit to the church fathers? Not every person who was under the tutelage of a famous church father or even an apostle, may have the exact theology or understanding of their predecessor. I disciple plenty of people that do not exactly know what I know, Nor do they fall in line with every belief, or perhaps have my understanding. Yet, they can recognize the word of God, and what is not of the word of God or God. I feel like we give the church fathers a lot more credit so that we can say their discernment, in recognizing scriptures, and in the development of the canon, is legitimate. But they can recognize the canon and scripture, and that be fine and discerning and true, and yet they may not fall in line perfectly with thoughts of ecclesiology or eschatology. How about we just stick with scripture? I’m really asking if we always have to trust everything of these church fathers and is the reason we do so, because if we would not, it would diminish their role in the development of the canon and our ability to trust the authenticity of the Scriptures we now hold? Please help me.

[@scottie8365]

I feel the same,first we have to remember that the ECF were not divinely inspired. Secondly I’ve seen plenty of Protestant/RC debates where they have used the same ECF to try and prove the same point! So not only do ECF disagree with each other at times they have even disagreed with themselves! Way too much emphasis is put on their work for me at times.

[@benjaminledford6111]

"The video after that will be on the ontological argument... That'll be kind of a fun one." A man after my own heart.

[@user-zs8vo1fx9s]

Dr. Ortlund, for the topics of Adam and Eve and the Flood if you could interact with Egyptologist David A Falk would be great. He's is not a YEC or OEC, believes in literal Adam and Eve, but may not be the first humans, and the Flood. Would love to see you both do an interview. 1. He's argues that Genesis 1 -11 is mytho-history with the primary theology about sacred space and access that was lost and later restored in a limited way in the tabernacle and the temple. 2. Image of God is ANE cultic language about idols (representatives) in temples and not about rationality, morality, etc., but the biblical authors subvert it and apply to all humans as having that status before God. 3. The Flood (whether global, local, or mythical) is about the ark or the box/chest acting as sacralizing converter that goes through the waters like the scaralizing ritual used in temples to make profane things become an acceptable offering. God bless!

[@user-eg2ve6uy3g]

As a clinical staff chaplain since 1979 you say a lot that's surprisingly new but scholarly to me that makes me ponder.Why go low to put this dear brother in a bad light?

[@codytempleton3512]

This guy Agnus Domini seems to be under demonic influence.

[@dodavega]

I actually listened to AD. His tactics are so rude and divisive that I couldn’t listen for long. It’s quite sad.