Discussion on the Marian Doctrines with Dr. Gavin Ortlund

#gospelcoallition #theology #debate
Discussion on the Marian Doctrines with Dr. Gavin Ortlund
Dr. Gavin Ortlund, a protestant pastor, discusses the Marian doctrines of perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception with the Catholic hosts of Reason & Theology.
00:00 Introduction
4:34 perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and bodily assumption of Mary.
6:14 different kinds of doctrinal development
8:20 - dogma
9:41 Origen and perpetual virginity
11:32 typology and implication in scripture
18:08 Athanasius and perpetual virginity
28:54 Eric gives the definition of Magisterium, “teaching office, teaching authority”
40:03 4th council and perpetual virginity
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.
🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.
🔴SUPPORT
Subscribe: / @reasonandtheology
Become a Patron: / reasonandtheology
Donate: reasonandtheology.com/donate/
🔴VISIT
Website: ReasonAndTheology.com for more information
Facebook: / reasonandtheology
Facebook: / michaelloftonrt
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / michaelloftonrt
🔴LISTEN
Itunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/show/michael...
🔴READ
Is My Baby In Hell by Michael Lofton: Hope for Parents of Unbaptized Infants: www.amazon.com/My-Baby-Hell-P...

[@Daniel_Abraham1099]

If only my conversations with friends and family over religion could be just as cordial lol.

[@toddvoss52]

They can be. It's a matter of the will

[@johncocomahernandez5738]

Same lol

[@johnbreitmeier3268]

This was NOT cordial at all. The Catholics lied and moved the goalposts all over the place, They spit on Ortland and played semantics games. This was childish and ugly. They just pretended to be polite.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Such a great episode. Looking forward to round 2!

[@nicholasvogt2524]

Would be cool to see you on R&T

[@GospelSimplicity]

@@nicholasvogt2524 I’d happily do it, but I don’t really have expertise in much

[@richarddanielf.c.5974]

Crazy ignorant man.

[@churchandfamily5516]

This was awesome! I’m a Protestant currently in RCIA on my way to the RCC. I just finished Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples, and I don’t think I could have wished for a more relevant and interesting discussion. Please bring Dr. Ortlund back for round 2!

[@myronmercado]

Welcome home my Sister.

[@chrispowell1768]

I hope you read more because Tim staples' work is full of problems.

[@myronmercado]

Keep on reading Tim Staples writings. He's a great Catholic apologist who knows the bible backwards and forwards. He'll tell you how biblical Catholicism it'll make your head spin. Watch his most recent video on the Cold Brews and Catholic Truths chanel. He said that during the final minutes of Jesus's death on the cross, one of his 7 last words were "behold your mother." He's on the verge of dying and he makes sure to give us the gift of His mother.

[@myronmercado]

Here's the link. You're welcome: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJyWeYymid2MhtU

[@phishphan6596]

Lindsey, wish you well on your journey toward the Easter Sacraments at Easter Vigil. Praise the Lord!!

[@Dash_023]

This is great. I came back to Catholicism after 10 years as a Baptist after studying the early church fathers without a biased lens.

[@ReasonandTheology]

Thanks for watching!

[@davidliu7967]

That’s an interesting take on history. Still waiting for any historical evidence for the papacy or the Marian dogmas as defined by Rome today. There is literally none. Only illusions and statements by the fathers, taken out of context and twisted to fit a current narrative. There is no historical basis for these dogmas. The only way you get there, is by taking current beliefs and forcing them back into history. These are all massive developments over time. I’d recommend reviewing history without your biased RC lens that you clearly never took off. Prayers that you come to the truth

[@nathanielrichards5012]

This is probably the most insightful, charitable, and fruitful theology podcasts I’ve ever seen/heard. I wish I could be as charitable and calm as you guys are when discussing things.

[@PatrickSteil]

THIS IS THE MODEL FOR CHRISTIAN DIALOG WE NEED GOONG FORWARD! No more debates! Pick a narrow topic and try to understand each others concerns and desires to be true to our LORD. Amen!

[@tjflash60]

Bouncing in from "Truth Unites" thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the respectful conversations. Instead of seeking truth we are sometimes guilty of seeking spiritual superiority.

[@charlesadair73]

I know this video is three years old, but I just found it and I love this discussion! This is how it’s supposed to be done conversations between Catholics and protestants!!

[@dreseat123321]

Catholic here. Can I just say that Dr. Ortlund represents himself with such class and grace. His views are, in my view, hard to hold but he explains them lucidly and plausibly. Good on him. Both sides could use more like him.

[@mcgilldi]

Dr. Ortlund's views are logical and truthfully defended. I am a Catholic, a convert after many years of searching, but I have been open to more searching. I know that our triune God wants us all united in Christ. I think that the unification in Christ is worshipping in Spirit and Truth, which is really simple: God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because of the sin that humanity is subject to, Christ came as man/God to us to be sacrificed for our sins, died by crucifixion and on the third day was resurrected, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. Let us not be Pharisees, devided by rules and divisive interpretations of Scripture, and even worse, interpretations of early Fathers, who give us their interpretations of what preceded them. We should always value and be guided by them, but we must not lose the vision of the Risen Christ as He who unites us!

[@dennischanay7781]

Amen and amen. I'm a late life RCC convert but I learn so much from Dr Ortlund. He's so open minded and intellectually honest that I wonder where God will lead him. God bless him.

[@fantasia55]

Gavin's nice-guy demeanor is a shtick.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@mcgilldi I love your Godly point of view, and I share it as a fellow Christian. We just have to accept each others differences in theology. Most of us won't change our views, but we can change and soften our hearts to one another.

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@fantasia55 Prove it

[@Z12IT]

I'm Catholic and I love that fair discussions among Christians of different confessions! Without never renouncing to my creed but praying for healing our common Christianity! God bless you!!

[@mcgilldi]

@@justinbest1348 I want it to be: what difference does it make? You believe in the Trinity? You believe that the Son came to live among us as fully human/fully God? You believe that He was voluntarily sacrificed on the Cross for our salvation? For propitiation for our sins? Then you are my brother/sister in His Body. Amen.

[@mcgilldi]

@@justinbest1348 I want all Christians to be One in the Body of Christ. And we can be. I believe that we will be forced to be, or recant, in times to come.

[@mcgilldi]

@@justinbest1348 I do not believe in any schism between true Christians who believe in 1. The birth of God to a Virgin in Bethlehem for the purpose of redeeming humanity by his voluntary sacrifice. His nature is fully human and fully Devine 2. The Ministry of Jesus characterized by assertations of His divinity by word and deed. He gathered 12 disciples chosen to be witnesses to Him. 3. The death and bodily resurrection of Christ, complete with His promise to come again. We should all unite on these essentials and give up the rest to God.

[@ddzl6209]

@@mcgilldi the root cause of the problem is the false theology like the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man, which divide, dilute and deviate the Christianity by splintering it into countless heretic protestant denominations.

[@marymorris9982]

The Holy Spirit was all over this conversation. Thank you for being so kind to one another. It was so gentle, that I kept rewinding it to watch it again.. so beautiful

[@toddgruber5729]

This is so awesome. I sense that this is precisely what Christendom needs to unite. Praise Jesus. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners.

[@thelinkeducationalsupports2949]

What a poweful discussion.

[@debbie2027]

This conversation is SO beautiful .... Thank you to all , especially Dr. Gavin Ortlund

[@michael7144]

I do not have the words to express how grateful I am to witness this exchange of peaceful dialogue with such contentious issues, I have begun to understand how much I need to learn and grow but it gives me hope and joy

[@MontoyaBrandy]

I agree with the guy who said it takes maturity. I have had bad experiences trying to talk with Roman Catholics. It goes both ways but definitely a matter of maturity. Speaking to people takes the ability to actually listen to each other. Many can’t do that.

[@sophiabergner7191]

I was a Protestant who followed Gavin closely for 2 years! He was my savior while staying Protestant. Although, after closely following him, while also closely following Catholic theologians, i ultimately came to the spirit led decision that the Catholic faith was ultimately most consistent & had the fullness of the faith. I pray for Gavin deeply. With deep care and concern for his soul. I pray he ultimately is able to let go of his baptist roots and finds the truth.

[@ReasonandTheology]

Welcome to the church!

[@minagelina]

See I'm on the other side. I've been listening to Catholic apologists and at least now trying to understand the Catholic Church's teachings without straw manning them. So I appreciate finding these discussions. But I am now more affirmed than ever in my Protestantism. I also don't believe Gavin will be Catholic any time soon. He has been studying all of this for years now and is just more grounded in his faith. Having said that, I think we can now have a better appreciation for each others' faith traditions and be more charitable with each other. I have known many Catholic friends and I fully believe they will be with the Lord in Heaven even though they aren't Protestants. I can tell they live the Lord and would follow Him wherever He led them.

[@adamguy33]

So you left solid teaching of scriptures for traditions of men, the pharrisees of JESUS day were also doing this.

[@dennischanay7781]

William needs to yield more time. Seemed to be trying hard to make this more contentious or a debate... And it ate enough time so we didn't get to bodily assumption .. I know he doesn't mean to be difficult, and his tone tries hard to stay in boundaries.... I'm RCC so I definitely want to hear my guys but it beccame a little difficult ...and I KNOW he (William) isn't meaning malice but he jumps pretty hard (at one point saying "I KNOW you know who Scotus is" to Gavin) ... ..3 on 1 seemed a little skewed... Just a casual obverser comment.. I still love all these guys....learn alot from them...

[@toddvoss52]

You guys are so great on this video and so is Gavin. This is the model.

[@Matt_M516]

What a brilliant discussion. Thank you. Such class and charity from everyone. As a Catholic it's good to hear a Protestant view so eloquently put and without our Catholic faith and Our Blessed Mother being attacked. Thank you Gavin! Look forward to the next one!

[@catholicbeth2371]

This is how scholarly thoghtful discussion should happen. Total respect to all of you.

[@MMAD-Rob]

I appreciate these discussions. Very helpful. I'm a Christian that leans towards calvinistic view points. However,I don't believe another Christian has to hold to all the same theology in order to be a Christian. I think that is where the Roman Catholic Church has gotten it wrong and has added to the gospel by demanding people believe certain dogma's that are very debateable. For at least the first 200 years of the church people did not have to believe these dogma's and they were saved Christians. Its as if the salvific goal post kept getting moved when a new Dogma was formed and if you dont believe it you're cut off from the church. There is a simplicity to the Gospel in Paul's eyes and that is no longer what we have especially due to the Roman Catholic dogma's. Baptism, repentance, Love, and Faith in Christ Jesus as savior should be all that is required. Those core beliefs should be the glue that holds the entire catholic church together in my eyes.

[@rjay5603]

Great points. I think that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to rely on history too much. Church history shows us how different the early church was from the post-Trentian and modern RCC.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Your simple explanation does put things in perspective. What Jesus preached we must do to be saved was very simple. What the Catholic church now preaches to be saved is radically different, and so complex. Just do everything we say, or else, and there's a lot you have to believe. Too much.

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

So, to recap, on the headcount, it appears the following people thought Mary committed sins: - Origen (yes, said Mary sinned) - Tertullian (maybe?) - Chrysostom (yes, said Mary sinned) William Albrecht was ready and able to show that none of the other names raised thought that Mary committed sins.

[@tsp8855]

possibly aquinas too (although some have said he recanted)?

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

@@tsp8855 , as far as I'm aware, he didn't think Mary committed sins. He just didn't think she was set apart and sanctified at her conception but rather at a later point.

[@TruthUnites]

Hey John, here are the quotes, in case it is useful: gavinortlund.com/2020/12/18/church-fathers-who-denied-the-immaculate-conception/

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

@@TruthUnites Thanks for supplying those. Do you have the context for the quote from Hilary?

[@igorgaviano]

John, please bring Dr. Pitre to speak about the marian dogmas in detail on your podcast

[@rjay5603]

I'm glad that Dr. Outland pressed William Albrecht on the his assertion that ante-Nicene fathers affirmed the immaculate conception. Albrecht tends to say thing he can't validate. Either way, I don't hang on the fathers for anything, as they disagree with each other on many things, but it's always good to know what the historical record does look like. The church fathers are used by the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church as focal points to validate their primacy but, the reality is, the church fathers didn't write in one, unified voice.

[@romasliv]

That's was a commom thing that happened before a doctrine was defined, before the doctrine of the trinity was defined many theologians tried to figure out some things about the eternal generation of the Son and some had different opinions. Also there was general consensus even if 1 ou 2 did disagree like baptismal regeneration and the eucharist

[@rjay5603]

@@romasliv Can you validate your assertions?

[@romasliv]

@@rjay5603 there would be a lot to put here on the internet, but if you curious you can read the book development of doctrine by cardinal Newman, and then you can do deeper and check the sources if you want.

[@lauzeladasse]

Thanks, Guys for your program, yours dialogues teach me so much from a different point of view. All topics were so very interesting. I feel between friends.

[@mcgilldi]

Yes, between friends in Christ

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

Great conversation. This was the comment I left on Dr. Ortlund's original video to Cameron Bertuzzi, and I thought some watchers/listeners might be interested in it: Gavin, I think you make reasonable points, and I appreciate the spirit in which this is offered. To my mind, the main issue is the paradigmatic questions: 1) Is the Catholic Church the Church Christ founded? 2) What is the nature of the Church Christ founded? Regarding Marian dogmas 3 and 4: what they described would have undoubtedly taken place in the 1st century or earlier (since that's when Mary was born, lived, and came to the end of her life). Their historical reality (or potential a-reality in your view) is fixed in that sense. The question is whether the Church can be led by the Holy Spirit over time to understand them (confidently, and eventually infallibly) in a deeper way. And depending on our answers to the paradigmatic questions, we will answer in the affirmative or negative. So, it seems a particular historical analysis of Marian dogmas doesn't deal with these bigger questions. Nonetheless, I think there is fertile ground for some Catholic research on explaining plausibly the paucity of extant written evidence for the bodily assumption in early centuries. Some tentative thoughts: - There's indirect evidence for the Assumption in the lack of first-class Marian relics - There's some 4th-century evidence in Epiphanius - There's some evidence in the liturgy in the sense that a widespread Church celebration of the Assumption in the 5th century couldn't have popped out of nowhere - There was a debate about the canonicity of the book of Revelation in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and if Revelation 12 is the primary Scriptural text that supports the Assumption, then it makes sense that belief would not be further confirmed until people had more confidence that book was inspired. Peace, John

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for the comment John! I hope we can get into some of these points in the second discussion.

[@toddthacker8258]

Why did the Catholic church need to make these dogmas in the first place? Does it really matter for our salvation what people think about Mary?

[@sjappiyah4071]

This was a fabulous discussion, both sides didn’t speak past each other which led to a more fruitful discussion. As a Protestant I appreciate and impressed by Michael’s acknowledgement that many of these dogmas can’t be simply asserted from scriptures & church fathers but rather are derived from the magisterium which itself is a presupposition. Which many Catholics in discussions I have had take these presuppositions for granted. Excellent discussion.

[@ReasonandTheology]

Derived from the magisterium? No. But made clearly known by it - yes

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@ReasonandTheology Correct, my apologies for using the wrong terms, that’s more accurate

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Derived from the magisterium sounds pretty accurate for certain doctrines w/ little or no scriptural basis.

[@minagelina]

At least we now get to learn more about our Catholic friends believe and why they believe what they do, where the dogmas come from. I have a Catholic friend customer (frustomer 😂) who I'll now be able to understand more clearly. I haven't been guided by the Holy Spirit to convert, but at least there is more understanding now.

[@minagelina]

​@@saintejeannedarc9460I *think* that what he means is that via apostolic succession, the Holy Spirit has given this to the magisterium who then passed along the teachings. They are the conduit for the Holy Spirit to give guidance on this. I don't agree with it, but that's how I understand what he said?

[@agihernandez7846]

Love it, this was so encouraging to listen and learn from. Watching this, I can see that is possible for both sides to open dialogue with respect and humility. Thank you dr. Ortlund

[@mcgilldi]

I love these respectful, scholarly discussions. I have my own questions, and these discussions are very helpful

[@myronmercado]

Please invite @GospelSimplicity. We'd love to see him on your show!

[@StayFaithful13]

If late doctrinal development is a litmus test for the invalidity of a Doctrine I'm not sure what a Protestant would do with their ecclesiology which doesn't show up anywhere in church history prior to the Reformation.

[@TruthUnites]

Hey Pilgrim! Protestants believe their ecclesiological reforms represent a return to the earliest Christian practices, not a later development. I know that is a point of disagreement, but I hope this helps explain how it is conceptualized. Blessings to you.

[@StayFaithful13]

@@TruthUnites isn't this what Catholics are saying about Mary though? The claim is that Mariology is revealed typologically in old and new Testaments. It seems to me that if a form of ecclesiology, namely Bishops and priests, develop immediately after the apostles (and with companions of the apostles), then doesn't that speak volumes as to its apostolicity? Protestantism doesn't seem to have a claim on a scriptural ecclesiology given that all denominations view ecclesiology differently.

[@StayFaithful13]

@@tatogl2616 its not the same form of apostolic succession. Protestantism has to hold to a doctrinal apostolic succession not an actual one.

[@tatogl2616]

@@StayFaithful13 the bishops of sweden and other scandinavian lutheran churches do have actual apostolic succession that can be traced back to the early church, same deal with anglicans, I don't know if all the churches with apostolic succession teach that it is necesary to have it for valid orders or valid sacraments in general

[@smccarthymi]

I’m afraid that’s a straw man when Dr. Ortlund explicitly rejects it in the video. It’s not late doctrinal development, it’s doctrinal development that doesn’t have a clear root in the earlier form of teaching, i.e., inorganic vs. organic development. I think this could be a point of agreement (as the reference to Newman suggests), though what does or doesn’t pass that test still may be (and is) debated.

[@clayw70]

Appreciate the civil discussion! Concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. In Matthew 1:25 using the NABRE translation (an approved version by the Catholic church) it states: He (Joseph) had no relations (sex) with her (Mary) until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Is there any logical way to interpret this as though they did not have "relations" after Jesus was born? For example, if I say: I had no relations with my wife until we got married. Does that imply we eventually had relations or not? Or if I say: I didn't play football until I was 13 years old. Does that imply I eventually played football or not? To me, this is a very simple statement to understand. Matthew could have simply stated that Mary never had realtions with Joseph, but he didn't. Especially considering that this was written after the fact. If Mary had other children, Matthew would want to clarify that she remained a virgin up until Jesus' birth. Other people would have known about Jesus' half-brothers or half-sisters. Also, I love studying church history, but formulating doctrine from the church fathers outside of the New Testament lacks logic to me for several reasons. (Of course, if you're Catholic, this is where papal supremacy comes in) First, church fathers don't agree on numerous Catholic doctrines. Therefore, to make the case, some church fathers are selected and others rejected. Further, many times, only some of the writings from that church father are selected, and others rejected. In the end, it's simply cherry-picking who agrees with you to make the point. There is no way around that. Also, in some cases, for example, icon veneration is almost unanimously rejected by church fathers up until about the 6th century, but that is modern-day Catholic doctrine. Second, going centuries out in many cases and calling them church fathers doesn't make sense. The church fathers are in the New Testament. If you want to know what they thought, simply read what they wrote. The argument for church fathers would be the equivalent of reading the modern-day Supreme Court writings and using it to interpret what the framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. In addition, we are much closer in time now to our founding than most of these church fathers. Third, this lacks an exegetical approach to the Bible and incorporates an eisegetical one. The context of the New Testament is the Old Testament and the second Temple Jewish literature, not writings hundreds of years later. If one wants to understand the New Testament, spend time studying those sources. Searching the Scriptures to find a way to incorporate church doctrine will lead anyone astray, regardless of what denomination they are. Pull out from the text, not incorporate ideas into the text. Lastly, if you have to go to papal supremacy or church fathers to make your case, then you're admitting that you can't back up the claim in the Bible. In that case, you might want to re-evaluate your doctrine, or at minimum, be less dogmatic about your doctrine.

[@rjay5603]

Great thoughts.

[@andrevaca6700]

The Greek word for “until” is “Heos” but it can be used so it doesn’t indicate a change in the future. 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, and 1 Corinthians 15:25 are all examples of this in the New Testament. It’s possible Matthew didn’t specifically say so because it could’ve been assumed.

[@clayw70]

@@andrevaca6700 The focus is not just on the word "until." It's also the context and the sentence structure. That's the correct way to determine the meaning of the sentence. For example, the word "run" can mean different things given the context and structure. 1. I'm going to go run. 2. I run a business.

[@minagelina]

See for me that's the most logical reading of the Scriptures. But even some early church fathers believed she had other kids. Of course being a Protestant, I believe when in doubt, go back to Scripture because we know it's inerrant. I've been open to the Holy Spirit leading me to Catholicism, but after listening to several apologists and conversations with Catholics, I just can't get over some of the issues. But at least now I understand them better. I never want to straw man someone else's claim.

[@sebastienberger1112]

Great discussion, thank you. I think we are all guilty from time to time of relying more on our understanding (and other's understanding) then the Lord. When I catch myself doing that, I like to remind myself Proverbs 3: 5 - 6. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." Obviously, we shouldnt conclude: "Great! I don't have to reason then! 🤣". But God is number 1.

[@angelvalentinmojica6967]

I was surprised hearing Dr ortlund saying he agrees to dogma 1 and coulnt confirm or deny dogma 2. A few protestant have a problem with dogma 1. Anyway love the cordial dialogue.

[@m4641]

Even as a Catholic, I have a similar view as Ortlund. on all the Dogmas especially Dogmas 3 and 4, I admittedly have not spent time to study but take it on faith that the Church is to be trusted...it's not an "I believe help my unbelief" it's more "I believe...until I examine then if I have unbelief I"ll ask for help to believe." Make sense? I know this position would be ridiculed by many uncharitable protestants but for the time being it's the best understanding of Mariology that I have.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

After being a Baptist for more than 50 years I listened to the best Catholic arguments and became a Catholic.

[@rjay5603]

Which arguments?

[@billymays7958]

@@rjay5603 the best ones

[@3n1fss]

How sad

[@johnbrion4565]

@@3n1fsslol why is this sad. Many have become Catholic who actually study Catholic teaching and grow closer to God than ever. Scott Hahn is a good example. You have the wrong attitude brother.

[@johnbrion4565]

@@rjay5603brant pitre the Jewish roots of Mary and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist are good resources.

[@stevenhazel4445]

I did not hear an answer to Gavin’s excellent objection that there was no outrage in the early church when those like Origen or Chrysostom claimed that Mary sinned. Think of the reaction if a church leader said this today.

[@ReasonandTheology]

There was no outrage to their belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist or baptismal regeneration. Be consistent or admit it is an inadequate argument

[@stevenhazel4445]

@@ReasonandTheology but everyone agreed on real presence and baptismal regeneration. Why would there be an outrage? But if the other fathers saw Mary as sinless wouldn’t they have had something to say when the outlier claimed otherwise? I’m interested in Catholicism so I hope you have time to help as I’m looking to learn. Thanks.

[@Fassnight]

​@RenasonandTheology kind of a deflection

[@gregnorthway3814]

Enjoyed the talk very much. Will be interesting to see if Gavin takes to heart that Origen and Tertullian are not reliable sources nor are they saints in the future.

[@ReasonandTheology]

Thanks for watching!

[@christianstephens7213]

Just aquiring here Im reading St. Ireanus book 3 of against Heresies , on the Immaculate conception he stated that Mary bore Christ for the Salvation of her own. Would this apply Ireanus believed mary sinned

[@Jere616]

Is belief in Marian Dogma (as the Magesterium has it) required for everyone's eternal salvation?

[@EloSportsTalk]

Props to the guy in the top right corner who ISN'T flexing his library 😂

[@hjc1402]

Question from a Protestant: At 1:11:18 William said it is possible as a Catholic to hold to the view that Mary inherited original sin. I’m just reading through the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the immaculate conception and paragraph 491 quotes Pope Pius IX as saying Mary was “preserved immune from all stain of original sin”. What does this phrase mean in light of what William said? Thanks so much, I really need help with this.

[@mcgilldi]

I would consider that the dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception was only declared about 130 years ago. Hmmmm

[@leeenk6932]

Frankly it means, it doesn't matter what William said. The official teaching of the catholic church is the catechism. If you want to know what Catholicism teaches, do not ask individuals as they all have differing opinions, look to official catholic documentation, be it the catechism, councils, or ask a bishop or priest who is knowledgable. Take what people say with a grain of salt. The job of a catholic apologist is to argue you into believing Catholicism by any means. So they will damage control, find technicalities, and do whatever it takes to convince you they are right and your wrong.

[@hjc1402]

@@leeenk6932 thanks for the thoughts!

[@bguman]

@@mcgilldi Kinda like Protestantism 1500 years after Christ and his Church. 🤔

[@toddthacker8258]

@@bguman Except Protestantism doesn't claim to be the Only True Church, and one of the goals of Protestantism is to reduce what people HAVE to believe in order to be Christians to the really important issues because the Catholic Church continues piling so many things onto it. The Marian dogmas, for example, are an example of why I could never be Catholic. I simply don't think that a true teaching office of the church, should one exist, would dogmatize those beliefs to the point that ANYONE who want to be in full communion with Christ would HAVE to believe them. "No one comes to the Father, except by me . . . as long as you belief these very specific things about my mom." It's just mind-boggling. A true teaching office of the Church would be very, very careful about dogmatizing anything, and the things it did dogmatize would be critical for salvation. Why would it matter if Christians disagreed about Mary? It wouldn't.

[@yeshuadvargas5552]

Just a few thoughts from a completely unscholarly, Catholic lay perspective. It doesn't seem appropriate to me to say Mary received "additional graces" when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, given that she is "Full of Grace". How can she be full and not full, or lacking graces? Either she is Full, or she's not. There's something that sounds "off" or contradictory about that explanation. Rather, I propose that the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit is the consummation of that which Mary (being full of grace) was prepared for since the moment of her conception. I don't think she could have been "sanctified" or "set apart" any more than she was at her conception. It seems to me that her immaculate conception is precisely how she was saved, set apart, and prepared, for her role of Mother of God. On the topic of typology as it relates to the immaculate conception. I grant that it could be possible to quibble with typology if you are protestant and therefore have serious doubts or concerns about the authority of the magisterium, but even so, it seems to me, that there's (what I would call) a functional, practical or even logical problem with denying the immaculate conception if you take into account the meticulous care with which the Ark of the covenant was made, preserved and honored. If such strict, and deadly demands were placed on an Ark that would carry mere symbols of Christ (the rod of Aaron, pieces of the manna and the ten commandment tablets), then it makes no sense that the woman who would carry ;not the symbols, but the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, would then not be prepared in any special way. That strikes me as an obvious practical problem, independent of the typology itself.

[@Z12IT]

Agree to 100%!!!

[@sal_vulcano_maybe6873]

I'm more of the opinion that being "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" is first-and-foremost a component of the Ark typology, as well as reminiscent of marital imagery (i.e., her "marriage" to the Holy Spirit).

[@billmartin3561]

As a Catholic, I love having a Magisterium that I can trust for proper interpretation. However, I think any future/further dogmas must be avoided. Marian dogmas are true, but why must they be mandated for belief? They drive a huge wedge between Catholics and Protestants. I just don’t know why they should rise to the level of a dogma.

[@michaelransom8926]

Sounds like you’re questioning your faith in the Roman Catholic Churchs’ authority.That’s grounds for anathema sir.

[@_Belisarios_]

What I wonder though: Were Joseph and Mary even married if they did never consume the marriage? I just think of Isaac and Rebecca, were the very act is strongly linked to becoming married.

[@isaacosahon4352]

The Law of Moses in Numbers 30 allows for Isrealite women to be celibate in marriage, provided that their husbands agree on it.

[@tpw7250]

@@isaacosahon4352 I'm not sure you can take that from Numbers 30. It talks generally about vows and the vows of women are subject to their fathers and then husbands depending on which authority they are under at the time. The vows could be any number of things, but are less likely to be celibacy when dealing with husbands, as the whole notion of Biblical marriage according to Genesis 2, is two becoming one flesh. By this definition, the couple would not be married. This definition is repeated by Jesus and the Apostle Paul. I think the possible options left are, Mary and Joseph were betrothed but never married, or that they married and became one flesh.

[@ultimouomo11]

The Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (379 A.D.) and St. John Chrysostom (407 A.D,) call Mary "Panagia" ("All-Holy One") and "Panagiota" ("All-Sinless One").

[@HerotPM]

This is a good point if the liturgies had no updates over the centuries, which I'm fairly certain they did. That being said, I wonder if these portions were in the original liturgy as they wrote it. If so, then it's a very good point.

[@frankperrella1202]

God bless Was Good Discussion Luke is a good Book when the Angel Gabriel said hail Full of Grace & The Catholic church holds the Sacraments Like in John 6:51-58-) We need Grace & the Catholic church has them Sacraments 🗝️🗝️🛐😇📖💯 Catholic God bless & in Rev 12-1 Many Scholars say that's Mary in the book of Revelation 🛐 Love Reason & Theology 🙏

[@davidbermudez7704]

Completely out of context on John 6:51-58 & Revelation 12:1-7. Revelation 12 is in no way shape or form talking about Mary the entire passage is about Israel during the Great Tribulation.

[@frankperrella1202]

@@davidbermudez7704 Catholic church put the cannon of Scripture together!!

[@gamemaster91]

I think the claim that Origen and tertullian are not church fathers because is not a strong one. They are early believers. This shows that there was doubt on these issues early on. We can’t just say, well these two don’t count.

[@albusai]

All creation needs redemption, there’s the creation being saved by the creator , Mary is just a human that needed salvation as she said it herself

[@tryingnottobeasmartass757]

"Mary is just a human that needed salvation as she said...herself." And as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have always taught in clear, explicit, and undeniable language.

[@toddthacker8258]

@@tryingnottobeasmartass757 Why did she need salvation if she was sinless?

[@tryingnottobeasmartass757]

@@toddthacker8258, in Orthodox theology (I'm Orthodox), she needed a Savior because she was a sinner. In Catholic theology, she was sinless only because God applied the shed blood of Christ to her at the very moment of her conception.

[@toddthacker8258]

@@tryingnottobeasmartass757 Have to say I agree with the Orthodox take here.

[@MichaelPetek]

"21. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it." Jerome (340-420) The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, against Helvidius

[@clayw70]

We actually do read that Mary got married in Matthew 1: 24-25. From the NABRE (an approved version of the Catholic church): When Jospeh awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Jerome was clearly wrong in that statement. The word "wife" is clearly used, and not to mention, they had already been betrothed. Also, in verse 25, it seems to clearly imply that they did have relations after Jesus' birth. For example, if I say: I had no relations with my wife until we got married. Does that imply we eventually did have relations or not? Hope that helps you in your understanding. I'll pray for you! Commenting out of love.

[@theodore8178]

As an orthodox im not clear on why Mary needs to have been born free from original sin. Merely the conception of Christ from her flesh and carrying Him in her womb would have cleansed her from Original Sin. Yes I know the inference from not necessarily to not so isn't valid. Yes I believe Jesus had preplapsasarian flesh and that our Panagia never committed any moral sin. It's just that I don't buy one of the main arguments for the immaculate conception: it's necessity. So far I haven't seen this argument in the debate. I'm not done with the podcast.

[@user-ss1xg1se5n]

But jhon Chrysostom said she did commit sin?

[@charlesadair73]

I think the hardest point to concede is her sinlessness ….. all the other points could be conceivable …. But sinless that can only be attributed to Christ!!

[@csterett]

Very good dialogue. Could it be that Joseph was an older man who was a widower and had children by that marriage? That would explain references to Jesus “brothers” If Joseph was an older man could he have “problems” that happen to some men as we get older? They didn’t have Viagra in those days.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

⚔️ TRUTH v DECEPTION = Spiritual War ⚔️

[@ilonkastille2993]

It is so obvious that the initial Justification is entirely a GIFT from God. We totally believe that as Catholics. Once we have been freed , we still have to continue living and proving our love through our works. Why would Jesus tell us that at the end , when he will come to JUDGE us, He will separate, the sheep from the goats. He should automatically take us with Him to Heaven apparently, according to protestant understanding.

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

Believing faith alone justifies but recognizing faith with out works is dead is what Christians have been debating since Paul and James. We are saved to do good works, but we aren’t saved by works. Someone who calls himself a Christian but is not regenerate and does not obey Christ will be surprised when Jesus says, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” I think it’s two sided of the same coin.

[@ilonkastille2993]

@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 it has ALWAYS been FAITH and WORKS.

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

@@ilonkastille2993 I was agreeing with you. I was just describing why there seems to be a disagreement when there shouldn’t be. I apologize for not making that clearer.

[@ilonkastille2993]

@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 I apologise for not having understood that.

[@thanevakarian9762]

Interesting conversation. This is the issue I’m having. I’m trying to see if I can become Catholic and have been hung up on the Marian dogmas. The fact that they’re dogmas is it. Mary very well could have been a life long virgin snd free from original sin, but no matter how many types we can find or church fathers who didn’t know her say she was ultimately we have to fall back on the Roman Catholic Church being an infallible teaching authority. That takes a HUGE amount of faith and brings up questions about other traditions that have changed or have been softened etc. I implicitly trust and believe God and Jesus are real and true and I can feel it in the core of my heart and bones, I always have even before I started reading scripture throughly, but I don’t feel any conviction one way or the other about the Catholic Church or the dogmas. I feel like so many people could become Catholic if they just softened the language a little bit. Why can’t someone believe in God and Christ and all his sayings and commandments but not be 100% sure on Mary? What is it about the Marian dogmas that changes our ability to feed the poor, and pray for the sick and love our neighbor? Either way it seems to come down to putting our faith in the Catholic Church’s authority more than anything.

[@jdlee1972]

I appreciate the point on how the lines between latria and dulia are blurred across cultures. As a ethnic chinese, i use joss sticks to give respect to my ancestors. But the form is the same for traditional religonists who pray to their gods. Hence protestants I know avoid joss sticks which I feel is an error based on their inability to differentiate the intent and use within context. I.e. paying respects at a funeral

[@jdlee1972]

@@yajunyuan7665 if u pick issue with the form and intent, then joss sticks or candles or flowers are all unacceptable to you. This zwinglian obessesion makes us all poorer. The example of Daniel and the golden bull is very different from that of praying respects to a deceased. The bull is known to be an idol to be worshipped. Here your intent and the form cant be clearly separated.

[@jdlee1972]

@@yajunyuan7665 Hi there again. I think I will take this reply on a few different levels., as there are several different issues you are bringing up. Incense is used in the bible for God. I hope you have no issue with incense. Joss sticks are a form of incense. Ghost is English derived from German, Geist, which is the same as the Latin term Spiritus, spirit. I think we all believe in spirits, because that is what we become in death. "Christians should have their own exclusive external forms (eg. Baptism & Eucharist) and not try to repurpose Pagan ones into Christian ones. " I think on this one, such an act would mean many things - throw away your christmas tree, avoid Easter Eggs, the cross is a Roman symbol, the anchor, the shamrock, the trinity symbol. Christianity took from other cultures. Baptism itself is a Jewish practice. (Read Marcionism if you want to reject Judaism in Christianity). "Not to repurpose" I think in this specific case there is no "repurpose", it is an acknowledgement there is such a practice that is respectful of ancestors/the dead and we can allow it to continue because it does not contradict Christian belief. Therefore my position is that there is no "pure Christian" expression. Expressions you see today are developed in the culture which the faith grew. Judaism, Greek, Latin, Syraic cultures formed the practices of Faith. This explains in part the Eastern and Western expressions of the Christian faith, the use of icons ion the East and Statutes in the West. Jesus was a Jew and therefore the liturgy has strong Judaic roots. "Would you put joss sticks before a status of Mary?" Normally no, because the established custom (in the west) is candles. For the dead, flowers and candles. This is not equivalent to 冥钞, which is basically "hell notes", which means you believe in an underworld where there is use of money, etc. "Would your priest let you burn joss sticks in the church?" Short answer is YES. Long answer is google "Memorial Rites for Ancestors" "Maybe those who go to temples will say we don't worship the status of buddha as an idol because we don't believe buddha is God, what will you say to them?" Depends if they are Christian or not. I suppose you are saying that these are Christians who do. If their intent is to go there and view the architecture, by all means. If they know it is a place of worship and they participate in an act of worship with everyone else. Then, you know my answer. Last point about Zwingli, he removed "everything", he was against the Eucharist, fasting, images in church, etc. I do not think it was because these Christian expressions were pagan in origin. Martin Luther famously refused his hand and said "you and I are not of the same spirit". Hope that clarifies.

[@jdlee1972]

@@justinbest1348 to the best of my knowledge there is. The former represents silver or gold ingots, while the latter represents currency notes. But both are supposed forms of nether world currency.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@jdlee1972 My family members who practice traditional Chinese religion do not *say* the idolatrous things Papists and Nikonites say to Mary. I think Chinese religion is less idolatrous than Marianism. *Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary:* _On the terrible day of judgment, deliver me from eternal punishment and make me an heir of your Son's glory_ *Papist dedication to Mary* _"My Queen and my Mother, _*_I give myself entirely to you;_*_ and to show my devotion to you, I consecrate to you this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, _*_my whole being without reserve._*_ Wherefore, good Mother, as _*_I am your own, keep me, guard me, as your property and possession._*_ Amen."_ Come on, talking to Great Grandma and burning money is way more acceptable than that. Now if only they would just believe in Holy Trinity.

[@jdlee1972]

@@Mygoalwogel It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art blessed and all-blameless, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain bearest God the Word, and art truly Theotokos: we magnify Thee. When men speak honour of my mother I do not envy but feel pride. The greatness of our Mother brings honour to Christ.for we are honoured to be nurtured by her prayers as she nurtured our Lord. Her greatness is drawn from her Divine Son. Begone pretentious heretic who put on the pretence of my orthodox brethen.

[@myronmercado]

Mary appeared to St Bernadette Soubirous and referred to herself as "The" Immaculate Conception.

[@Fassnight]

Sure

[@theodore8178]

Orthodox more than less dogmatically affirm transubstantian only with different words. See the Council 1672 council of Jerusalem. It's dogmatically binding for orthodox. μετουσίωσις is dogma in the council of Jerusalem. We agree dogmatically on a change of essence in the elements while the physical appearance of bread and wine remain. I can think of ways to affirm this without accepting the concept of accidents. But introducing accidents seems to make the most sense.

[@robertwaguespack9414]

The year of the pro

[@robertwaguespack9414]

The year was 1850.

[@TyroneBeiron]

Hmm. Seems confusing to put the 'perpetual virginity' of the Theotokos as a 'dogma', when it is universally held and included in prayers 'e.g. the ever-Virgin' but not a proclaimed dogma for Catholics. If it is categorically challenged in the future, then perhaps it may have to be defined. That state could be affirmed in consistency with ancient tradition related to Jewish practices concerning vows and conjugality. (See Numbers 30 vs the Apocryphal sources, Apostolic Fathers, and terms of reference used in ancient prayers). In any case, the consent and agreement of almost all the bishops in communion with the Latin Church and bishop of Rome, was needed to define these 'dogmas'. So it demonstrates the vast, catholic - universal, unity of belief held by the faithful. So these truths are not imposed on Catholics but rather expresses what Catholics already believed for 'all' time. 🕊

[@gregnorthway3814]

Saying the Magisterium lacks the infallibility to me seems to say that the Holy Spirit cannot guide men to truth but remember that Jesus specifically said the Holy Spirit would guide them "Peter and the apostles" to truth.

[@ReasonandTheology]

Thanks for watching!

[@777Thebear]

I would feel it is explicitly stated in matthew 1:25 the perpetually virginity is false. Especially since later it talks about the brothers and sisters of christ in combination with joseph and mary as the prelude to the naming of Jesus's siblings.

[@richardmason1597]

On Mary's.perpetual virginity the question occurs to me: Who was responsible for impregnating her? Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit was. Does that not make God her de facto husband? If so, her subsequent sexual relations would make her guilty of adultery. I would not want to think that the mother of my Lord was an adulteress.

[@tpw7250]

Does that mean a legal union to someone else is ok unless it is consummated?

[@goyonman9655]

The whole point of "virgin mary" is that she became pregnant without sexual relations So your point is moot

[@toddthacker8258]

God placing Jesus within Mary is literally a unique event. Marriage is something we do as humans--it's not appropriate to assign it to God.

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

I'm on track to become Lutheran but Catholicism calls to me.

[@Miskeen-33]

Islam calls to me but it's not true. Go for what's true not how you feel.

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

@@Miskeen-33 I am. Staying Lutheran

[@rjay5603]

​@Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum I'm just curious. What tradition did you move away from to become Lutheran? What exegetical arguments convinced you Lutheranism was the right choice, as opposed to some other tradition, like Baptist or Presbyterianism?

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

@@rjay5603 Jesus’s word

[@rjay5603]

@@BibleLovingLutheran Got it.

[@edalbanese6310]

Dr Ortlund won!

[@arlindodossantos2305]

Catholics claim to to worship Mary ,only venerate Mary - but CCC 2112?

[@Racingbro1986]

I think what Eric explained as for the authority of the church to make dogmatic even if the evidence is not conclusive is the very foundation for the reformation. At that point the church becomes untethered to the scriptures and takes on an identity All of its own.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

It sounds like you're making a small case for more biblical Christianity. Though the RCC and early church could be wobbly on the scriptures far before the reformation.

[@ilonkastille2993]

Just because there is a dispute about it, it does not mean that those who dispute are necessarily right. Atheists dispute the reality of God.

[@evanpedri]

So do catholics not believe it was a sin when Mary thought Jesus was insane?

[@jordonhodges8493]

1:05:36

[@georgeluke6382]

58:18- 59:05, would love that email if possible!

[@aka.yehoshua]

Haven't listened to the second half yet, but this first half has NOT been charitable to Dr. Ortlund, the few times he began to speak he got cut off.

[@logicaredux5205]

The topic isn’t really Mary. The topic is the same regardless the subject. It is the magisterium: the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. It is the brick wall that cannot be breached by scripture, history, patristics or reason.

[@Americanheld]

It's literally based on the fact that the Catholic Church was built upon the rock that is Peter, who is the original pope. Jesus said he will build HIS church on Peter. Not "A" church. He then said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Which implies the Church will not fall into heresy. Therefore the Magesterium is infallible when officially releasing teachings as it is guided by the Holy Spirit. 2000 years of history have shown that the Catholic church has fallen on the right side of history with theology. This position is arrived at entirely through scripture and reason.

[@jamesbertram7925]

THERE IS A MAN WHO WAS EQUAL WITH GOD WHO EMPTIED HIMSELF OF THAT EQUALITY, AND TOOK THE FORM OF A SLAVE, MARY WAS THE MOTHER OF THAT SLAVE, THOUGH A SLAVE HE RETAINED THE PERFECT PERSONALITY OF GOD, BUT NOT HIS POWER BECAUSE HE WAS TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON HIS FATHER FOR EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING HE DID WHAT HIS FATHER TOLD HIM TO DO, AND EVERYTHING HE SAID HE HIS FATHER TOLD HIM TO SAY, AND WHEN HE CLAIMS AUTHORITY, HE ALWAYS SAYS GIVEN UNTO ME BY HIS FATHER HE SAID THREE TIMES, HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORDS SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY, AND THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE, AND WHEN HE TOLD HIS APOSTLES NOT TO CALL ANYONE FATHER BUT THEIR FATHER IN HEAVEN, AND NOT TO CALL ANYONE RABBI, OR TEACHER BUT HIM, BECAUSE ALL OF YOUR ARE MERELY BROTHERS IN THE FAMILY OF GOD

[@gregnorthway3814]

Regarding the Mary's perpetual virginity I think it important to remember what Christ promise. He said the Holy Spirit will lead the Church to truth. Just as a parent reminds his child of the same rule hundreds or thousands of times, so too does the Holy Spirit over centuries through various writings from various locations of the world, and liturgical events and councils point us to the truth and often after a challenge to the teaching and much debate. In other words the teaching office eventually gets it right and to help the faithful adopt the flushed out Holy Spirit truth by defining it. Numbers 30 is key to review here as well as knowing how Mary was consecrated to God at the age of three. It explains her answer to the Angel Gabriel in Luke 1. Her not taking a vow of virginity would not explain her question. Her question to the Angel Gabriel only makes sense if she took a vow as explained in Numbers 30. God kept her for Himself as the Holy Spirit got her pregnant. Are we to believe that God the Holy Spirit would share her with another man? I know most husbands would take offense at the thought of their wife being intimate with another man and would protect her most assuredly...I have to believe the Holy Spirit would certainly protect His bride. Plus if we use the New Testament alone we see some so called "brothers" are actually the sons of Mary the wife of Clips...I believe it is in John's gospel story of who is at the cross.

[@ReasonandTheology]

Thanks for watching!

[@robertlivingston6964]

the immaculate conception was Mary's mother not Mary

[@maxieduardoapariciom.3181]

S]he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child.... Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.... None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God."[13 Martin Luther On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. Martin Luther

[@Theworldhatesuspodcast]

7:48 dr galvin got drained even trying to defend his view and then makes a general neutral statement to not look obliterated in this debate at any point, a pre protection to his flimsy conviction in his stance on these matters

[@davidliu7967]

I agree. This all comes down to authority. Does Rome possess the authority to define dogma and be the infallible voice of the church. If there was any decent evidence at all in scripture or the early church, then I would be forced to also affirm 3rd century gnostic beliefs that worked their way into the church in the 5th century, like the assumption. However the only scriptures are verses plucked out of context, twisted and crammed into an existing belief. The vast majority of the early church did not view these scriptures the way Rome does now and the early church did not function at all the way Rome does today. It just didn’t. In any way. The Papacy, as we see it today, was a development over time. Rome wasn’t invited to at least one ecumenical council and they definitely weren’t seen as the center of power to make definite and final decisions for the whole church. There are many examples of Rome being overruled locally or ignored. It was a development of authority that the Apostles and the early church didn’t recognize. I have listened to countless RC apologists try and piece together evidence by pulling statements from the early church, while ignoring and omitting the context and other clear statements that deny their claims. This is just bad history and devoid of truly honest review of the facts that we do have. Was Rome important and even critical and amazing in the early church? Of course it was, but the infallible seat of overall authority of the entire Christian world? Of course not. Nobody in the early church even imagined such a thing. So when Rome defines dogmas 1800 years after Christ and makes claims that they have the authority to do so that goes all the way back to the start, but has no evidence for this and the evidence we do have is in opposition, then the silence of supporting fragments for Rome is deafening. Then to claim I must believe these things that there is no evidence for, because Rome, with authority they have little to no basis for, tells me I have to? That’s when I have to say no. Mary was an amazing woman, the mother of God(a Christological term by the way) who should be honored and respected. But I will not take the glory reserved only for Christ and place it upon a creature, who herself claimed she needed a savior. If these dogmas from Rome and the Papacy that gives them the power to make them, were actually true and sound, then there would be much more than a few texts taken out of context, stretched and twisted and a near total silence in the early church. Scripture isn’t the only authority and there is so much to learn and grow from the wonderful teachers and leaders God has given the church, but only scripture is the actual words of God and therefore the only infallible rule of faith. This belief, that scripture stood alone at the top, that all subsequent letters, words, books, people, etc following the Apostles, were subservient to this sure word of God, is something largely affirmed and attested to by the early church. That we have evidence for. What Rome is today is nowhere to be found and hence their “infallible dogmas” are not binding on Christians.

[@johanneslutgens5038]

One thing I would point out is that Catholic Church even says that Maria needed a savior; and there was a historical development of the papacy. There was no Vatican yet and such things but yet seat of Peter was confirmed before the time of Constantine. I would say read the book of Peter Pope for an indepth exegesis of the Scriptures.

[@davidliu7967]

@@johanneslutgens5038 and that’s one of the many many problems. Vatican I denies this historical development. There are many others. Rome tries to spin the “savior” as in she didn’t sin because God saved her before she did. The whole grabbing her before she falls in the mud versus pulling her out of the mud like the rest of us. Creative, not at all convincing. Not to mention The church fathers, many of them disagree with this idea that Mary never sinned. They plainly say this. Scripture doesn’t help your case. Immaculate conception and perpetual virginity are a real problem when it comes to Christs human nature. Read the gnostic works, where they come from, it’s a real problem. Not to mention it is found nowhere in the early church, only showing up in gnostic sources in the 2nd or 3rd century, creeeping into the church in the 5th century, but is now binding dogma. You can’t claim papal infallibility and total supremacy and then say it develops over time. Says who? Where in the world does this power come from? Scripture is not Rome’s friend. I have heard the arguments. They are very creative but also extremely weak and you need a lot more than those and hundreds of years of pagan, mystic and gnostic influences to justify the office. Same for the typology arguments for Mary. Creative, but extremely weak and you need a whole lot more than that for a dogma. Honestly ask yourself. If there was an office like this meant for the Christian church. Don’t you think there would be very clear evidence for this? Not just in scripture, which is critical, but in the clear apostolic deposit of the early church? It’s absolutely silent. An argument from silence to prove a position positively is not reasonable. All, I mean all, the clear evidence we have goes against this. There is only hints and whispers that can be stretched and twisted. Like saying Rome is important and critical, because it was, but then stretching that to infallible sovereignty over all of the Christian world, able to create dogma found nowhere in scripture and completely unknown to the apostles and early church fathers. But you know this and affirm doctrinal development because of it. I respect that you at least admit this, but This isn’t like the trinity that is plastered all over scripture but just needs formal titles. Or the divinity of Christ that is plastered all over scripture and just needs formal titles. This is a virtual unknown that takes hundreds and hundreds of years of the church operating without it and contradictory to it. You seem like a nice person, truly you do. The main issue we aren’t even talking about though. Peace with God. Justification and salvation. I would say read Hebrews for actual scripture and then take a look at your mass. The continued and repetitive re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ, although unbloody, but propitiatory, although it perfects nobody. You cannot square the Roman mass with scripture. It’s not possible. I’d suggest to honestly read that. If you don’t have the gospel right, does anything else matter?

[@johanneslutgens5038]

@@davidliu7967 read development of doctrine by cardinal Newman

[@theodore8178]

Orland is refreshing though I don't agree with him on many issues. And he's a Baptist!!??? He tries to understand us orthodox and catholics and doesn't show disrespect. He doesn't misuse patristic texts in an obviously intentional way. As for Tertullian: he was a heretic and in the end a schismatic not a Father eben if he getsvlisted as such but he is witness to early Christian belief in the single essence doctrine. So are Justin Martyr & Irenaeus when it comes to the one essence dogma. Tertullian is often listed as a father when he is not. But again he is an excellent historical source for early church belief and controversy.

[@timboslice980]

It's kind of crazy how many catholic apologists used to be reformed. I was "reformed or Calvinist" before going catholic. I think the reason is reformed theology demands careful study of the scripture and if you study it carefully enough, all kinds of catholic doctrine jumps out at you. The contradictions in Calvin's theology stick out as well.... I think it's just a natural chain for reformed to go catholic.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

That doesn't explain why reformed churches are also full of ex Catholics too. I don't agree w/ all reformed theology, or John McArthur in particular, who is very anti Catholic. McArthur did asked for raised hands in his church of ex Catholics and it was a considerable number. I see ex Catholic comments on all types of other Christian channels as well. So it's not so much a logical chain, as it is just going both ways.

[@timboslice980]

@saintejeannedarc9460 Nah I was pointing out the amount of apologists. Not just regular folks... I can't think of any protestant apologists besides maybe Gendron who used to be Catholic and he won't debate one. As far as regular people go, yeah you're totally right about that. The weirdest thing I hear from ex catholics is they didn't hear the gospel while they were at mass. Which is the weirdest thing to me. We have 3 bibke readings including one from the gospels at every mass. Also the homily to tie them into a life lesson so it's like a weekly Bible study. I think if you didn't hear the gospel at mass, you just weren't listening. Still odd how many catholic apologists used to be reformed. Sam Shamoun recently left calvinism, he's trying to decide between catholic and orthodox

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@timboslice980 The gospel is generally not taught at Mass. Bible readings are different. There are just a few scriptures, delivered usually in a very monotone, dry delivery, which does not help to bring them to life. It isn't taught though. If there's a homily, it almost is never focused on that. One priest I had used to tell a very long sport's joke, w/ a terrible punchline for his homily. So I can understand that one. That is the strength of most protestant churches, is there is a lot of bible teaching.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@timboslice980 As for Mike Gendron, I would not consider him an apologist at all. His theology is pretty weak. One of his arguments that stood out as just incorrect, is that "call no man father" fallacy. That's just a really poor interpretation of scripture, failing to take the full context, and therefore missing totally what Jesus was really saying. There is one very strong apologist, who does debates against strong Catholic apologists, Steve Christie. He was CAtholic much of his life, and more unusual for his conversion, he said it was really studying the church fathers, that made him convert to a protestant Christian.

[@timboslice980]

@saintejeannedarc9460 Man that sucks. I feel like it's the opposite at my church... we're blessed to have a seminary professor for a priest. Speaks a few languages and is very much into taking the 3 readings and tying them into a lesson for today. I've heard of clown priests, jaded ones, liberal ones, and flat out angry ones. I thank God I haven't run into one like that. The way we have priests rotate in and out, I've seen maybe a dozen. They've all been very good with the word so I tend to think it's mostly just the kids at mass that aren't paying attention that have that complaint. I do hear stories like yours often and I don't mean to assume you weren't paying attention. It just agonizes me to hear of good people leaving our church and usually for the same reasons.

[@donalgodon]

Why does any literally sinless person need a savior? If Mary is a type of Eve, why isn't she married to Jesus? The Church is the Bride of Christ, typologically, not Mary.

[@donalgodon]

@patriceagulu8315 If she's sinless, then she doesn't need a savior.

[@donalgodon]

@patriceagulu8315 She's sinless, thus not even in the water and entirely immune to any contact with sharks, to use your analogy. Can you really not see the problem?

[@f4r6u5180]

Couldn’t Eve having been made perfect but choosing imperfection in Faith, while Mary was imperfect in her Sin but Perfect in Faith. Also sex in marriage is good, God said it is so nothing wrong with listening to God and having more kids.

[@tesschavit3009]

God Father preserved Mary from stain so that the sinless baby Jesus would have a sinless mother.

[@felixcharles9773]

So baby Mary was sinless in spite of having sinful parents, but baby Jesus needed a sinless mother in order to be sinless?

[@justchilling704]

Why didn’t he just do the same for her mother, and her mother x to Eve? The logic doesn’t make sense, there is no reason to believe Mary was sinless when the Bible teaches the opposite.

[@justchilling704]

@@felixcharles9773 Exactly that what I’m saying too 😂

[@justchilling704]

@@felixcharles9773 Her entire line would have to be sinless.

[@MrJayb76]

Whatever the Church has declared of Mary has complete corroboration and support from both Church fathers, Church, scripture and tradition. For 1500yrs no one really questioned the marian dogmas.

[@EdwardGraveline]

Dr. Ortlund should really look into becoming Catholic.

[@ReasonandTheology]

he says he has looked into it already and is not convinced.

[@EdwardGraveline]

@@ReasonandTheology He will when he dies You should ask him if he believes in the Rapture =-which is false

[@susanburrows810]

I wonder what Mary actually DID FOR SINNERS. Jesus gave up His majesty & power to live a poor, humble life PERFECTLY, the only ONE to do so. He suffered atrocities, physically, psychologically, & emotionally, yet didn't retaliate & loved. He paid the ultimate price-- a humiliating & tortuous death unjustly. He triumphantly returned, still humbly, to give hope to all who believe & follow HIM. Again, does Mary obediently bearing & raising her son even start to approach WHO JESUS IS & WHAT JESUS DID? FOR ALL? I know the an swer is resoundingly no. (Jesus did not venerate her & a couple times rebuked her & made other people on her level " Who is my brother and mother?" ) Nevertheless, the Catholic institution continues to raise & raise & raise her importance, being ascribed God- attributes, & mandating Jesus' followers to depend ON HER to help save, forgive, & answer prayers. I believe Jesus clearly communicated HIS POWER & WILLINGNESS & LOVE to meet ALL needs, along with the Father & Spirit. Mary not necessary or on a par. Please let God be God & do His job -- He's more than able!!!! I hope you believe it.🤔

[@garyr.8116]

The Holy Spirit makes it clear as day thru Paul, at 1Cor 7:20 - "Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called." (as well as " let those having wives act as not having them," v.29 and "the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better." v.38 - read the whole chapter in this context!) That, and ONLY that serves the HIGHEST spiritual good; and Mary, being 'filled with grace', would be set as stone to 'serve the Highest good' : remaining a virgin, the state in which she was called in, remaining 'overshadowed by the power of The Most High'. Joseph too, if seeking the highest good, would also be afforded graces to share in a chaste bond with Mary & Jesus, as we ALL are called to!

[@annapennrose1158]

Gavin would be a great Catholic if he ever came to see the fullness of God's truth. He is one of the few Protestants that l can respect.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

It seems to me that Pastor Gavin Ortland claims the authority to himself to cherry pick dogmas...

[@miguelinteriano125]

William is the man.

[@trupela]

Here’s how it appears to me. The decision was made on other grounds to proclaim the immaculate conception of Mary, and what these very smart men are doing is building a case for her immaculate conception that doesn’t address the initial concern. So, what is the initial concern? Why does it matter (what sense does it make) that Mary was immaculately conceived? That, to me, seems like the important point here, not whether she actually was immaculately conceived. Because in the end, it’s not about Mary. It’s about God. Mary shows us the feminine nature of God. And we desperately need to see that more clearly today.

[@ilonkastille2993]

I am not a theologian so I will not use high flying theories. One thing I do want to say is this: if God chose a woman called Mary to be totally immaculate , without sin, so she could be the vessel who would carry the incarnation of the WORD, then this is reason enough for me to believe that nothing changed in her after giving birth . HE did not just want a specific period for her. After giving birth « ok, now you can be a woman like everybody else », makes no sense to me. She was chosen to be the vessel and more. If Jesus on the Cross then says that she will be our mother then she has a special mission in life.

[@gregnorthway3814]

Since Christ received all of his human DNA from the Virgin Mary she had to be without sin as it fulfills God's first promise in Genesis 3:15.

[@ReasonandTheology]

Thanks for watching!

[@killingtime9283]

I understand your reasoning but you're assuming that original sin is transferred genetically, how do we know that? Now I haven't thought about this before, but Isn't original sin a spiritual defect rather than a genetic one? I mean no disrespect, but It comes across strange to me, wouldn't this imply that if we could genetically modify a human embryo, and isolate these genes, we could potentially have an unfallen offspring?

[@bernardauberson7218]

Vous êtes dans l’erreur comme d’habitude, tous les protestants, pourquoi? Vous devriez savoir que Jacques, frère de Jésus et premier évêque de Jérusalem était plus âgé que Jésus ! Donc! Ce ne sont pas des « frères « mais des cousins ( ce mot cousin n’existe pas en hébreu,) fils de l’autre Maria la femme de Cleopas. ( vérifiez dans votre bible! ) Il faut revoir votre enseignement. Nous avons plus de 2000 ans d’expériences et vie en Christ, vous n’avez aucune racine chrétienne.

[@luvall293]

God has done great great miracles in the catholic church so I spiritually think catholic church is only the true church....ya I believe other churches too have miracles but not great as catholic church's....

[@johngalt9181]

Isn't original sin inherited because of Adam? Weren't we cast from Eden because Adam ate from the tree? That would mean the original sin inherited through the Father not the mother. Mary was never sinless and was born with original sin. She was born from her mother and father inheriting her fathers original sin notnher mother's. That is why she needed a Savior just as much as everyone else. Jesus Christ was is the Son of God. He was not born with original sin because he didn't have a human father to inherit that sin from.

[@johngalt9181]

@patriceagulu8315 your mother has no power

[@johngalt9181]

@patriceagulu8315 Jesus washes us all of sin. Try again bro

[@larspatrzalek7726]

You asked what sin Mary has done I ask you where it say she have no sin? Thinking bad about peter or others is like murder. I am sure that all would think that Peter is toooo much ego, Se me brothers I will be first And many others I think that peter is more in the years with Jesus, is becauce off his personality. Peter would have bad thinks about John, becouce he was the one that Jesus loved. Just to tell that it was ordinary sinfull people, olso Mary. Mary have not stolen, but in thinking she has. The very great wonderfull truth is that God used a virgin, very humbel and working. Many women was like that. You dont need to make “ more “ out of Her than this, what is true The mother of Jesus The mother of “ God “ The one who baere the rediemer of the world And so on Every big person in the bibel was ordinary Peoply in the plan of God, yes we adore them But great that god can use them, he can use a donkey and a bird You go to fare Bless

[@stephenschulte455]

The typology Mary and the covenant is way off It does not exist

[@hei7586]

It's a bit funny that here are only men discussing questions of womanhood ... Why is this?

[@ReasonandTheology]

Because it is mostly men who engage in online apologetics. This is also a really bad line of reasoning if you carry it to its logical conclusion.

[@hei7586]

@@ReasonandTheology I didn't come to any conclusion, it only came to mind. Your explanation is logical.