Is Apostolic Succession an Accretion?

[@benfinlay5618]

Surely, this video will not spark controversy in the comments section!

[@noahjohnson2611]

Waaaar! ...in Jesus name, Amen.😂

[@HearGodsWord]

Anything Gavin says causes some people to feel like they need to make a video about him 😂

[@doubtingthomas9117]

Or even lengthy multi-part videos

[@JW_______]

Surely not! 😂

[@NP-vk8de]

Catholics are not very favourable to dialogue and meaningful discussion. I wish they were in tune with Vatican II.

[@KYWingfold]

Looking forward to the super-positive comments and response videos!

[@mcgilldi]

😅

[@timp7412]

🤣

[@orthodox_soul]

I have a response video. I'm looking forward to every honest truth-seeking, Christ-loving Protestant who's willing to be honest with themselves, to challenge some of their own assumptions and ask themselves some hard questions.

[@KYWingfold]

@@orthodox_soul bro, I started my journey HOPING Orthodox or Catholics were correct. Would have been a lot easier for me for several reasons. I ask all the hard questions.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@KYWingfold you've piqued my interest. I'm curious which hard questions did you ask, exactly? Because, as far as foundational principles go, Protestantism is completely untenable as a system due to its self-refuting epistemology. Not one apologist--including Gavin--has given an adequate account for the canon of Scripture that is consistent with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And if Sola Scriptura is false (which is demonstrably the case) then Protestantism is false, by default. So, what was the deal breaker?

[@CPATuttle]

I don't understand how you can say Ireneaus, 2nd century, didn't believe in apostolic succession when he elaborated on this numerous times in great detail in his writings. And he does say 'bishops' is what the succession is through, 'priests' possess it. And then all the lists, are tracted, and kept have singular succession

[@joshuareeves5103]

Gavin Ortlund is an accretion ;) just kidding. Loved this interview. Everyone should go listen to the whole thing on Gospel Simplicity. Also, his book is great! Definitely worth reading.

[@thadofalltrades]

My next book

[@morghe321]

YOU are an accretion. Just kidding. 😅😅

[@aericabison23]

@@joshuareeves5103 in a sense we’re all accretions- accretions of cells.

[@andrew33bird]

I remember studying Irenaeus after discussing things with a Catholic friend, and it seemed clear to me that Irenaeus' model of apostolic succession was not the same as Rome's today, nor does it hold up to church reality as it played out in the centuries after him. Basically, he was countering a heresy outside the church that claimed to have a special understanding passed down orally from the apostles. His whole point was that it would be insane to think the apostles would hide this special knowledge from the churches they labored to establish and shepherd. He then states that all churches were in agreement with each other and always have been since the time of the apostles. And the sign/seal of this agreement is apostolic succession. This was meant to be a comfort and a guarantee for all members in any local church. The only problem with this model is fast-forward in church history and there's the split where both east and west rightly claim apostolic succession, yet are not in agreement. So either update the model or recognize that Irenaeus' idea of apostolic succession (being the guarantee of truth) isn't actually apostolic in origin. Hence why scripture always speaks of the Holy Spirit being the guarantor. Irenaeus was a bright guy, but he didn't have the luxury of seeing how 2,000+ years of church history played out. Anyway, thanks for the presentation Gavin and giving the full picture of things. I hope to have time to acquire and read your book soon!

[@KevinDay]

Assuming Irenaeus was not just making things up, how would he have had a line of apostolic succession ready to cite if it had not been recorded (orally or written) from the beginning? And if it was recorded from the beginning, and considered so important for distinguishing the Church from heretical sects by the time of Irenaeus, how could it not be of Apostolic origin?

[@truthnotlies]

Good question. Someone told me he or Ignatius simply made up this entire priesthood in order to protect the church from heresy. Which makes no sense. Because if they made this up and forced it on everyone and it's contrary to God's plan for the church, would not that be creating a heresy? Lol... So they created heresy to protect from heresy?

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

There’s about a thousand different ways these things can happen. He could have misunderstood something someone else said. Someone else could have made up there being a line of apostolic succession. Someone that Irenaeus got his info from could have misunderstood what others said or made up something. I’m curious why you say “assuming Irenaeus was not making things up”. Do you not think it’s likely that early writers made things up? Why is that something that we should assume? People make mistakes in passing down info. They weren’t 21st century historians. They had bias and didn’t care about historical questions as much as we do today. Irenaeus simply claiming something many years later for something he could not have verified in a time where early Christian writers were notorious for passing down faulty “tradition” (think of all the non-canonical Christian texts) should not be something we should be putting a lot of weight on.

[@Jesus-Is-Coming-back7]

Wasn’t Saul then Paul called by Jesus? Was Peter involved in Paul’s conversion? If Peter was the supreme leader of the church, do you really think he’d be left out of the appointment of an apostle? If apostolic succession were true, Paul would have been ordained by one of the apostles. *Acts 13:1-2 (KJV)* 1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, *the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.* God’s work is not bound by human systems. He alone appoints leaders in His church, and His authority is supreme, making any claims of exclusive human mediation such as apostolic succession completely unscriptural. The so-called pope was not apart of this commission. It’s God alone who calls, ordains, and equips us. He is supreme all by himself. *Ephesians 1:22 (KJV)* And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

[@KevinDay]

@@Jesus-Is-Coming-back7 Paul was directly ordained by Jesus, just like the other Apostles... Apostolic succession doesn't mean all bishops were ordained by Peter. Galatians 1:12 (ESV): 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:15-17 (ESV): 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

[@Jesus-Is-Coming-back7]

@@KevinDay I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that excuse. I thought your pope had supreme power over the church.

[@SinceAD33]

Hey, would you be willing to dialogue on this? I don’t feel as if we are being properly represented here (in Scripture, the first century documents, St. Jerome, etc).

[@truthnotlies]

That would be awesome.

[@KnightFel]

Lol the arguments literally never end.

[@JoshOchoa-o3m]

Hey man, These guys are being disingenuous. The historical record and early church fathers speak for themselves... He is not interested in debates and possibly having his mind changed, he's interested in his financial interests peddling a flimsy protestantism

[@Clif87]

​@@JoshOchoa-o3m it's totally fair that you disagree with them and hold to different ecclesiology. But I don't see any evidence that these guys are only interested in financial gain. Gavin has taken part in several debates and I haven't seen him run away from them. I'm a Protestant who is watching (and being blessed by) more and more Catholic content. E.g. Trent Horn, Bishop Barron and Matt Fradd. One of the reasons I appreciate Gospel Simplicity and Truth Unites is that these guys are able to have great conversations with Catholics and Orthodox believers.

[@Darksouls184]

​@@JoshOchoa-o3m If the Church fathers speak for themselves, it's very curious why there's so much disagreement about it!

[@stephenbailey9969]

The role of the bishop (overseers) as separate from presbyters grew for two reasons: the increasing numbers of the Christian congregations and need for coordination, the need to oversee the struggle against heretical teaching. But it was when the Church leaders began to collude with the Roman imperium, becoming a state religion, that servanthood developed into hierarchy and the Church became a tool for social conformity.

[@ottovonbaden6353]

Can you recommend any good books or resources on this matter? I've long been curious about the relationship between the fall of Rome and the transition of the church to a kind of pseudo imperial system in its own right.

[@Weebgamer236]

​@@ottovonbaden6353this is just a big compiracy🤣🤣. plus the church wasn't only in Rome but all churches from Europe to Africa formed a similar ecliseology

[@samuelotache9239]

​@@Weebgamer236All these churches were part of the Roman empire

[@thadofalltrades]

@@Weebgamer236 the church basically dictated what happened in Europe for a thousand years, it's not a conspiracy.

[@annakimborahpa]

@@samuelotache9239 Not in India where St. Thomas the Apostle evangelized.

[@stevenjames6830]

The idea that because bishops and priests had somewhat interchangeable duties that therefore apostolic succession as we know it is false is absolutely nonsensical to me… in the New Testament itself we find the apostles, appointing successors, and then in writing shortly after the new testament, we find pretty powerful statements about the successes of the apostles.. it doesn’t really matter if there was a college of bishops and priests rather than one bishop of priest, they were still ordained in succession with the apostles, and their institutions were authoritative over Those that were not.. this is what is meant by apostolic succession. We don’t need one bishop or dating another bishop to have apostolic succession. We just need bishops ordaing bishops regardless if there are many at the same time. There is also Evidence from the New Testament itself such as the council of Jerusalem where James oversaw a college of priests as the bishop … this looks a lot like the monepiscopacy that would come about later.

[@childoftheonetrueking7761]

Rome has as one of the official Titles of the pope as 'Apostle Supreme' and 'Petrine Apostle'. Official Vatican Doctrine claims that Peter was not only a 'Supreme' apostle Above the Other New Testament apostles, but that Also they claim that the Roman 'popes' are Supreme Apostles with Peter's Title and the Popes are Above the Other New Testament Apostles [all total False Teachings and Unbiblical ] . Its amazing to me how catholics will say, no this is just a general claim that lines up with the general claims in the Bible and completely Ignore or be ignorant of the Lengthy Details of the teachings and traditions being taught by the Vatican for all these years.

[@RedRoosterRoman]

​@@childoftheonetrueking7761 how many apostles were there? Define apostles?

[@KnightFel]

Scripture describes absolutely NOTHING of the sort of what you’re commenting here. My goodness you guys are so desperate. The earliest of churches were ruled by a plurality of presbyters. Not a single bishop in a three tiered system. You’re assuming what bishop meant to Ignatius is how you view bishops today along with their powers. It’s just false.

[@RedRoosterRoman]

@@KnightFel; it is a strawman to asset that a strict three tier system was ALWAYS present in strict matter. A practice can be Apostolic in form rather than matter; later to be clarified. And the arguments for a plurality of leaders doesn't affect the case really. In times of persecution it makes sense to appoint several bishops/priests over a single location for if one dies. OR if there is only one... You probably don't want to be shouting that out to Roman historians or in capturable letters... Seems like something you'd want to keep on the down low.... That fact St Ignatius doesn't mention a bishop of Rome therefore makes sense. Especially when within a day of the epistle to Rome he wrote to other churches about the necessity of a bishop.

[@hirehammer925]

Where in the New Testament do you even see priests mentioned other than the one in the order of Melchizedek namely Jesus the Christ.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Faith alone and Scripture alone, are accretions, but Holy Scripture teaches even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! Peace and peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!

[@BlakeCoulter777]

What a great strawman you just destroyed!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@BlakeCoulter777 so true, Holy Scripture teaches that even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! Peace and peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

[@BlakeCoulter777]

@@matthewbroderick6287 While you’re quoting Scripture, it’s important to recognize that the office of the apostles ended with those directly commissioned by Christ (Ephesians 2:20). The ongoing maturity of faith, yes, but through the ministry of the Word and the Spirit not new apostolic offices.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@BlakeCoulter777 most inaccurate for Holy Scripture is quite evident sadly, as Barnabas and Timothy and Silvanus are also called Apostles. Again, Holy Scripture teaches that even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@BlakeCoulter777]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus were called apostles in the sense of ‘sent ones’ or messengers, not in the same category as the Twelve Apostles who held foundational authority. Ephesians 2:20 clarifies the foundation of the Church was laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone. The office of apostle in that foundational sense doesn’t continue beyond those directly commissioned by Jesus. I appreciate your prayers, and I’ll be praying for you as well! Peace in Christ.

[@gardengirlmary]

Great video. Totally going to check out the full video!

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Here's what I'll grant. The notion of the necessity of a rigid rite, as laid out by something like Apostolicae Curae, is an accretion. However, the notion that the presbytery is passed down from the high priest is almost certainly not. The earliest strands of data confirm two proper orders--presbyters and deacons. The praxis in the New Testament (e.g. Timothy and Titus) and certainly when we get to Ignatius is of one ruling presbyter who ordains other presbyters. *That* form is the form of apostolic succession.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I'd also rebuff the notion that bishops were akin to senior pastors. To my knowledge, there was no other bishop of Antioch at Ignatius's time. And it's telling that Clement writes for the whole church of Rome, dispersed as it probably was through multiple house churches.

[@MichaelPetek]

Episkopoi and diakonoi are mentioned together several times in the NT and in early Christian writings. We can be certain that every bishop was a presbyter, but not that every presbyter was a bishop.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@@MichaelPetek Exactly! And I'd even grant that the terminology is a development. But it's a wise one, insofar as one term was used to single out a ruling presbyter. Yet the evidence shows, I'd argue, that the form of one ruling presbyter consecrated over the other presbyters, who ordained other presbyters, was the apostolic form of governance given to us by the apostles.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I'll also say, you're right that Richard Hooker thinks the episcopate wasn't of divine right. But Davenant thought it was, among other Anglican divines. And even Richard Hooker thinks it's the ideal form, for whatever that's worth.

[@MichaelPetek]

@@anglicanaesthetics The clear majority of references to presbyters in the NT is to members of the Sanhedrin. Each was co-opted by ordination.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Apostolic Succession in the sense that the primacy the RCC claims to have received from Peter as bishop of Rome is a fiction invented by Cyprian of Carthage c.250-258AD. The same Cyprian who foisted a sacerdotal priesthood on the church. That's what one gets for ignoring 1 Timothy 3:6 and appointing an immature Christian to the office of bishop - Cyprian only converted to Christianity two years before he was ordained as a bishop. Augustine later refined the idea to include the notion of a succession of Apostolic Authority. Contrary to Roman Catholic claims, Peter did not found the church at Rome. Even Paul hadn't been there when he wrote Romans to _an already-established church._ Claims that Peter founded the church in Rome and was its bishop until his death c.67AD are demonstrably false. Indeed, there is no evidence he was in Rome before 65AD. For starters, after Pentecost, Peter remained in Jerusalem until he visited Samaria in 35AD (Acts 8:14-25) and was still in Jerusalem when Paul visited there three years after his own conversion (Acts 9:26-27; Galatians 1:18), bringing up to 38AD. All the evidence points to Peter remaining in Israel until Herod arrested him in Jerusalem (Acts 12:3), visiting Lydda (Acts 9:32), Joppa (Acts 10:5) and Caesarea (Acts 10:21-28) in the interim. After escaping from prison, Peter fled to Caesarea, where he remained until Herod died, c.43AD (Acts 12:19-23). Peter was still in Jerusalem when the ecumenical council was held there c.49AD (Acts 15:1-29). Note well that the leader of the church at that time was Jesus’ brother James, not Peter. Some time later, Peter visited Antioch, where he and Paul had their confrontation (Galatians 2:11-16). Peter also couldn't have lived in Rome during the period when Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome c.50AD (Acts 18:2). There is simply no evidence Peter had even visited Rome in all these years, let alone take up residence as bishop there. On top of that, we have Paul's epistle to the Romans (c.57AD) and his second epistle to Timothy (c.64AD). In Romans 1:7, Paul greets the Romans but doesn't acknowledge Peter. In Romans 16:1-15, Paul names 25 people known to him in the Roman congregation - excluding Peter - and mentions at least 11 others indirectly. Does anyone really imagine Paul would have snubbed Peter, as bishop of Rome, that way? There is also no mention of Peter being in Rome during Paul's two-year stay there in 60-62AD (Acts 28:16-31). In 2 Timothy 4:16, Paul complained that no-one in Rome supported him at his first defense; all deserted him. Would anyone accuse Peter, as the bishop of Rome, of abandoning the Apostle Paul? As with the years leading up to the Jerusalem Council, there is simply no evidence Peter had even visited Rome before Paul’s first trial, let alone take up residence as bishop there. FWIW, the first person to be called a Pope was not Peter, or even a bishop of Rome. That dubious honor goes to Patriarch Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248) - and the title was awarded posthumously. The ‘Pope’ title was only officially reserved for the bishop of Rome in the 11th century. Petrine Apostolic Succession apologists (Roman Catholics) make much of Matthew 16:18-19, using it to justify their claims of Papal Authority and Papal Succession. However, they take Jesus’ words out of context and ignore the underlying meaning of the Greek text. *Matthew 16:13-19* _Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter_ [πέτρος (petros)], _and on this rock_ [πέτρα (petra)] _I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."_ Petrine Apostolic Succession apologists often claim the discussion was in Aramaic and the same word was used in that language for both 'Peter' and 'rock' in Matthew 16:18, since Aramaic uses the same word in both cases. But, if that is so, why did Matthew confuse the matter by using different Greek words? And does the claim about the Aramaic words hold up? Let's just suppose the discussion was in Aramaic. Given that Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Daniel 2:4b-7:28 are written in Aramaic, those passages give us some clues as to how Jesus might have made such a differentiation had he been inclined to do so - as Matthew 16:18 implies. Plus, we already know of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא (kepha), for Cephas. Let's also suppose for the sake of discussion that the Aramaic lacked differentiating nouns. Are there any adjectives for small and large Jesus might have used to convey the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are: • For small, we have the adjective זְעֵיר (zeer), as in Daniel 7:8; and • For large, we have the adjectives שַׂגִּיא (saggi), as in Daniel 2:6, and רַב (rab), as in Daniel 2:35. Any of the above could be applied to כֵּיפָא (kepha) to make an Aramaic small/large distinction for each of which a single Greek noun is all that would be needed. And are there any Aramaic nouns Jesus might have used that correspond with the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are: • For πέτρος (petros), we have כֵּיפָא (kepha), meaning a small rock. • For πέτρα (petra), we have טוּר (tur), meaning a large rock, a cliff or a mountain, as in Daniel 2:35. There is also the Aramaic and Hebrew noun אֶבֶן (eben), translated 'rock' in Genesis 49:24 (Hebrew) and 'stone' in Daniel 2:34 (Aramaic), for which we have אֶ֣בֶן גְּלָ֔ל (eben gelal) for large (heavy) stones in Ezra 5:8; 6:4. So, the availability of suitable Aramaic nouns and adjectives that Jesus could have used to create the distinctions reflected by πέτρος (petros) and πέτρα (petra) in Matthew 16:18-19 debunks the Petrine Apostolic Succession claim, which leaves its apologists unable to account for Matthew different Greek nouns if he thought Jesus was referring to Simon Bar-Jona in both cases. Note, too, that Jesus didn't give Peter the binding and loosing authority at that time. That didn't happen until Matthew 18:18, when Jesus gave it to _all_ the apostles.

[@bobmccamon5056]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh Everything you posted is new to me so could you please share just where and how you learned all this from?

[@bobmccamon5056]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh Bishops only have authority within their assigned territory and could never dictate doctrines on the whole universal church. Even the Bishop of Rome aka the pope cannot make doctrines,but only teach and pass on what all he received from all the church leadership that came before them. Also in the early church many patriarchs were called “pope” or papa aka father. Anyone trying to relate Christian practices of the last millennium to the early Christian beliefs and practices of the the first three centuries when the church was still running for its lives in the catacombs before the Edict of Milan in 313 will find out sooner or later that things just didn’t go down like many today may try to presume.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

My previous reply seems to have disappeared. What I posted is the result of studying early church history and biblical languages, both of I studied at university. You can check the Aramaic terms I referred to using a lexicon such as the _Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament_ (BDB) or by using one of the apps that let you check what the underlying words are. I've given the relevant Scripture references so anyone who wants to verify what I posted can do so.

[@bobmccamon5056]

@ when a Protestant university student studies ear

[@bobmccamon5056]

@ when a non Catholic university student studies early church hist

[@joaohm.7593]

Irenaeus not only gives testimony of apostolic succession, but also of the primacy of the Church of Rome. Irenaeus himself was part of the succession through Polycarp, disciple of John the apostle.

[@haronsmith8974]

Crazy how apostolic succession is an accretion but not sola scripture.

[@dankmartin6510]

Doesnt matter - Gavin fills a role to dissuade protestants from converting out of their innovative denominations and it literally doesn't matter what he says, or what he doesn't understand or pretends to not understand. In fact his comment sections are full of smug protestants who just don't like the orthodox or catholic churches and never respond to any facts or arguments or true understanding of scripture no matter what is said - they just keep clapping and patting themselves on the back because it is all pleasing to their own eyes to pretend they have control over doctrine and salvation no matter how alien their modern, secularized churches bare no resemblance at all to any Christianity from ancient times.

[@KnightFel]

You’re reading all of those assumption into their letters. Irenaeus also said Christ was 50 years old, that’s literally the first mention of apostolic tradition which he said he literally got from the apostles and he was flat out wrong.

[@dankmartin6510]

​@@KnightFelHe did not teach that Jesus lived to 50 - that is a willful misreading to try and discredit him and is weak at that. ​@KnightFel

[@haronsmith8974]

@@KnightFel me when I lie.

[@Nsfwpodcastofficial]

Gavin aint stating the full context of what St. IGNATIUS said “Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians, 6:1). This passage shows that Ignatius believed bishops and priests (presbyters) held roles of apostolic succession, acting in the place of the apostles in guiding and governing the Church. He viewed the bishop’s authority as vital to the Church’s unity, and this reflects the early Christian understanding of apostolic succession.

[@mfjh505]

Gavin takes a lot of things out of context to prove his point. He's the master at this. All great heretics have this gift. He loves to deceive himself and others.

[@AdOrient]

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter." -Tertullian 160 AD - 240 AD Definitely an accretion

[@whomptalosis22]

You didn’t listen to the video

[@AdOrient]

@@whomptalosis22 I did watch the video, but to be fair it seems that Dr. Ortlund has a particularly precise definition of apostolic succession which probably wasn't fully articulated not having his book in front of him. Based on the definition he did give I'm not sure how this quote isn't testimony precisely against it. On another note my original comment was a bit dismissive and smug which isn't cool. My bad

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

Well, what's the context there? He goes into this immediately following talking about the antiquity of the true doctrine, and the novelty of the heretics. The reason for this, then, is to show continuity of doctrine with the apostolic teaching (see the mention in your comment of continuing steadfast), not something about what makes a legitimate ordination. (Though note, of course, that I'm not trying to say that it would be okay for people to just form new schismatic congregations.) It made sense to demand that it not be a new thing. But expecting the same continuity to be evidence of soundness is significantly less reasonable when so many centuries have passed.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

14:40 St Ignatius makes that exact claim, that a bishop is needed for Eucharistic validity. That's not a later accretion. "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains."

[@hc7385]

What Ignatius says is that one should not celebrate the Eucharist in rebellion against the bishop, despising a bishop. If there is a bishop, his authority must be respected, of course.

[@clivejungle6999]

But the point Gavin is making is that when Ignatius uses the term ‘bishop’ he doesn’t mean what we today think of as bishop. He means something akin to a senior pastor as the concept of a diocesan bishop certainly didn’t exist let alone archbishops. Ignatius (Like Clement) conflates bishop with presbyters (Letter to the Magnesians 7:1). He himself was likely one of several bishops in Antioch just as Clement was one of several bishops in Rome. Ignatius himself addresses the Romans in the second person plural when giving them commands.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@hc7385 No, he clearly says more than that, as the quote makes clear.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@clivejungle6999 We see a plurality of presbyters, never a plurality of bishops. The bishop is also a presbyter and sits at the head of the council of presbyters, not that doesn't mean his role is reduced to merely that. We disagree over if the discussion is Apostolic, but clearly in the patristic literature, long after nobody would dispute that the threefold offices were clearly distinct everywhere, you still see bishops being referred to as priests as well. Aaron was a priest. That doesn't mean that the office of high priest wasn't district from the general Aaronic priesthood or that the distinction is an accretion.

[@hc7385]

@@AmericanwrCymraeg Your quote looks more like a biased paraphrase. Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

[@aericabison23]

Imo the Apostles didn’t really appoint successors to their office; they appointed elders to rule over the churches they founded. They wanted each church to be autonomous, but have the same doctrine and practice of faith.

[@yblackie]

At the very least, this shouldn't be excluded as a possibility

[@cm2973]

Meh. I'm no papist, but the apostles clearly corrected errors in other churches. They were by definition not autonomous. But, that's a far cry from requiring unamity of bishops or some papist decree.

[@aericabison23]

@@cm2973 the churches were meant to be autonomous; ofc while the apostles were around they’d guide and correct these fledgling churches until they pass away, but the churches themselves were meant to be independent congregations that followed the same doctrine and practice.

[@garyr.8116]

No such thing as a divided Church - Christ makes that perfectly clear - 1 Corinthians 10:17 -

[@aericabison23]

@@garyr.8116 you’re confusing the Universal/Catholic Church for the local church in my comment.

[@1984SheepDog]

Why is there an assumption that because there is a different way of explaining the priest/bishop distinction between Clement and Irenaeus that they mean substantially different things? They are so close to the apostles by time and succession that it would be crazy to think that there is *that* significant of a development for it to be really considered an alien accretion. And if you maintain this attitude about everything in the church then nearly everything can and will be deconstructed: american mega church lowest common denominator Christianity. We should instead assume that the church has faithfully passed down the divine traditions set in place by the apostles. Especially that early.

[@jeffjolly1980]

I am not sure how much stock we can put in the argument that developed early= true. The gnostics developed early. Icon worship developed early and was rejected, then accepted. Post-apostolic early is important, but not apostolic. Remember that much of the early Christian writings outside the scripture are trying to establish what constitutes heresy and what is the true faith. That seems to imply if not explicitly state that very early on there were developments that were not in accordance with the word of God. Heresies are very quick to develop, and if the Shepherd of Hermas is anything to go by, people quickly fall away from the narrow path.

[@junkim5853]

Isn't there absolute rigidity of the threefold offices in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs? If there is such rigidity, why can't we demand rigid evidence based on their rigid claims and standards? If they don't make such rigid and strong claims and statements that no Church has a valid ministry or sacraments unless they have a bishop, protestants wouldn't use such words as accretion. Either way, It's clear if you watch this video, Gavin Ortlund says that accretion doesn't mean it's a bad thing and he acknowledges the benefits of the threefold office or having a monarchical episcopate. I think all protestants do acknowledge that there is a reasonable development of having three-fold offices in the Church. The question is whether this threefold office is a divine mandate and that if Churches don't have these three distinct offices they are going to hell? Showing facts that something is an accretion doesn't mean everything that is an accretion leads to deconstruction. That's totally fallacious, and you admit it's a development, it's a fact that the three-fold office was developed and not originally there after Jesus founded the Church. By your own logic since the ante-Nicene Fathers are pretty close by the time of the apostles, shouldn't this fact give more precedence to the protestant view of having a two-fold office since when you read the Didache, it only mentions the bishop and a deacon? How about Clement of Rome when he uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably? There is no one that uses a strong language of having a three-fold office other than Ignatius and we are some how going to suggest that a monarchical episcopate is a divine mandate based on just one guy? It's totally outrageous and unfair in my opinion.

[@thirdparsonage]

Granted, there was some development on this (and nearly every other doctrine in the church). But to accept Gavin's view, how can anything whatsoever in the church be authoritative? Are any of the councils authoritative? Can we be sure we're correct about any of the Christological controversies? Did the church act with definitive authority when spelling out the Trinity? There has to be some actual and definitive locus of authority for any of the theological decisions to be considered authoritative . To accept the Protestant view, pretty nearly every doctine is just up to each Christian (or individual church body) to decide. The church has no definitive authority. There is no definitive Christian theology. The finished canon of scripture has almost nothing to do with the church. We're left to guess whether the current NT canon is truly definitive. To accept the Protestant view is ultimately a house of cards. Where is the locus of any conclusive authority if 10 (or 50, or 100, including) different denominations (including a group like the Unitarians) can each have equal claim to getting the teaching of scripture correct? It's no surprise that this doctrine developed in the first couple centuries. Just because it didn't look exactly as it does today does not mean there was no transmission of authority from the apostles to the leaders in the church. What they were called at any given point is much less important then whether there were individuals who had hands laid on them who received any actual authority. If they did not, the countless Protestant denominations aren't just a bug, they're a feature. (To be sure, I say this with much love toward Protestants. I do think they get most of the big questions right. But it's in spite of their view of the church, not because of it)

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

Okay, I'll run through. Things in the church can be authoritative-that is, we can treat them as considered judgments from people who are set over us and to care for us. But they are not infallible, whether in council or not. >Can we be sure we're correct about any of the Christological controversies? Well, I suppose some of that depends on what exactly you mean by "sure." I'm inclined to think that the scriptures are pretty clear that Jesus is both God and man. >Did the church act with definitive authority when spelling out the Trinity? I think so, but not irreformably. We can't teach things in such a way that they cannot be corrected. >To accept the Protestant view, pretty nearly every doctine is just up to each Christian (or individual church body) to decide. To decide, in accordance with scripture. >The church has no definitive authority. There is no definitive Christian theology. The finished canon of scripture has almost nothing to do with the church. We're left to guess whether the current NT canon is truly definitive. The church definitely teaches things, and that should be treated as weighty, because there are often plenty of theologians looking at things with care, and faithful christians. That does not mean that we cannot correct things, should we have good reason for doing so. Augustine says as much, that later councils can correct earlier ones. >To accept the Protestant view is ultimately a house of cards. Where is the locus of any conclusive authority if 10 (or 50, or 100, including) different denominations (including a group like the Unitarians) can each have equal claim to getting the teaching of scripture correct? Well, no, they don't have an equal claim. Trying to tell who got scripture right on some issue or another is not something that you do blind, with a roll of the dice. Rather, you turn to scripture, and look. The ones who better conform to the teachings of scripture are the ones with a better claim. >It's no surprise that this doctrine developed in the first couple centuries. Just because it didn't look exactly as it does today does not mean there was no transmission of authority from the apostles to the leaders in the church. What they were called at any given point is much less important then whether there were individuals who had hands laid on them who received any actual authority. I agree that they had authority, though evidently we have different understandings of what exactly that means-I think the people over you have authority, even if they are not infallible, and even if they can be wrong.

[@thirdparsonage]

@@BernardinusDeMoor So you're basically saying none of the councils are definitive, and there is no interpretation of scripture we can be sure is correct. Why would anybody ever in any church setting accept anything being said by that church? Every decision any church makes is almost entirely arbitrary since there are others with equal claim to interpret scripture for themselves who disagree.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

​@@thirdparsonage Depends on what you mean by sure. I think I can be pretty sure that David was a king. Why would people accept things? Because they are the authority over them, and because of the knowledge and care of those saying the things. No, decisions churches make are not arbitrary. Again, the proper judge is scripture. Just because people disagree on interpretation of something does not mean that there is no way to attempt to figure out what's the more reasonable reading. You can be justified in believing things, even when others disagree. The number of times that a church has (purportedly) infallibly interpreted scripture is extremely small.

[@dankmartin6510]

@@BernardinusDeMoor Protestantism destroyed Christianity in Europe and brought about the secularism we see today - Protestants just want to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear and will submit to no authority whatsoever because that is offensive to their own theological godhood.

[@henrytucker7189]

I think you miss the whole point of "succession." The reason Ignatius et al made such a big deal about it was because Apostolic Succession was the only way new believers could even know they were in a legitimate church-- not, for example, a gnostic counterfeit. There were a lot of false teachers already planting their own churches. Not every guy with a Bible can appoint himself an elder or deacon-- nor appoint others. Any real "catholicity" would be completely impossible-- as we have daily proof. A unified succession plan provides important continuity and identity for catholicity to occur-- and the "Apostolic" part ensures that it will not fail (because it carries Christ's promise-- not because the men are anything special).

[@thadofalltrades]

@@henrytucker7189 Paul kindof argues against this in 1 Corinthians 3. Succession is not nearly as important as quality of doctrine.

[@henrytucker7189]

@@thadofalltrades and how would an illiterate Greek slave know what was good doctrine?

[@jeffjolly1980]

I seem to remember a passage in the Bible where the Apostles wanted Jesus to maintain some exclusivity with regard to their status and actions as followers of Christ. Mark 9:38 might be worth a read

[@henrytucker7189]

@@thadofalltrades how would an illiterate Greek slave know what good doctrine was?

[@thadofalltrades]

@@jeffjolly1980 and right before that he rebuked them for desiring position. Obviously, if it's God ordained then position doesn't matter, but what God ordained seems to pretty clearly be that the apostles governed as a unit and had equal authority.

[@sample479]

Wouldn't this make the Bible an accretion? Canon wasn't "crystallized" until centuries later and there was debate and "general forming" of the OT and NT during that time?

[@TomPlantagenet]

The canon was formed when the scriptures were written. They were inspired by God at the time of writing. The church only recognized them “formally “ later. Of course the early church in the 1st centuries and the apostles themselves cited the New Testament as scripture. The apostolic fathers and ante-nicene fathers quotes the new teas scripture long before a council pronounced anything. Likewise, North America existed for a long time before Columbus discovered it. No one gives him credit for making North America, correct?

[@bloopboop9320]

Eh, canon was figured out within the first century. Jewish OT canon was figured out somewhere between 200BC-100AD and in the Peter we read that the writings of Paul were already considered scripture.

[@sample479]

Forming canon isn't only the affirmative... it's also deciding which works are not canonical. A process which was underway until the 4th century for the New Testament. Christendom still does not agree on an OT canon so...

[@TomPlantagenet]

@@sample479 but the church doesn’t decide what is canon. Scripture is scripture from the moment of writing. The church can only recognize. Jesus was God incarnate at conception, decades before John the Baptist recognized Him as the Son of God.

[@sample479]

@@TomPlantagenet I understand. But you’re talking about people recognizing Scripture that already is. Heretical writings, or important but uninspired writings, had to be qualified as not a part of canon. To use your analogy, someone did invent fake islands and draw maps and hand them out during the time of Columbus. Others were simply mistaken about what they had discovered or had faulty equipment and made bad maps. You would not say those “islands” were there waiting to be disproved… there was a process to determine the good and the bad maps. It took time. The NT was still doing this until almost 400AD. And again there is still major disagreement over what OT canon is.

[@DrBob-gr5ru]

"Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (πρεσβυτέρους)of the church...Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους) to shepherd [ποιμαίνειν, (i.e. "pastor")] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."--Acts 20:17,28. As Schaff stated, "bishop" connotes the title of the office, "elder" connotes the dignity of the offive, and "pastor" the function of the office.

[@vinceplanetta8415]

If apostolic succession is an accretion, it emerged very quickly and was such a core issue for the church up until the Reformation. Given Christ’s promise for the church, I believe that if it were proven false, it would bring into question the validity of Christianity itself.

[@clivejungle6999]

But that is still conceding the issue that it is not essential and not divinely ordained. Considering wars were fought over church polity, that is a very important distinction.

[@luxetvita8067]

​@@clivejungle6999 You acknowledge that wars have been fought over church polity yet somehow think the entire church agreed to switch from a plurality of elders model to a mono-episcopate despite that not being the tradition of the Apostles. And that we have absolutely no record whatsoever of this takeover, and no evidence of any churches resisting this change. Debates around the dating of Easter led to threats of excommunication, but you think a hostile takeover of the leadership of the entire church was accepted without so much as a drop of ink to object?

[@jsharp3165]

The validity of Christianity is dependent on Christ. It is not precariously hinged on being able to trace a lineage of men. Especially not those evil men who utterly betrayed the faith while holding those offices during the Middle Ages. Our faith is in God.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

The kind of Apostolic succession the early church writers spoke of concerned only the tracing of their teachings back to the apostles; it had nothing to do with later claims of authority over the church.

[@vinceplanetta8415]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh It seems to me that apostolic succession involves more than just passing on correct teachings. It also includes the reception of the Holy Spirit, the anointing, as well as authority to lead God’s people as evidenced in both the Old and New Testaments. Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition "The bishop shall lay his hand upon them and pray, invoking the Holy Spirit, and so ordain them" 1 Timothy 4:14: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate" 1 Timothy 5:22: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure" 2 Timothy 1:6: "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands" Numbers 27:18-20: "So the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him’" This passage shows the transfer of leadership and authority from Moses to Joshua through the laying on of hands.

[@bencook6585]

I don't see how history could possibly bear out the idea that Apostolic Succession is an accretion. The very earliest fathers use apostolic succession explicitly as defense against the heresies of the day. There is an easy and obvious defeater here. The first person who recorded the names of the four gospels, as scripture, Irenaeus, also used apostolic succession of bishops (not presbyters) as an explicit argument against gnostics. To be consistent then, you're stuck. One cannot be an accretion while the other isn't. The original source we know that defined the four gospels as we know them also appeals to apostolic succession of bishops. I really think that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion because Irenaeus is very clear that it is succession of bishops in Rome, not presbyters, that acts as a defeater to the gnostic case.

[@bencook6585]

@charlesjoyce982 that is just factually untrue. This has been a common point when facing overwhelmingly negative evidence. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch were considered frauds by Protestants for years, until they were verified to be genuine. It's historical revisionism.

[@stevenjames6830]

@@charlesjoyce982 that’s a theory that is not supported by the evidence and requires selective pleading

[@joshenderson315]

​@@charlesjoyce982ah yes, the "I don't like it so he must not have said it" argument

[@austromyrtus]

Your argument is non-sequitur.

[@bencook6585]

@austromyrtus Nope, its really not. It's an issue of consistency. Why trust Irenaeus on one thing then deny him on another? There isn't a non-circular justification

[@thadofalltrades]

The discussion on Clement and the plurality of office is extremely important. There was no head apostle. The apostles governed as a plurality. They are all the foundation with Christ as the cornerstone. None is greater than another.

[@chrisazure1624]

The dispute between Peter and Paul supports your position.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@chrisazure1624 How would it do that?

[@toddthacker8258]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Neither of them was laying down the "I have the divine authority" hammer.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@thadofalltrades Clement commanded dioceses that weren't his own, he did have extraordinary authority. Whether it was understood to be unipersonal is a separate issue and not necessary to acknowledge the fact that there was in fact one successor who carried the charism forward.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@toddthacker8258 And on what grounds would Paul make that claim? I don't get it

[@Jeff_Huston]

Two protestants marginalize the necessity of Apostolic Succession. Shocker. The focus here -- i.e. the governmental style and structure of Apostolic Succession -- is entirely secondary (and subordinate) to the necessity of it, which is maintaining the integrity and consistency of "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3), i.e. unto the Apostles, and, subsequently, the unity of The Church, not to mention the consistency of the sacraments. (The fact that the vitality of sacraments has been lost on many, even most, Protestant traditions is a testament to the necessity of proper, singular Apostolic Succession).

[@Apriluser]

As an Anglican, I would agree.

[@SeanusAurelius]

The necessity of actually thinking that Christianity is better than Hinduism and that not all religions arrive at God somehow hasn't been transmitted via Apostolic succession as practiced by your team, friend. Maybe we're not so wrong to emphasise following the faith of the apostles rather than just passing on offices.

[@Jeff_Huston]

@@SeanusAurelius I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Eastern Orthodox. The differences between the two is yet another example of why proper Apostolic Succession matters.

[@gilgoredh]

The argument of this video is that apostolic succession understood in that way is an accretion. In fact, we know for a fact that there has been doctrinal accretion and deviation from the original apostolic teaching in the New Testament and that the bishops of RC and OC have not preserved the faith once delivered. (Neither have liberal Protestants.)

[@Jeff_Huston]

@@gilgoredh You know this for a fact about Eastern Orthodoxy? You know. For a fact. Look, I'm EO, not RC, but even Roman Catholicism with all of its theological evolutions has still maintained something closer to the original church than virtually all of Protestantism (Anglicanism basically being the only branch that bears a resemblance).

[@davidlarson4647]

Well done, thank you.

[@Jd-808]

What does scholarship say about the divinity of Christ?

[@NATAR160]

Where can we find apostolic succession exactly, claims aside?

[@Jd-808]

@@NATAR160 The Orthodox Church

[@NATAR160]

Scholarship is unimportant? The divinity of Christ is in the writings of the apostles. When I was much younger I was asked to read the Bible, despite not being schooled in the Word of God I didn't still need an external body for me to see that Jesus is God. Also, in this discussion he mentions church fathers n what they say, wt scholars deduce from what they say. It has never being a crime to do that. Or u think he has to say, some political institution dressed up in religious garb says this is wt it means therefore it's true, hook, line n sinker?

[@Jd-808]

@@NATAR160 Yes, the Church that wrote and compiled the New Testament and chose to link it to the Old to form the biblical canon is who we should be listening to when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Not ‘enlightened’ reformers or German atheists from the 19th century. Gavin is simply cherry-picking atheistic scholarship to suit his own agenda. That’s undeniable. He doesn’t listen to what scholarship says about the trinity, the dating of biblical texts, the virgin birth, what-have-you. And the point I’m making about the divinity of Christ is that scholarly presuppositions are completely different to Gavin’s, and certainly to the Orthodox Church’s, so the entire foundation is suspect. Even if he could somehow prove these things are ‘accretion’s’ it’s only a problem from his perspective, because he’s separated from Christ’s Church, which has been guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. He’s made his burden to accurately reconstruct the 1st century church’s beliefs and practices 2000 years later using secular scholarship that rejects the divinity of Christ. It’s completely nonsensical.

[@david88497]

@@NATAR160It’s just so bizarre to me that Protestants will appeal to (largely) atheist liberal scholars over the church authority

[@joelancon7231]

Roman Catholic here haven't listened to this video yet, but I am a big fan of you Gavin, may I say I wish more protestants were like you as opposed to James White or Mike Gendron, I think there would be much more healthy use of rhetoric (such as perhaps a hyper fixation on the word "accretion") and more intellectually honest converse : )

[@williamnathanael412]

Gavin Ortlund is an accretion - through faith succession from the apostles. From Abraham in fact.

[@SCOTTISHSOULFOOD1]

Always nice to see someone respond to a reasoned argument with a well thought out response based on solid evidence and avoiding personal attacks. This wasn't nice to see

[@jameswoodard4304]

I would disagree on a small point. I consider myself a necessitist regarding doctrine and practice. I do not make the doctrine/dogma distinction of the Roman Church. Therefore, I do find the development of a monarchical, diocesan bishopric in itself something to push back against. Something should not be allowed to become a central element in the structure of church organization unless it is necessitated by the contents of revelation. That is, in my view, part of what it means that Christ is the sole head of the Church. We simply don't get to make such substantial changes to the nature of how the Church operates simply to relieve our own practical concerns. So, yes. Some Protestants *do* argue against the rise of bishops as a historical reality, even divorced from false claims regarding their apostolic authority and necessity. And for the record, no, I am not a radical who believes such things as not having instrumental music in church because it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Such things do not rise to the level of a teaching of the church (doctrine/dogma) or a key factor in praxis. The important matters of faith and practice are not touched by such things. But the widespread existence in the government of the church of an office that, regardless of name, is highly unbiblical in character, does. And let us not forget that Christ did declare that the organization of the Church was not to be an authoritative hierarchy of power structure as is the norm in the world. Does that not come into play with the historical rise of monarchical bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, etc. even regardless of the issues of the exclusive claims of such organizations? Does not the existence of the structural innovation itself warrant criticism? I thank Brother Ortlund for his tireless, precise, illuminating, and very powerfully applicable work. I don't have to agree with him on every conceptual point to agree with the general conclusions and aims of his work, and to be thankful for them. God bless!

[@TheUnknownLegend1234]

Oh boy, I can't wait to read later comments. 😂

[@isaiahdeck8747]

Orthodox and Catholics UNITE!!!!

[@donhaddix3770]

why, they don't agree.

[@Justeelisjust]

I can't even begin to fathom how anyone starts a project to prove that early apostolic church in Roman Empire was actually similar to evangelical baptist church in modern America. At some point you have to stop and ask yourself who are you kidding.

[@survivordave]

You're setting up a false dilemma. The options of what the early apostolic church was like are not limited to "Roman Catholic Mass" and "evangelical Baptist church." Don't strawman Gavin's points as "well he's saying the RCC is wrong about X, then that means he must think Peter and Luke and Paul were leading worship with a guitar and giving everyone little cups of grape juice at communion time."

[@Justeelisjust]

@@survivordave No. I'm saying that this thesis would basically mean the 2nd and 3rd generation Christians got it immediately wrong with the tradition that was handed down to them and it's only after 1800 years when baptists in english-speaking America got it right. Unhinged. Also you can read the lineage of apostolic succession of the Church of Rome from Eusebious' Church History which written on 4th century. In my eyes Gavin flushes his credibility down the toilet with the claims like this. Wouldn't be the first time. You'll see right through it once you have done some reading by yourself

[@JohnMaximovich-r8x]

@@Justeelisjust It's funny that Gavin gives Eusebius (a semi-Arian) glowing reviews "He's the father of Church history!", etc. when it comes to arguing against icons yet the apostolic succession from the same "Father of Church history" isn't given the same deference.

[@jeffjolly1980]

@@JohnMaximovich-r8x That is not really surprising given the Protestant tradition which elevates reason to be equivalent with tradition. Rather than deference to non-apostolic deposits, the arguments or historical facts are where the deference is given. Right or wrong, the Protestant tradition believes that God gave people reason which could help them move towards the True, the Good, and the Beautiful; to God. One might even say that a group who rejects submission to a Pope may be likely to not submit to most persons other than Jesus or the Apostles themselves. I am just pointing this out so that this isn’t mistakenly looked at as hypocrisy; it is entirely consistent with the belief set the interlocutors hold. Remember, Dr Outland doesn’t even submit to a Bishop which seems pretty explicit in some of the Church Fathers…

[@Justeelisjust]

@@survivordave You falsely assumed the cultural difference is just about externals and not about the doctrinal essentials. The question is do you believe the perversion of the traditions handed down from the apostles and the followers of apostles started immediately, from 3nd and 4th generation Christians onward? This is denial of the promise made in Pentecost. Instead, 1800 years later american baptists who reject the earliest doctrines like real presence in Eucharist, authority of bishops, relics, apostolic succession and infant baptism got it right?

[@bridgetgolubinski]

Super interesting, thanks!

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Unbelievable. It’s right there in the Bible and confirmed by the earliest apostolic father, Clement of Rome: “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife first the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (First Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-3, c. AD 80). Apostolic succession is a direct teaching of Christ.

[@haroldbishop22]

you've not quoted the bible there pal :-)

[@bobbyjoe373]

those who have ears let them hear.. well eyes to read in this case

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@haroldbishop22 Acts 1:15-26.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@haroldbishop22 Oh that's right, the Church must have gone apostate in the first century then.

[@jty1999]

​@@thejerichoconnection3473Not sure what replacing Judas Iscariot has to do with apostolic succession... Given that Judas... Ya know.

[@theaussieberean]

This is absolutely brilliant. Blessings

[@tategarrett3042]

Thank you so much for defending the fact that the presbyters, not the bishops, are the successor of the apostles, and that the episcopal form of government is an accretion and not the only valid norm! God bless.

[@catholicguy1073]

There’s Bishops appointed directly in Scripture. Then there is also the Church government having cardinals for example that are all bishops. Cardinals for example can be done away with however organizing a world wide church obviously requires a church government

[@tategarrett3042]

@@catholicguy1073 the Chruch requires a Chruch government and the government we see explicitly and directly implemented in the Bible is one that is ruled by Presbyters. The later addition of bishops to the mix, and distinction of giving them additional and higher roles is a way of doing chruch government but it is not the most historical/biblical. The Presbyterian form of church government is the closest match to that which was instituted by the apostles.

[@catholicguy1073]

@@tategarrett3042 Bishops are ordained directly in Scripture. What are you talking about? Ignatius who was a bishop was ordained by St. Paul and was a disciple of the Apostle John for example.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@catholicguy1073 if you watched the video above they talked about that and not only why this doesn't prove anything given that the terms were used interchangeably between bishop and Presbyters but further these events are not described in scripture - what ordination of bishops do you think occured in the new testament?

[@catholicguy1073]

@@tategarrett3042 Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2). The fact the role of Bishops became more clearly defined is hardly an accretion anymore than our understanding of who wrote the gospels and the Trinity.

[@WeakestAvenger]

The discussion of Clement talking about two offices doesn't really address argument that there was a semantic development. Banely, that there was a proto-presbyter among the presbyters, and the word bishop/episkopos eventually being used only for the proto-presbyter.

[@gabrielwerling9544]

Is the canon of scripture an accretion? There’s more consistency in apostolic succession historically, than the canon

[@thadofalltrades]

No, Scripture just exists. Peter was calling Paul's letters Scripture from the beginning.

[@ghostapostle7225]

@@thadofalltrades That's not an answer to the canon.

[@Jd-808]

You’re not understanding that God could oversee the canon but he couldn’t oversee His Church. How do I know? Because I’m a prot.

[@toddthacker8258]

Scripture was recognized as Scripture long before the Church officially got involved. But, like the Trinity, the canon is something that existed from its inception and that we now understand more completely. Apostolic succession isn't like that--by its very nature, apostolic succession HAD to have been present, in largely its current form, from the time of the apostles, or it doesn't mean anything.

[@BeefyPreacher]

He’s made like 100 videos on this just watch them

[@Yaas_ok123]

Just ordered your new book, my first one. You have any nordic country backround ? Blessings from Turku, Finland !

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

Hey it’s Gavin “accretion” Ortland back again!!

[@BlakeCoulter777]

@@protestanttoorthodox3625 lol! Looks like he struck a nerve.

[@fantasia55]

​@@BlakeCoulter777Gavin makes it up as he goes, thereby striking a nerve.

[@BlakeCoulter777]

@@fantasia55 How ignorant that take is.

[@fantasia55]

@@BlakeCoulter777 Protestants who dare to read about early Christianity for themselves, instead of relying on Gavin's explanations, see that it was Catholic.

[@fantasia55]

@@BlakeCoulter777 @BlakeCoulter777 Protestants who dare to read about early Christianity for themselves see that it was Catholic.

[@joshuachambers5706]

I strongly agree with Gavin. I've come to the conclusions that Apostolic succession is definitely a pragmatic acretion and the Apostles established two offices - Presbyter (Bishop/Pastor) & Deacon. Practically speaking, there are times when a Roman Catholic form of Church government is very useful (as in a monarchy type government), a Presbyterian type of Church government is useful (as in new churches being established without enough maturity to rule themselves), and a Congregational (Baptistic) type of Church government (as in when a church is mature enough to be self-ruled). Wisdom can help determine when these different types go church governments are useful and even necessary. We don't need to anachronistically revise church history to bootstrap the Apostles credibility to a particularly type of Church government. This is a power play to reinforce the credibility of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. The only reason why people would disagree with this is if they have an agenda. Brothers in Christ, we MUST do our best to keep our biases in check.

[@tookie36]

Isn’t the Christian idea of satan an accretion?

[@joshuachambers5706]

​@@tookie36 no Satan is not an accretion since his existence is noted in all of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus Himself verified Satan's existence. The Lord's prayer itself has a request for protection from "the evil one". Evil in Greek here is the adjectival noun and is properly translated as the evil one - Satan. Remember, an accretion is a doctrine or practice that not something explicitly taught in Scripture that later shows in practice or doctrine in the Church.

[@tookie36]

@ satan is god’s angel doing god’s bidding. The idea that he opposes god’s will is not taught in scripture until the New Testament. So for thousands of years satan is god’s angel and then this new teaching shows up. I don’t know any scholars who suggest otherwise. But Gavin is worried about an “accretion” that shows up almost immidiately in church history. This is just Gavin picking and choosing what church traditions he wants to believe in

[@joshuachambers5706]

​@@tookie36incorrect my friend. Satan opposes God in the very beginning, middle and end of the OT. See Genesis chapters 1-3; Job chapters 1-2; Zechariah chapter 3. Satan becomes more prominent in the New Testament of course and Jesus taught Satan's existence as God's enemy and accuser of His people. Therefore this does not qualify as an accretion. On a side note, God uses Satan and evil people to accomplish His purposes all the time. Yes those evil agents are still culpable and liable to His judgement. Regarding Catholic accretins, if the OT, Jesus or the Apostles taught the Maryan doctrines or icon worship, then we would certainly have precedent to believe and obey these doctrines. But the Bible doesn't teach it, later uninspired men did. So we reject it. Mary has not heard one prayer since she died, and worshipping images is a blatant violation of the 1st and 2nd commandment. Now there may be some legitimate debate IMO of using images for teaching purposes only. But even the word "veneration" is still a clever cloak for the word "worship". As Jean Calvin said about the difference between the words venerate and worship, "it's a distinction without a difference."

[@tookie36]

@ if we read the OT by itself we see that “satan” has an adversarial role. He is an angel of god who plays the adversary in order to give man free will. This is the traditional Jewish understanding of satan and is also held in scholarship. Then something happens (Greek and Zoroastrian influences) and dualism takes satan from an angel working on behalf of god. To a fallen angle who opposes god. Many would call this an accretion. Maybe it’s just a tradition. But it’s definitely not just a clear reading of the text. All of that is to say we as Christians use church traditions all the time. Scripture alone does not provide us with truth. Only in union with church tradition to we make any statements. Even the Protestants believe in scripture and tradition but they try to pretend the only infallibility is from scripture which is silly bc we of course cannot separate scripture from tradition.

[@toddvoss52]

I had commented over at Austin's channel but I will do so again here. Not a long comment. Just that I think this is one of your weaker arguments compared to your arguments on Icons and the Assumption of Mary. I think the principles you applied in your excellent video on the Trinity can be applied here. As I watched your Trinity video, I literally was making parallel arguments for Apostolic Succession (as that term is understood by RC/EC; EO; OO). Some of the arguments are somewhat inconsistent. So Jerome's opinion regarding the fluidity of the titles/office of Presbyter/Bishop takes much of the force (such that it has and I don't think it has much) out of your point that Ignatius said the Presbyters were successors of the Apostles. In any case, I think this is a tough one for you. I don't always recommend each of Dave Armstrong's pieces because he has produced such a huge volume of material that it is uneven. But his longer response(s) to your piece on Monarchial Bishops and Apostolic Succession is very well done.

[@JadDragon]

Not a Catholic but I can call them brothers generally. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑

[@GodGuy8]

Amen

[@roses993]

Great points, dr gavin! Your arguments are more compelling than trent horne or william allbark😊

[@austromyrtus]

From my readings of church history. Bishops were sometimes elected and sometimes appointed by secular authorities both of which debunk (removes the bunkum) of RC claims. It would be good to show some specific examples of this.

[@MichaelPetek]

Apostolic succession means in Jewish law the reception of powers of agency (shelichut) from someone already in possession of them. Without it, the public powers otherwise exercisable by the King or the High Priest in person cannot be exercised by anyone else, and any possiblity of lawful public worship on earth would expire on the death of the last Apostle.

[@gardengirlmary]

This is very interesting! I would really like to learn more about Shelichut. What would you recommend to learn more about this (references to Scripture or other sources)

[@litigioussociety4249]

Except that Jesus is an eternal king, so he could appoint anyone at any time similar to the way judges are appointed after the time of Joshua. Gideon's son Abimelek is a perfect example of what happens when an accretion of worldly succession occurs. Likewise, King Saul is a similar example with the rejection of Samuel and Samuel's sons. The judges are also a good example that people should not be deciding who is a new apostle in between.

[@MichaelPetek]

@@litigioussociety4249 Jesus would have to return to earth to do it. The way of appointing elders capable of serving on the Sanhedrin was always by the laying on of hands by those already in that office. How do I know that a man has been appointed to public office by Christ acting from heaven?

[@Reasonandfaith]

Catholics affirm that the offices of bishop and presbyter were interchangeable in the early Church. Please read Pope Benedict’s Called to Communion-it’s right there, and he answers the questions raised here from a Scriptural perspective.

[@rickdockery9620]

He defends his office, hmm

[@Justas399]

No office of a papacy in the New Testament. Bishops were to be married with children. 1 Timothy 3

[@rickdockery9620]

@@Justas399 You are making the assumption Rome follows scripture in which they do not make that claim.

[@Justas399]

@lukewilliams448 Problems with a papacy: 1- Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar of the entire church. He never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on. Nor did the apostles. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. 3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9

[@raphaelfeneje486]

Apostolic succession as what the non Protestants define it to be is clearly an accretion.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

throuh time travel, perhaps

[@joshenderson315]

Protestantism itself is an accretion

[@LaRevolution0]

@@raphaelfeneje486 So Matthias didn’t succeed Judas in Acts? What about when Paul laid hands on Timothy? 1 Timothy 4:14 “Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.” Do you even read the Bible the True Church has given you? Or do you just babble along in church believing you’re speaking in tongues?

[@phillipwoodfin-nb7ud]

Two great men. I apologize if I missed it in the video, but does Gavin believe only a presbyter can consecrate the elements for a proper Eucharist? Or can laity?

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

I don't know for Gavin specifically, but the usual Reformed take is that only presbyters can, I believe.

[@geoffjs]

Only validly ordained priests in the unbroken line of apostolic succession, ie Catholic & Orthodox, have the power to confect the Eucharist

[@MatthewN07]

i like that austin isn't wearing shoes. it always stresses me out when people wear shoes indoors...

[@JW_______]

I feel vulnerable when I don't have shoes on 😂

[@arcrosby2485]

Loved the discussion! Gavin, would you consider doing a video addressing the beliefs of Aaron Abke? It seems he has captured the attention of many seeking answers and it’s concerning. I feel your voice could provide helpful criticism.

[@joshenderson315]

When Gavin says, "to me" what he's implying is that he's smarter and more enlightened than the early church fathers who all believed and taught apostolic succession. It's not a mechanical or intellectual issue at hand, it's who has more authority and understanding: Gavin Ortlund, or the early church fathers?

[@SanguiniustheGreatAngel]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHismHqkrNmsepIsi=YqskdU3NxzaGeXro

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

Well, I think he's showing that, when you look at the history, not all of the church fathers believed everything the roman Catholic Church claims they did.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@joshenderson315 you have to interpret the fathers like anyone else. The question is which interpretation most closely resembles the actual words and context of the church father. Gavin's position is that the Catholic position on apostolic succession is a departure from what the early fathers intended by their words.

[@jeffjolly1980]

Ya! Which is why everyone should be a Roman Catholic , right? They have the ultimate authority as defined by Holy Tradition, a supreme and infallible (in ex cathedra) Pope! Just going to ignore the part where they split away from the Orthodox in 1054 though…. Or wait, Ya! That’s where everyone should be Orthodox! They have the ultimate Authority as defined in Holy Tradition! Got ourselves a hierarchy of self-governing churches that don’t disagree on doctrine, so much so that they haven’t needed an infallible council in hundreds of years (no it isn’t because of disagreements within Orthodoxy that don’t arise to heresy but still impact unity). Just going to ignore the part where the Roman Catholics say the Orthodox split from them in 1054… The Great Schism, a proof that Holy Tradition is just a little more complicated than “This is the person/persons with more authority” The reality is that either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox are the first Protestants, the only problem is that they can’t decide who is protesting who. (It’s the Roman Catholics, they were the first Protestants)

[@joshenderson315]

@@jeffjolly1980 I think it's pretty obvious that Orthodoxy is the original Christian church still in operation.

[@lthaduke2502]

According to Gavin, everything related to Apostolic Christianity is an accretion.

[@amfm4087]

This is going to be an interesting video for the folks over at SSBS for sure!

[@reinhardfuchs5181]

Ephesians 4 defines structure of church , there is no superregional figure !

[@barbershopboy05]

It seems like there is a real consistency problem with Ortlund's position in this video - on one hand he claims that there are valid changes that are deemed pragmatic by the church and then on the other hand stands against accretions. That is inconsistent. Ortlund claims that pragmatic changes to church governance are legitimate. But why? Other than his assertion he provides no historical or biblical evidence to why ecclesiastical structural changes should be permitted while other accretions are to be rejected. Either no accretions should be made regardless of pragmatism (Restorationist viewpoint) or accretions are viable including, but not limited to whatever is subjectively determined to be "pragmatic." You cannot have it both ways of denying accretions while allowing for them at the same time.

[@tpw7250]

Not really. There are pragmatic changes that do not affect theology or doctrine and changes that are non binding and have practical wisdom.

[@clarkcoleman8143]

​@@tpw7250If I am expected to submit to the authority of some man in the church, that is binding, not optional. If that man's office is derived from accretion rather than scripture, it is a major problem.

[@tpw7250]

@@clarkcoleman8143 Elders are not an accretion.

[@clarkcoleman8143]

@@tpw7250 Of course not. I never said they were. In fact, I am one. Not following your non-sequitur.

[@tpw7250]

@clarkcoleman8143 Me too actually. You brought in church leadership. My understanding of your original point is that Ortland is against accretions and for pragmatic changes and that is inconsistent. My point is, that isn't inconsistent if accretions are bad because they bring in new doctrines where as pragmatic changes are OK if they help the function of the church and are considered non-bindong.

[@the-conscious-vibe]

The critique of apostolic succession as an "accretion" and the emphasis on its development over time presents a common Protestant perspective. From a Catholic standpoint, however, the response hinges on both theological principles and historical evidence. The Catholic understanding of apostolic succession is not simply a pragmatic or mechanical structure but deeply rooted in Christ's establishment of His Church and the apostolic ministry. The idea that this is an accretive development, while reflective of a specific historical-critical methodology, misses several theological and historical nuances central to Catholic tradition and the faith of the early Church. Firstly, Catholic teaching holds that apostolic succession is not a later ecclesial invention but an integral part of the Church's divine constitution. Jesus Himself commissioned the apostles to preach, baptize, and govern (cf. Matthew 28:19-20, John 20:21-23) and empowered them with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2). This ministry was to continue through their successors, as evidenced by their actions in appointing and ordaining leaders like Matthias (cf. Acts 1:15-26) and through the imposition of hands in ordaining presbyters and bishops (cf. 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5). The Catholic Church understands this continuity as essential to maintaining the unity and authority of the Church. Pope St. Clement I, writing in the late first century (c. AD 96), provides compelling evidence in his letter to the Corinthians. He affirms that the apostles, "knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office," appointed successors and provided for their continuance. Far from being an accretion, this reflects a recognition of the need for divinely ordained authority to guide the Church. The suggestion that the episcopacy emerged as a later development or as a practical response to schism is inconsistent with the writings of early Church Fathers. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century (c. AD 110), repeatedly emphasizes the necessity of unity with the bishop as a sign of unity with Christ Himself: "Where the bishop is, there let the people be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8). While some scholars argue that Ignatius reflects a congregational model of bishops, this interpretation fails to appreciate his broader ecclesial vision. Ignatius clearly sees the bishop as the locus of sacramental and ecclesial unity. Similarly, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 180) provides a robust defense of apostolic succession in Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 3). He explicitly ties the continuity of episcopal authority to the preservation of apostolic teaching, declaring that the faith has been handed down through a "succession of bishops." This testimony predates the so-called "crystallization" of the fourth century and reflects an early and widespread understanding of apostolic continuity. It is important to distinguish between legitimate doctrinal development, as articulated by St. John Henry Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and the notion of accretion as implying a corruption or unnecessary addition. Development involves the organic unfolding of truths implicit in the deposit of faith, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church does not invent doctrines but grows in understanding and articulation of what has been handed down. For instance, the distinction between presbyter and bishop, while clearer in later centuries, does not negate the apostolic foundations of episcopal ministry. St. Jerome, often cited by critics of apostolic succession, acknowledges that bishops arose to address practical needs but also affirms their authority in safeguarding the Church. His recognition of historical development does not deny the divine institution of episcopal authority but reflects the Church's adaptability in different contexts. The claim that apostolic succession is "restrictive" misunderstands its theological significance. The Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as necessary to safeguard the validity of the sacraments and the unity of the Church. Without this continuity, the sacraments lose their connection to Christ and His apostles, and the Church risks fragmentation and doctrinal instability. The exclusivity of valid sacraments tied to apostolic succession is not a matter of pride or triumphalism but a recognition of Christ’s intent for His Church. As Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II, states: "This sacred synod teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation" (Lumen Gentium, 14). The Church does not deny that God can work outside visible structures, but the normative means of grace are rooted in the apostolic foundation. The example of a village church arising without apostolic oversight reflects a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. While the Church acknowledges that God works in extraordinary ways, the normative structure established by Christ is the apostolic Church. The sacramental economy depends on this continuity, not as a restriction but as a means of ensuring the faith's integrity. Apostolic succession is not merely a historical artifact or a convenient organizational structure. It is a profound expression of Christ's will for His Church, ensuring unity, continuity, and fidelity to His teachings. The writings of the early Church Fathers, the witness of Scripture, and the lived experience of the Church affirm its divine origin and enduring relevance. As St. Cyprian of Carthage boldly proclaimed: "The Church is one, and she is not divided or separated but holds firmly together by the glue of mutual cohesion" (On the Unity of the Church, 23). Apostolic succession is the glue that unites the Church to her apostolic foundation and to Christ Himself. Thanks for this conversation and God bless.

[@Justas399]

Acts 1:21-22 makes apostolic succession impossible after the 1st century.

[@joshenderson315]

@@Justas399 so the church failed even though scripture says the gates of Hell will not prevail? And nobody knew anything about Christianity until the Reformers 1500 years later? This view of history doesn't make sense.

[@eduardobauche1211]

Gavin says that there is sacramental restrictions related to Apostolic succesion, but Ignatius right away says that only the Eucharist celebrated with the bishop or his delegation of it is valid

[@KnightFel]

Ignatius is wrong - and bishop as he explains it is not the bishops of today. There were no bishops in the earliest times of the church, mainly a group of elders and also local churches. There are no bishops when Paul speaks of the Lord’s supper either.

[@HearGodsWord]

Every time Gavin says anything, Catholics get triggered. He really must have them worried.

[@Sonicmax8728]

Yes a 2000 year old organization is terrified of a Baptist minister from California

[@Sonicmax8728]

Yes a 2000 year old institution is terrified of a Baptist minister from California

[@NP-vk8de]

Catholics are an anomaly in many ways, as they feel that even meaningful discussion is an affront to their faith. The effects or Spirit of Vatican II has dissipated. 😢

[@fantasia55]

Gavin is fighting a losing battle, because as Protestants read about early Christianity for themselves they realize he's been lying to them.

[@HearGodsWord]

@fantasia55 the opposite is actually happening.

[@OssoryOverSeas]

If God ordained succession of Patriarchs in the OT, with legitimate priestly succession as a main requirement for valid Temple worship, why would t you expect that in the NT? If Christ truly does come in the order of Melchizedek, then why argue that the order is an accretion? It says in Acts how “highly regarded” the Apostles were, and that “no one dared join them” (meaning, nobody dared assume such a position). We see even during the lifetime of the Apostles how Judas’ “office” was replaced; the laying on of hands for Timothy and Titus, and the special calling of Paul. Apostolic Succession right from the beginning was a hallmark, proof positive to all, who belonged to the Church and who was off in the woods reinventing and supplanting Christ’s authority.

[@xshadowisepic1563]

Gavin Ortlund is an Acreation😂

[@dawsonwhite9790]

Interesting. I tend to align with Hooker, it shows up early enough and is usually pragmatic and helpful for unity and church discipline/guidance. Helpful video though!

[@tymon1928]

hopefully to see one day a video on sola fide or sola scriptura and how it's an acceptable accretion

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

And the pharasee references how many of there oral traditions. And how many times did christ qoute scripture... U forsake the commands of god for the doctrines of man... How many times Every time a tradition is mentioned in the n.t. each and every time. A apeal to the oral torah(talmud) Mishnah was made what did christ say. He qouted scripture... The argument that luther would argue the apostles is a strawman. For one apostles were prophets... To say that could be infinite regression where they discount any prophet. 😮the jews tuaght a oral trad. They claimed becuase they sat where moses sat and relieved a oral teaching of the law from Moses. And they told everyone trust us There source was litterally trust me bro. Now we get to church traditions... That or extra biblical. Infant baptism. 😮 Forced lent (or you sin )[the trad itself is cool it's the force] the trade that the lay people can't read scripture ... directly the sake kinda stuff The source Our special oral tradition that we received that no one else had... If it was really so good. Then why is a argument still ongoing about easter sense polycarp... A date Why are we still arguing about christmas. When pual warned us not to.😅 These men were the disciples of john yet they do what pual warned about. Can u not see that they weren't prophets speaking the word of God. And can make errors... So yes the bible teaches bible only It may not say those words. But in numerous places showcases it. Just as Jesus slowly reveals himself as God. Drawing on stone.(with the adulterous women) 😅 Saying i. Am (.... ) Saying u call me lord for I am John in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and wad god... Do we really need to have the word trinity present when the scripture teaches it from genisus... This is the worst argument catholics make. The word trinity was a word that was coined to describe a clear message in scripture Sola scriptura is the same. It articulate a clear teaching from christ. From every gospel. And even from pual. Pual teaches that those teaching doctrines of demons would come and fool people 😅 As to sola fide Um the book of romans. And christ. Christ says a multitude of times a sheer multitude that belief and faith will save them. Then Paul in several epistles but especially romans says faith alone. James may seem to contradict but it doesn't there are several early church fathers that say that works justify to humanity faith justifies to God. And yet again 😑 protestants don't believe works don't matter We would all agree that if you have a murderer saying he believes in christ. And then continues murdering non stop. Does he actually believe in christ. I.p. inspiring philosophy says this honestly really well. On ruslans Channel id watch this so u get it. (Catholics combine faith and santification) into salvation. Where as Protestants Believe faith and repentance gives salvation. And that gratitude then begets work. We believe in sanctification but we've seperated the two... Becuase think of this Did the thief work Surely he was in heaven before the father and the lamb. That very night. He had faith repented and seen he deserved his punishment Did he work. Faith gets u salvation It's a free gift. As pual said. But to the one who works it is no longer a gift of God but a wage.... Sigh how does christ and pual and apostles get clearer A good tree produces good fruit. The faith is the root are sanctification and abandoning our old selves is the tree And works is the fruit of being reborn. What protestants don't like is when we are told we must produce fruit before salvation Or worse yet that we have to suffer in purgatory. Let's say hypothetically a drug dealer repents and cries out have mercy on me for I have sinned I'm sorry lord please show me u are true. And he's born again. And he truly regrets his wrongs... Let's say he leaves the area he did that in walks around the corner and gets shot dead by a hit put out by a rival dealer. Is this man going to heaven hell or first to purgatory The catholics teach purgatory becuase he didn't have the apropriate works to justify him. But if this was true why did christ save the man on the cross. When he could have said you will see me but first u must burn for a time to clense yourself... This is why i.p. inspiring philosophy thinks and I agree that the works faith debate needs to stop. Becuase ultimately we are saying the same thing here. But in different terminology And ultimately the views of purgatory are the issue if that doctrine wouldn't have shown up. I doubt very much the reformation would have been as bad. So yes sola fide is taught by christ in the same way the trinity is taught.

[@geoffjs]

Apostolic Succession Matthias replaces Judas 2 Tim 2:2 Laying on of hands 1 Tim 4:14 2 Tim 1:6 2 Tim 2:2 1 Tim 5:22 Tit 1:5-7

[@joetech12]

The living Tradition was passed down through the Apostle's successors--there seems to be this assumption that if they didn't write everything down, it didn't happen, this is an argument from silence. It would make no sense if they did not delegate real authority before they died. The real accretion is the appeal to Scholarship in order to know the truth. The Church has never operated by appealing to the Scholarship.

[@TomPlantagenet]

I think “the living tradition was passed down through the Apostles’ successors “ is an argument from silence. It amounts to “trust me, bro”. This was the same issue Jesus had with the Pharisees where their traditions were the “oral law” supposed given by Moses apart from the written law.

[@angru_arches]

Whatever is true and perfect cannot be left open to the faultiness of Chinese telephone...if it wasn't taught by the apostles then it's not an authoritative requirement. Their successors were not to continue to create new traditions and then elevate them to the same reverence as scripture, the essentials of salvation...they may have utility and enhance worship, but they cannot be authoritative in a circular reasoning kinda way..

[@SeanusAurelius]

Ortlund addresses this at 8:30.

[@KnightFel]

Remember when the churches of Galatia and Corinth fell into error super early on in church history and even persisted in it. Lol. Stick to scripture, tradition comes second.

[@joetech12]

@@TomPlantagenet it’s not from silence because the results are it’s still evident today. The Scripture themselves, for example, are from this same living tradition.

[@RedRoosterRoman]

A lot of this argument seems to focus on the "3 fold structure" But even in modern language we could say: A bishop is a priest and a deacon A priest is a deacon A deacon is neither. For example; a Captain in an army is a soldier. I could call him a soldier. That doesn't mean that he isn't a captain... And that doesn't mean every soldier is a captain... The form and matter of a sacrament can be altered by the church. Including 1 vs 2 vs 3 fold structure. You could have a universal church that is governed all by bishops... Just make every parish a diocese... Or all by bishops and priests without any deacons. Or heck; you could add back in "sub-deacons" So my criticism of this criticism is that by conflating: The form/matter EXPRESSION of apostolic succession in the 5th century With The general sacramental PRINCIPLE of apostolic succession You are not really arguing against the sacrament... And therefore it would still be "development" vs "accreditation" It's like saying... "Christians didn't have baptism because it's not until the 6th century that you have infant baptisms with pouring- and the understanding that original sin is removed then" It's an unfair argument that misses the heart of the issue. Specific form and matter of a sacrament coming later DOES NOT prove one IOTA that the sacrament did not come from Christ.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

This is bold… calling a clearly scriptural practice an “accretion” is next level. Gavin is taking a hardline polemical stance these days. Everything but Protestantism is an “accretion” lol

[@thadofalltrades]

@@protestanttoorthodox3625 that's not true at all. I'm pretty sure he would call a lot of Protestant stuff accretions

[@fantasia55]

Ortlundism is an accretion.

[@whomptalosis22]

Yeah it’s super easy if you just assume whatever you believe is “clearly scriptural practice”

[@thadofalltrades]

@@whomptalosis22 worse, they believe the magisterium and tradition have equal authority, which means they don't need scripture to support a practice.

[@tymon1928]

@@thadofalltrades the "person" has "Orthodox" in its name, at least you should not strawman the person's position

[@FBCTrona]

A good question for many concerning videos like this is when we have the writings of the early church fathers let’s say in the 1st to 4th century and a clearly are in unison with each other, but also clearly contradict what is taught in scripture in what direction should the Christians go?

[@geoffjs]

If you take the majority view of the early fathers, you will find that they are generally supported by scripture

[@FBCTrona]

@@geoffjs that was not the question. Re-read the question.

[@robharrell-xd2pi]

Apostolic succession ( papacy ) is completely foreign to the New Testament

[@billyhw5492]

What about the Old Testament?

[@muxion]

@@billyhw5492the church isn't mentioned as such in the OT, right?

[@gardengirlmary]

​​@billyhw5492 I haven't done any reading on how the High Priest was appointed in the Old Testament. Do you have any references to how the High Priest was determined in the OT?

[@thadofalltrades]

​​@@gardengirlmary Jesus is the high priest, there are no more high priests. The Levite priesthood ended at the cross.

[@thadofalltrades]

Definitely no Pope in the New Testament

[@gainsofglory6414]

Don't agree at all with your conclusions, especially from the sources you mention, or even the original notion that a "restricted and mechanical" approach to the sacraments is bad. I find that absolutely necessary and fitting though wouldn't use those terms. The general idea you are picturing I believe is something I would picture as entirely positive and by design. But, as usual, it was a productive and fair conversation that is growing more and more rare on these topics.

[@faithfulandfoolish]

For those who would like a more Orthodox or ancient view on this topic, one that is not simply dismissed by the convenient term "accretion" or the standard protestant conflation of terms or weak dismissals based on faulty presumptions and paradigms, you can't really do much better than this wonderful presentation by Perry Robinson. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKSaaJR-adGUnZI

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

Someone's fridge is filled with that Italian brand softdrink that I enjoy myself as well :)

[@bansheebrethren797]

Protestantism is an accretion

[@geoffjs]

And is heretical!

[@Guguchina]

I think there is some merit to apostolic succession, especially for the early church: it was important that the people who knew Jesus chose successors or had good successors to carry on His teaching. But its not everything: remember the guy in scripture who was exercising demons in Jesus' name: the apostles wanted to know if they should stop them and Jesus said let him continue. I think that shows that yes Jesus chose people to build his church, but that didn't mean that anyone outside of that group were not Christians or couldnt minister, providing they follow His instructions (in this case to pray in Jesus' name) Also, everyone in the church today comes from church tradition. Catholics would disagree with me, but even e.g. non-denominational Christians ultimately find their heritage in the early church and the apostles. They've just 'broke away' a few times.

[@billyhw5492]

Is Hillsong an accretion?

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

What's hillsong?

[@ClauGutierrezY]

​@@lifewasgiventous1614 no, it's an abomination

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

​@ClauGutierrezY I asked what it is.. are you a bot lol

[@AndyReichert0]

nope. no institution ever added hillsong as a major component of christianity years after the apostles were dead and then tried to say that the apostles had always included hillsong in an unwritten oral tradition.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@AndyReichert0 I thought it's how you know you're worshipping.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

The definitions of our faith are also third and fourth century. So...

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Protestants do have apostolic succession. Think of all the Roman Catholics who became Lutheran or Reformed during the reformation. The office continues with them, regardless of what Rome says.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

they were excommunicated and they didn't have the proper intention when they celebrated the ordination rite, so no.

[@NATAR160]

​@@Qwerty-jy9mjBut the apostate church using church as a covering to play politics do? Who's making those rules?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@NATAR160 The German princes?

[@warmachine8006]

They really don't though. A lot of protestant churches today actually arise from someone, unaffiliated with any church body, deciding to become a pastor and start their own church, so no succession there. Then even most of the mainline churches deny a traditional priesthood with efficacious baptism and a Eucharistic sacrifice, so there really is no succession in protestantism

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

@@warmachine8006 Commonly in nondenominational/pentecostal circles, but certainly not so in more traditional congregations like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, and Anglicans. The Anglicans are perhaps the greatest stand out - they still have a bishopric to this day.

[@cohortConnor]

To say that you are not receiving a valid Eucharist because the person ministering it did not receive the laying of hands from a bishop is Donatism, which was labeled a heresy by the early church

[@geoffjs]

You’re confusing unordained priests with faultless priests which is what Donatism is! Only validly ordained Catholic & Orthodox priests, in the line of unbroken apostolic succession have the power to consecrate the bread & wine into His body & His blood which is the reason that Protestantism has to refer to the Eucharist as symbolic.

[@charlesjoyce982]

Stumbling, bumbling Gavin.

[@KnightFel]

So much cope from the Papists and Orthobros.

[@charlesjoyce982]

@@KnightFel sure whatever you say.

[@raphaelrobles8104]

Honest question: does Gavin believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The way he commented on it a couple times kinda confused me.

[@geoffjs]

If Gavin does, he won’t admit it because of what that implies!

[@TheSignofJonah777]

@@geoffjshe does

[@grantc9012]

Is our knowledge of the biblical canon not also an accretion in this view? The authority we give to certain ancient texts is as much a part of the tradition of the Church as the succession of apostolic authority to interpret those texts.

[@bobmccamon5056]

Gavin why did the very early church practice that each new bishop had to have the hands of at least three bishops 🎉laid on them for the celebration to even take place, so what was the reason for that practice if apostolic succession was an accretion that did not take place before the 4th century?😊

[@childoftheonetrueking7761]

Rome has as one of the official Titles of the pope as 'Apostle Supreme' and 'Petrine Apostle'. Official Vatican Doctrine is that Peter was not only a 'Supreme' apostle Above the Other New Testament apostles, but that Also they claim that the Roman 'popes' are Supreme Apostles with Peter's Title and the Popes are Above the Other New Testament Apostles [all total False Teachings and Unbiblical ] . Its amazing to me how catholics will say, no this is just a general claim that lines up with the general claims in the Bible and completely Ignore or be ignorant of the Lengthy Details of the teachings and traditions being taught by the Vatican for all these years.

[@orthodox_soul]

I just put up a response video (well, technically I had already completed my project and then you just so happened to upload this days before I could finish editing). I'm looking forward to every sincere truth-seeking, Christ-loving Protestant who's willing to be honest with themselves, to challenge some of their own assumptions and ask themselves some hard questions. I welcome dialogue.

[@bobmccamon5056]

Gavin is there any evidence in the first or second century that a presbyter and a bishop were always separate ministries in the church and always remained so?, or was there a time when a bishop and presbyter were terms that could be interchanged for the same ministry? The Greek word presbyteros is where the word priest comes from and can be used for any one functioning in any sacerdotal ministry in the Catholic Church, whether it be priest,bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or pope!

[@geoffjs]

All bishops are priests who have been promoted to a leadership role

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

​@@geoffjsWRONG!

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

The Greek words ἐπίσκοπον (episkopon) and πρεσβύτερον (presbuteron) refer to the same people (the former by their office, the latter by their age) and have the same meaning as ‘bishop’. These terms were also somewhat interchangeable with ποιμήν (poimén), meaning shepherd (typically translated as ‘pastor’ in Ephesians 4:11). Even Jerome, writing around 400-420AD acknowledged the interchangeability of ἐπίσκοπον (episkopon) and πρεσβύτερον (presbuteron). In his commentary on Titus, Jerome wrote “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop ... a presbyter and bishop are the same, and one is a title of age, the other of office”. The interchangeability and overlap can be seen in Acts 20:17-30. In verse 17, Paul called the Ephesian elders (πρεσβύτερον - presbuteron) of the church to a meeting. Then, addressing these elders in verses 28-30, Paus says “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock (ποίμνιον - poimnion), in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ποιμαίνω - episkopos), to shepherd (ποιμαίνω - poimainó) the church (ἐκκλησία - ekklésia) of God which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock (ποίμνιον - poimnion); and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples (poimnion - mathétés) after them”. If anything, an elder or overseer was a kind of senior pastor, possibly with responsibility for multiple congregations; their role was to rule and they were entitled to ‘double honour’, but not all necessarily had teaching & preaching roles (1 Timothy 5:17). Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in every town, not necessarily in every congregation (Titus 1:5), though congregational elders were also appointed (Acts 14:23). Just as in the natural world shepherds cannot effectively manage separate flocks, pastors cannot effectively ‘shepherd’ congregations they only have intermittent contact with. Hence, each congregation was indeed expected to have its own pastor. The New Testament _never_ refers to the leader of a Christian congregation as a priest. The Greek word for ‘priest’ is ἱερεύς (hiereus), a term that is never used interchangeably with ποιμήν (poimén), πρεσβύτερον (presbuteron), or ἐπίσκοπον (episkopon). Ephesians 4:11 tells us that Jesus gave the church Apostles (ἀπόστολος), Prophets (προφήτης), Evangelists (εὐαγγελιστής) and Pastor/Teachers (ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους). To this one might add deacons/servants (διάκονος) & bishops/overseers (ἐπίσκοπος) (Philippians 1:1, etc), and elders (πρεσβύτερος) generally (Acts 14:23, etc), in a comprehensive list of ministries, though it should be remembered the terms ‘bishop’, ‘elder and ‘pastor’ are used interchangeably - presbyters and elders are the same people. None of these offices is referred to as priests (ἱερεῖς) or is depicted as being equivalent to them. Nowhere in the New Testament or the writings of the 1st-century church is there any suggestion of an equivalent to the Old Testament sacerdotal/mediatorial priesthood. If the apostles or an Early Church Father had wanted to say there were priests or a priesthood, there are suitable Greek words to say that - ἱερεῖς (iereis), meaning priest and ἱεράτευμα (ierateuma), meaning priesthood, but they never mention ordained priests or an ordained priesthood or any kind. By the end of the second century, the elder/overseer roles had been split, with the former subsequently becoming sacerdotal. Being what the Bible calls an elder or a bishop does not make one a priest. Being what the Bible calls a priest is what makes one a priest. According to the Bible, a priest offers sacrifices on an altar, usually in the temple. For Christians, that temple is themselves, individually and collectively (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:19-22). Jesus, who has been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek ( ), "entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12). Similarly, Christians are _all_ his priests (1 Peter 2:4-9; Revelation 1:6), whose sacrifices to God are their bodies (Romans 12:1) and have a spiritual quality (1 Peter 2:5). Since every Christian is at once a sacrifice, priest and the temple, there is no further sacrifice that God might require that the individual Christian cannot personally offer directly to God without an intermediary. Sacerdotal priesthoods, altars, vestments, incense and so on of the RC & orthodox churches and their offshoots, were later syncretistic developments drawn from paganism and Judaism, being introduced by Cyprian of Carthage c.250-258AD, who also introduced the legal fiction of an Apostolic succession in the sense employed by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches (Lindsay, T. M. (1903). _The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries._ London: Hodder and Stoughton, pp. 265, 278-279, 309-312). Cyprian, who only converted to Christianity in c.245AD and was ordained a bishop two years later, even referred to bishops as high priests! What this demonstrates, more than anything else, is the danger of appointing an immature Christian to high office (1 Timothy 3:2-7) - Cyprian blithely syncretised pagan and Jewish concepts with his shallow understanding of Christian ministry.

[@geoffjs]

@ Why am I wrong?

[@bobmccamon5056]

@ It is Gavin’s contention that he cannot find anything resembling apostolic succession prior to the 4th century so to him if this is true then Apostolic succession would be an accretion.

[@justthink8952]

The Apostles had an office. That was why Matthias was chosen to the office left vacant by Iscariot Judas. Apostles were priest who were also bishops. Priests have teaching authority, governing authority and sanctifying authority. When Jesus called his Apostles, he just said, come and follow me. He didn't need to perhorm the rituals. Likewise, Jesus didn't need to perform the rituals of ordination of priesthood. He ordained the Apostles on the last supper when he said "do this in memory of me". We call Jesus the high priest. The high priest should have a sacrifice to offer on the altar. Jesus performed the role of the High Priest on the last supper when he offered bread and wine as his body and blood.

[@eduardobauche1211]

I acts you see many Presbiters came to see Paul, acts 20 Revelations speaks of one chief leader in Ephesus I would say this could be a clue there was among the college of presbyters, one presbyter who holds the succession Not all Presbyters could ordain other presbyters, regardless of how the rite looks

[@geoffjs]

The four signs of His Church are - unity, which Protestantism obviously lacks - holy, in spite of sinful men, many saints have been Catholic - Catholic or Universal which the CC is & has been for 2000 yrs - apostolic with an unbroken 2000 yr line of succession

[@JW_______]

People will bring up Ignatius of Antioch as evidence for the necessity of the office of bishop and the exclusivity of apostolic sucession. However Ignatius wrote "where the bishop is, there *LET* the people be." It was an exhortation for how the church should be organized, not the passing down of existing principles from the apostles for how the church must be structured.

[@truthnotlies]

He said to follow the Bishop as the Son does the Father.

[@JW_______]

@@truthnotlies In the same sentence, or next sentence he says to obey your your presbyters as you would the apostles, and to obey your deacons like God himself. Does that mean that deacons have more authority than presbyters amd are equal to bishops? Of course not - so we have to understand him as speaking in hyperbole to make a point.

[@JD-eb7ek]

@@JW_______your a liar it’s doesn’t say that, it’s says “reverence the deacons as the institution of god” lol

[@KnightFel]

@@truthnotlies was Ignatius infallible and inspired?

[@KnightFel]

@@JD-eb7eklol if you reverence you obey. Ignatius speaks in hyperbole as did many of the ECFs.

[@carolc6364]

I would have liked to have had a short introduction to this discussion, which I thought was quite I interesting and thoughtful.

[@aussierob7177]

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors . They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority". Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Is this too hard to understand ?

[@KnightFel]

Bishops and presbyters are the same thing. At least in the early church it was. There was no 3 fold system early on before ignatius. The Eucharist doesn’t require a bishop for it to be valid, which would be ludicrous.

[@JustSomeGuy12341]

St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies (175-185 AD) Chap. XXVI - THE TREASURE HID IN THE SCRIPTURES IS CHRIST; THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE. "Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church, - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who together with the episcopate, have received the certain gift of Truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion, others who depart from the original succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, looking upon them either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the Truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God - namely strange doctrines - shall be burned up by the fire from Heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the Truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, shall remain among those in hell."

[@roddumlauf9241]

We believe that the Apostolic Succession starts in the Old Testament priesthood and continues in the priesthood of Melchizedek ( according to the first born) in the New Covenant (In His Blood). Apostolic Succession is Old Testament !! continuing in the New Testament.

[@eduardobauche1211]

I jave heard about Jerome's passages, although there other evudence that could balance that out I wonder if that text speaks more on the matter of duties or having the bishop playing a more accentuated rol In the sense that the distinction could be there, one particular presbyter, to perform certain tasks in especific situations but not having an accentuated rol as it came to be later All this, in the mind of Jerome I would still need more research on that

[@claybody]

Acts 1:20. First Timothy 3:1.

[@leepretorius4869]

How does clement use the Old Testament to defend 2 offices?

[@TruthUnites]

"they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'"

[@leepretorius4869]

@@TruthUnites you know maybe we should consider LXX more seriously than we currently do.