Response to My Debate With Suan Sonna

[@isaiahguevara8619]

Dr. Gavin! As a Catholic I just want to say how much joy it is for me to see you being honest and cordial in your debates. There is a lot of things I learned in your debates and I just appreciate on how you approach certain topics and how you organize and layout your answers. Please keep up the good work and I hope your channel will continue to grow!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Isaiah!

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I imagine it's much easier to want to keep an open mind to understand the other side of the Christian fence, when the person is coming w/ a gentle and temperate attitude. I've been watching the old debates w/ Dr. James White w/ various Catholics and traditional subjects that are in disagreement w/ the protestant view. I found the Catholics sometimes get heated and get kind of personal w/ attacks against him, and that though he's much more forceful, that he kept his arguments against the RCC. I still learn so much about the doctrines on both sides. I like when even though I don't agree w/ the Catholic side, I can finally understand how they got to those doctrines. Even though I don't ultimately agree and find the typology they lean on a very long stretch.

[@jacoblaan3707]

As a Catholic, I appreciate your open mind.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Jacob!

[@merehuman3035]

Love your irenic approach much respect! I found the examples of “typology run amok” very helpful, they are quite funny and get the point across

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! Yes, parallel examples are helpful for getting the point across, aren't they? They show how tendentious the whole way of reasoning is.

[@williamkeller5541]

Honestly one of my favorite debates. It felt like there was a real back and forth on the issues. You guys didn't just talk past each other. At first I felt like it was a pretty even debate and I was wavering on who was winning but the more I thought about it the more I realized that even if I granted Suan the tight topological connection he was arguing for he still didn't prove what he needed to. It was also a super fun dynamic for the Protestant side of the debate to use more arguments from the church fathers than the Catholic side. Overall great debate.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for the feedback William! Glad you enjoyed!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

William, Dr. Ortlund failed miserably, as he never provided Church Fathers teaching there was no ONE leader among the Apostles as Dr. Ortlund claimed. We do know from Holy Scripture though, that Jesus Christ renamed Simon alone as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock, and gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. ( the keys are never mentioned in Matthew 18), and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren. The same Church authority in Peter the rock, that stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@urawesome4670]

@@matthewbroderick6287 what do you think the keys are for in Matthew 16? Do you think it is an internal or external issue? If you recognize it is internal, you’ll see it is entirely dependent on God (John 3:8), and God used Peter as an apostle to advance the kingdom (Luke 17:20-21). If you think this passage is external, then how do you explain Matthew 3:2, which occurred before Matthew 16? Do you see how Matthew 3 and 16 connect? If you do, then I don’t think you would be saying Peter was the only one with the keys and you would see how the disciples also had the keys in Matthew 18 without the word “keys” being used.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@urawesome4670 Just as in Isaiah 22, God stated He would appoint from among the 12 officers, one prime Minister, by giving him alone the keys of the Kingdom. The same God, Jesus Christ, from among His 12 Apostles, gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren. The keys are never mentioned in Matthew 18. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@johnlloydc.semilla1666]

He used the church Father's out of his own context

[@elthgar]

Your erring on the side of gentleness and respect while still knowledgeably speaking to points is why I follow your channel. Don't worry about being too gentle, you are right it is harder to undo once you go harsh.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Sean.

[@josmurf]

Seconded for Sean's point. Better to be gentle and follow-up with clarification than to speak a harsh word, and then try to yank out the knife from the wound.

[@octaviosalcedo9239]

You Did Great. I can't believe so many people fall for the typology. I can use typology to make myself a pope.:)

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

Those examples really explain your points on typology. Thank you!

[@he7230]

“Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭4:18‬ ‭NIV‬‬ I think the above verse is strong evidence against the infallibility of the Sanhedrin

[@jgiaq]

It takes a lot of skill to debate and aim for peace, the way you do. Thank you for always producing such great content

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks a lot, glad it is of use to you!

[@Justas399]

Looking forward to this. Thought you did an excellent job in dealing directly with his arguments.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks a lot!

[@4emrys]

As a Lutheran I don't agree with everything you say. But I cheer you on against the papists ;)

[@aeanderson8491]

Heretic! 😄

[@malcolmkirk3343]

Good points on this topic. Funny thing is, that can go on even WITHIN particular denominations.

[@TommyGunzzz]

Completely agree. Great debate as well. His two Orthodox debates he also lost (imho lol) because he had almost no backing from the father's or early church echoing anything he argued, and Kabane brought up another office just like you mentioned that could also coherently be argued but Suan didn't really have an answer. Relying fully on typology for your case is not a great way to approach it, and I like Suan. He ended both of those debates saying he had more homework to do cause he didn't have answers. A very humble charitable debater.

[@nickswoboda6647]

Your examples are very helpful, thank you. I really think the best way to communicate typology run-amuck is through examples. I’ve seen counter-arguments using typology which make Paul’s office the true papacy just to show how, given a firm position, you can find evidence for just about anything through unrestrained Biblical typology. Find a connection, and from there, pick out all the similarities which support the presupposed position.

[@marlam8625]

As a catholic, I can appreciate a non-catholic’s concern of typology running amuck- a little irony here since maybe we all agree that scripture can be made to say whatever a person wants, whether a ‘connection’ between the old and the new or what scripture is conveying. I love Fr Simon- a retired priest who knows well his Hebrew and languages in general. He has said: “time is to language as alcohol is to the liver”…. This quote comes to mind when I hear the word ‘intertextuality’- “relation between texts” Seems like a relatively new word, and in this case, serving to parse the classification of typology- I’ll go back and listen to your explanation, but I am having difficulty appreciating its usefulness. I guess I just see this trend of new words and new definitions everywhere in our culture today... in many cases, words serving more to divide and hewn sub-categories designed to fit ideologies than to serve the good of Truth. Thanks for the great debate and I really appreciate your kindness and your want to further explore charity in dialogue. You are a great example to follow- thanks again and God Bless.

[@marlam8625]

Thanks, and really like the name Truth Unites. It has a great ascending quality to it.

[@Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh123]

Sam Renihans book "Mystery of Christ, His Kingdom, and His Covenant" is one of my favorites on typology

[@geoffrobinson]

Does it discuss when you can know typology is overused?

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

It's so overdue that Christians engage in the rigor of a debate without the pleasing of the flesh. Can you imagine the witness to the world if we really had Spirit-filled debates without the typical "I need to win" pride coming out? That would be victory enough in a lot of senses.

[@TruthUnites]

amen to that!

[@Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh123]

Imagine what the Church would look like if people in the time of Martin Luther had that mindset

[@christologisch]

Thank you!

[@jotink1]

I would love to see how you view typology Catholics use regarding Mary. For example Mary as the new Eve and the Ark of the covenant.

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

My favorite typology scholar is James Jordan (theopolis institute). His book "Through New Eyes" is so mind opening for many people who have gone through seminary and haven't heard of this way of approaching Scripture. Thought I'd share. Again, great work on the debate

[@TruthUnites]

thanks, and thanks for sharing that!

[@bullphrogva1804]

Alister Roberts basically changed how I viewed the Bible, James Jordan was a big influence on him. Roberts biblical reflections are top notch

[@zekdom]

12:10 - “… and not to overstate that because I want to leave full room for forceful argumentation. There’s a place for sarcasm. 1 Kings 18, Elijah does it. There’s a place for indignation. Galatians 1, Paul does it. There’s a place for fierce opposition, Jesus vs the Pharisees. I don’t want to take away from that. But in terms of what I feel called to, and what I want the emphasis of my ministry to be, that’s where I’m going to be focusing and exploring, ‘How does that look?’”

[@cromwell1766]

The guys over at reformed forum have some great stuff on typology and the redemptive-historical hermeneutic through the work of Geerhardus Vos. You should definitely check it out Gavin!

[@TruthUnites]

Geerhardus Vos is amazing.

[@sethmurray6270]

Perhaps a concept here to grasp is that typology is, in a sense, making some kind of argument by analogy. Analogies (under whatever name) can be useful for insight and education, but they assume that one has already accepted the underlying and generally unspoken premise: that A and B are similar in ways 1, 2, and 3, so they are also similar in ways 4, 5, and 6. Analogies are fine for general discussion and education. They are garbage in a debate or in serious scrutiny of truth claims. Arguments for Papal Supremacy depend largely upon arguments by analogy (as well as ignoring the Roman Catholic Church's "infallible" councils that say that the keys were given to all of the apostles). None of it really passes serious scrutiny, though their apologists are often nice, sincere people.

[@Mygoalwogel]

You put that well.

[@TomPlantagenet]

I agree with you on biblical theology. It is such an amazing discipline. Beal’s work on idolatry (We Become What We Worship) and James Hamilton’s God’Glory in Salvation Through Judgment are two of my favorites. You’re right, it is one of the best arguments for inspiration!

[@jasonengwer8923]

Good video, and you did well in the debate.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Jason!

[@neodaltiair8624]

Theology gives rise to appropriate typology. We can’t do it the other way around.

[@duckymomo7935]

catholics like to use typology to justify a theology good grief

[@zekdom]

17:49 - What is typology? 18:08 - type and anti type 18:16, 18:27 - Typology and Adam 18:51 - Typology and Jonah 24:43, 25:42, 26:14 - “Typology run amok” 26:42, 27:00, 27:14 - 27:39 - 27:49, 28:27 - 1 Kings 4:1-6 and cherry-picking offices 28:43 -

[@mattlebermann8431]

Dr. Ortlund, I’m curious what your thoughts are on the New Perspective on Paul, particularly the version espoused by N T Wright. Would you consider making a video on it at some point? I think your knowledge of the fathers and historic Protestantism would bring an interesting perspective!

[@TruthUnites]

oh man, bringing me back to my MDiv days lol! Its been a while and I'm not really up in the field, but will consider this...

[@Aidandanj]

I would really value this

[@DrBob-gr5ru]

The debates were all well and good. Suan is respectful, even though I think his view is Biblically and historically untenable. For me the issue remains the Imperial Churches' conflicting claims to be the "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". Dollinger was put out of ultramontane Rome for arguing much of Dr. O's same theses regarding historical developments. He was trying to be charitable and authentically ecumenical in a far-seeing way but Rome doubled-down on temporal power and absolute authority.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for sharing this perspective!

[@bryanwalters9574]

Is the most underrated CS Lewis book Til We Have Faces?

[@TruthUnites]

dang it. how'd you know? (I need the Andy Bernard "nailed it" gif here....)

[@bryanwalters9574]

I read it in college and remember thinking, “why is no one talking about this?” It’s the first thing I think of when I think of an underrated CS Lewis book.

[@TruthUnites]

@@bryanwalters9574 I know, right? I can't wait to talk about it.

[@jgiaq]

I always thought "The Great Divorce" was his most under-appreciated book. Lots of richness in theology there. But I loved Til We Have Faces too!

[@nicklausbrain]

Yes it is

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

Patrick Fairbairn wrote a thorough, helpful two-volume work entitled "Typology of Scripture," which could be helpful to the audience.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for mentioning!

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

Expectation and experience definitely shape how someone "hears" a debate. We naturally filter out what is inconsistent, highlight what we are concentrated on, and create patterns out of what fits preconceived notions (for good or ill). That's why debates are incredibly difficult to listen to skillfully. I am reminded of a video that exposes this filtration mechanism by having the audience count how many times a group of people in the video, who are moving about, throw around a ball and catch it. In the middle of the ball-throwing scene a person dressed in a gorilla suit enters and walks around. After the video, the teacher asks the audience who watched the video who noticed the gorilla. Very often people didn't notice the gorilla because they were so focused on counting how many times the ball was thrown and caught. In other words, the very mechanism by which we concentrate on X makes Y less accessible to register on our conscious minds. This makes debate difficult to listen to without confirming whatever motivates our listening, for concentration is by nature selective and exclusive.

[@TruthUnites]

Fascinating psychological insight.

[@barry.anderberg]

If Catholics are wrong about Matthew 16, what is the correct understanding? Is Peter the rock? Why is Jesus giving him keys and the power to bind and loose? How does this relate to the other disciples and finally what does it all mean for Christians since then? Suan might be wrong but at least his is a cohesive theory that gives the scene in Matthew 16 direction and purpose. Protestants should have an equally compelling counter narrative.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

See: Dr.Michael S.Heifer's video on KZbin on WHAT the Rock is, not Who it is.

[@SCOTTISHSOULFOOD1]

Felt like this debate was you as a scholar responding to an apologist. It seemed impossible to agree hermeneutical rules in which typology can be legitimately used. I know I bring my own prejudices and preconceptions but I found the RC exegetical arguments based narrowly on a few controversial texts and frankly unconvincing I think you pointed out what for me is what is fatal for the RC view of the papacy. For something it's claimed is so crucial and intrinsic to the church the NT nowhere explicitly and clearly describes that office. Not only that the earliest church fathers don't support a Petrine infallible papacy in Rome. To me that silence is a mortal wound to the case for the Papacy arising from the NT

[@paullear9655]

Who was Peter then.Would Jesus leave his church without a leader or authority.

[@michael7144]

@@paullear9655 peter was an apostle, he had arguably a leading role. That's it. To derive an infallible papacy from that is a monumental stretch. For something so consequential jesus and even peter and or all the apostles wouldn't have neglected to mention.

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

@@paullear9655 Peter wasn’t infallible, only God and the Bible are. Peter made mistakes.The Popes have made mistakes before. They are human. Remember indulgences? If there hadn’t been that mistake, there might not have been a Protestant Reformation.

[@malcolmkirk3343]

@@michael7144 Ironically, you yourself have just engaged in an argument from silence; and so, it fails.

[@michael7144]

@@malcolmkirk3343 am I arguing from silence? I think the papacy is ironically, and that's why IT fails. Do you believe pope francis is the vicar of christ on earth ordained by God?

[@eternalbyzantium262]

I felt Suan was abit passive agressive at time to be honest though. Fellow Orthodox here.

[@chrispowell1768]

I don't know what you got to read during your preparation, but it seemed to me that you weren't able to check the secondary sources he cited in his paper on the Papacy. (I am not sure if you had access to that paper). I would recommend that in the future if possible. As someone dealing with Catholicism for many years, I have learned that they don't always use secondary sources properly and so I always check them.

[@BibleLosophR]

After the debate during Q&A Suan hogged the time. I understand his enthusiasm, zeal and confidence he has for his position, but he was being a bit rude in using up so much of the time and not leaving equal time for Gavin to speak. That was not professional or courteous at all of Suan. As a fellow Asian, I feel embarrassed for him and all Asians. As a former Catholic and now Protestant [30+ years since the late 80s] I know the feeling of how one's zeal for the honor of "Mother Church" can lead one to be overly aggressive, and that's the feeling I got from Suan. Whereas we Protestants are usually [though not always] willing to examine and go where the evidence leads/points in a more calm and objective manner.

[@malcolmkirk3343]

Hah! I was an ardent evangelical Protestant involved in apologetics and various areas of ministries for 35+ years. LACK of charity / graciousness in apologetics and ministry were abundant; particularly among Baptists, Calvinists, and Evangelicals.

[@charlesking9120]

Skeptostat settings during debates: set toward the gullible end of the scale when my side speaks and set toward the hyperskeptical end when the other side speaks. It's a guaranteed win for my side. I love debates. Too bad I don't learn anything from them.

[@BibleLosophR]

17:13 E.W. Bullinger wrote in his Commentary on Revelation: //////////The Hebrew character of the book [of Revelation] is shown in its use of idioms, expressions, words and phrases, which cannot be called Greek; and indeed is called by many "bad Greek." Professor Godet in his Studies on the New Testament, says, p. 331: "The only serious objection that can be urged against the authenticity of the Apocalypse, lies in the difference which is observable between its style, and that of the fourth Gospel. The latter is free from Aramaic expressions, the former is saturated with them." And again (p. 351), "the Apocalypse bears, from one end of it to the other, the character of a Hebrew prophecy."................Though the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew; and this links it on, not to the Pauline epistles, but to the Old Testament,...............It is not only Hebrew in character as to its linguistic peculiarities, but especially in its use of the Old Testament. Only those who have most intimate acquaintance with the Old Testament can properly understand the Apocalypse. But all who know anything of old Testament history cannot fail to detect the almost constant reference to it.................But it is when we come to look at the literary connection between the Old Testament and the Apocalypse that we find evidences of the most striking kind. If we count up the number of Old Testament passages quoted or alluded to in the New Testament,* we find that the gospel of Matthew has a very large number, amounting in all to 92. The Epistle to the Hebrews comes higher still with 102. Now both these books are connected in a special manner with Israel. Matthew, it is universally admitted, stands out among the four Gospels as being specially Jewish in its character. And the Epistle to the Hebrews was specially written to Hebrews, and they are addressed as such.................Now, when we turn to the Apocalypse, what do we find? The result which to our mind is overwhelming. No less than 285 references to the Old Testament. More than three times as many as Matthew, and nearly three times as many as the Epistle to the Hebrews.//////////

[@cristian_5305]

are you going to do a debate review (or reflection) of your dialogue with Dr. Cooper? That would be very insightful

[@TruthUnites]

hello! Not planning on it, since we are already dialoging, and that sort of *is* the response. :)

[@RussianBot4Christ]

I need to be more Irenic. Thanks for convicting me with you actions.

[@sourcastle]

Here's a question , is typology enough for doctrine on Soteriology such as the comparison between baptism and passing through the red sea and Joshua passing through the river Jordan or just doctrines and dogmas not necessary for salvation?

[@ewene2656]

I thought you addressed the issue of typology run amok very well in the debate. It probably won’t persuade RC’s as the whole edifice of RC is built on the necessity of the papacy. But, I think for anyone who had never heard those biblical claims for the papacy before, it was an excellent rebuttal.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for the feedback!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Ewen, was Paul's typology also run amok? Paul calls Jesus the new Adam. Adam disobeyed and sinned! Luke makes 6 parallels between the Ark of the Lord of old, and The Mother of the Lord. Amok? No! Indeed, if Jesus Christ is the new Moses, then we know from Holy Scripture that Moses appointed Successors! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@blamtasticful]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Your reasoning is flawed here. Your whole point initially is that types don't entail exact parallels in every way and then you use a type to argue for an exact parallel beyond anything explicit.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@blamtasticful not flawed at all, for Context is everything, for as Jesus Christ is the new and Better and greater Adam, so too is Mary the new and better and greater Eve, and Peter, the new and greater Joshua, successor appointed by Jesus, the new and better and greater Moses! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@blamtasticful]

@@matthewbroderick6287 And as Jesus was Adam and Mary was Eve we conclude that Jesus married Mary. Unfortunately your assertions haven't invalidated my criticism.

[@gmacdonald87]

I have a question for you. I am interested in historical theology, I have a rough and basic understanding of all of the controversies and issues of each era, but I want to go deeper. What are the top four or five books that you would recommend on each intellectual era of the church: the patristic, the middle ages, the reformation, and the enlightenment or modern periods? I have read Pelikan's series on the history of doctrine, and I have Muller's series on post-reformation reformed thinkers. My hope is to find something as comprehensive in scope and as detailed in treatment of all of the issues and for each era as those two guys bring. Thank you for your time.

[@TruthUnites]

great to hear of your interest! If you're reading Pelikan and Muller, you are doing great in terms of secondary literature. My continual advice to folks is focus on the primary texts. There really is a lot more to be discovered from that, it seems to me.

[@historyclarification5881]

Is there a book out there on inter-textuality vs. typology that he's recommended?

[@MatthewHendren]

Gavin, have you read much James Jordan/Leithart on OT typology and intertextuality? Love them. Alastair Roberts has been a tool for me to grasp much of it. (as well as for me to understand NT Wright, but that is an aside haha)

[@benjaminledford6111]

Thanks for running through the examples of faulty conclusions from typology. Those really help clarify the danger of pulling traits arbitrarily from a type. I think the purported continuity of the office is an excellent case study. It's possible this office of steward was somewhat continuous, though it certainly doesn't seem inherently so, and in any case, the fact is that we don't have records to demonstrate it one way or another. But assume that it was a continuous office. The other type he pointed to for Peter/the papacy was Joshua. Joshua's role was unique and one-time. He held his position in virtue of having served directly under Moses and having been witness to the miracles of the Exodus, and his task came at a unique moment in history to lead the tribes into the promised land. The parallels there to Peter's context seem pretty strong. He had been discipled directly by Jesus, he was a witness to His ministry and resurrection, and his task came at a unique moment in history to lead the church into the world. Peter's position in salvation history seems more like Joshua's than Eliakim's, which would lead us to conclude that his office was unique and not one that could be passed on. You could say that Joshua's office was that of judge, in which he succeeded Moses, but the office of judge was itself periodic. Why are we taking the recurrence of the office from the Eliakim typology rather than the Joshua typology, which seems more similar to Peter's position?

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Continued...i meant "only Roman Catholics would be saved" if the RCC was consistent with their interpretation of Jesus words in that passage.

[@TheChurchCounselor]

Amazing debate on both sides! As a therapist I studied psychology a bit and the phenomenon your talking about with Applebee’s is called “confirmation bias” I believe. Where we see the facts and points that confirm our previously held position more clear than others. I wanted to ask because I’m struggling with this. I might’ve missed it. Without the papacy what do you make of Jesus’s “keys to the kingdom and binding and loosing statements?”. I have listened to a lot of your videos and heard the “3 wheels” argument that you would need for the papacy. One of the wheels being that the position passed down. My struggle I’m having as a Protestant is conceptualizing. What would Jesus be doing if it didn’t pass down? Establishing some authority for a few years to diminish when the apostles die? I’m struggling. I’m sure due to lack of education on my part.

[@catkat740]

I think you hit the nail on the head. If Jesus wasn’t establishing his Kingdom on earth (the Church with Peter as the head) than how else can that be interpreted? Keep searching and I’m convinced you’ll find the truth :)

[@eternalbyzantium262]

What is your stance Dr, on the salvation of non-protestants? Are they are all damned in your view? Btw, huge admirer of your work.

[@TruthUnites]

no, they can be saved if they appropriate the gospel of Christ into their life -- I address this a bit in my debate with Father Patrick

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Hello Dr. Gavin, do you have any thoughts on my comment on Capturing Christianity debate with Suan comment section regarding Protestantism as a safer belief?

[@TruthUnites]

need to think on it a bit more, but thanks for the comments!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

I have another question i once asked you about a few years ago...Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” If this verse is transubstantiation why would Catholics say Protestants are saved at Vatican 2 (seperated brethren)? To be true to their interpretation of Jesus words they would need to say on Roman Catholics are saved. So...either Vatican 2 is wrong and they need to go back to pre vatican 2 (introducing contradiction). Or...(the better option) they should give up transubstantiation and admit Jesus did not mean transubstantiation. This is one of many contradictions i see.

[@michaelnelson5888]

It was great debate by both, I thought both of had a step ahead of the other at different times. But I think Cameron let Suan have too many rebuttals in the Q&A. It should be a one answer system from both people, seemed Suan was always trying to get in the last word. Was still a very good debate.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I haven't seen this debate, but I did see the Jimmy Aiken debate. Which was more like a sit down discussion. I did think you erred too much on the side of cordial, even being apologetic when you weren't very forceful at one point. Jimmy's style struck the balance better in that one. He was more dominant, but in his calm but confident way. Even my Catholic spouse wanted to see you come out swinging more, so to speak. When you were talking about the Waldensians, and how they were horribly persecuted, your passion against injustice came out and you just said what needed to be said. I hope those observations are helpful.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Pre vatican 2 being before ecumenical conciliatory

[@wiserthanserpents3862]

The English were almost destroyed for their Holy Bible and it does not need anything but to read it and receive salvation.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Sedavacantists see many contradictions and that the only consistent view of the RCC all the way through would be to go back to Pre Vatican 2 conciliatory ecumenical age "No Salvation outside of the church " vs vat 2 "Protestants seperated brethren"

[@Adam-ue2ig]

What? When did you debate him?

[@TruthUnites]

Last week!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Okay its official, You are my favorite Scholar. You nailed it in the debate!

[@TruthUnites]

@@Adam-ue2ig thanks Adam!

[@catkat740]

I think I have to agree with Suan though. The language in the two passages is so similar and Matthew in his Gospel had already been establishing Jesus as the new Davidic King. You mention that the role of Eliakim’s predecessor was to be “in charge of the palace”? The PALACE. “I give you the keys to the kingdom of HEAVEN.” Not to mention Isaiah 22:21 “And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.” The reference is pretty clear so your argument is against Jesus or the author, Matthew. Call it what you want (typology, intertextual evidence) but Jesus used the parallel language for a reason! The Jews in that time would know exactly what scripture He was referring to. I don’t see how you can accept the typology of Jonah and reject this one?

[@duckymomo7935]

Eliakim is Jesus not Peter

[@CMartin04]

The language is similar because is textual allusion, not neccesarily typology

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Everything is vanity! I totally agree with you! The typology of Paul must also be amok, as Paul called Jesus Christ the new Adam, as Adam was a sinner and disobedient! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Queen Mother and Church built on Peter the rock

[@ronaldignacio3574]

If we have no clear Apostolic Succession then who will settle ultimately on issues of Church unity if we follow on Orthodox Christian model which is having no highest authority to appeal to then its always division much of the protestant tradition which is kept on dividing prove to me that you are in unity of Biblical interpretation and even of theology you among themselves cannot present a solid unifying entity . There's always a representative for a certain group then this representatives has to be represented to the highest body if a billion Catholics has no simgle leadership to that lead such group then it would be a futile group it willbe fragmented just like MUSLIMS killing each other e. g. Iran and Saudi Arabia .Truth unites but The gospel Truth on Petrine succession is it seems you keep on denying even the World Council of Churches is untenable.It is still impractical .Just God the Savior said to St Peter who was Simon originally for you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church the Council of Nicea declared it the One ,Holy , Catholic ,and Apostolic Church .If you are not convinced of this only God is the last resort Who is the sole enlightener of the Good News. God bless .

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Unfortunately, Dr. Ortlund pulled a Mike Winger, and stated the majority of the Church Fathers taught there was no ONE leader among the Apostles, yet, never provided any quotes from Church Fathers backing that up! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@TruthUnites]

Hi Matthew, not sure how carefully you were listening, but that is not what I said, and then I provided quotes from Cyprian, Isidore, and Augustine for what I did say. (Had quotes from Bede, Jerome, and John Chrysostom standing by, but didn't want to take too much time.) I encourage you to go re-listen to what I actually said.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@TruthUnites Hello Dr. Ortlund. I was listening very carefully, and even Suan, later, on different channels said that you were not able to provide quotes from Church Fathers that there was no ONE leader among the Apostles! Augustine calls BOTH Jesus and Peter as rock, and Augustine teaches the chair of Peter's primacy has succession. John Chrysostom teaches Peter is the ruler of the whole world. Cyprian Teaches primacy has been given to Peter and his chair of authority. Ambrose calls Peter the great and firm rock and foundation. Bede says Peter is the doorkeeper in whom he shall obey all his decrees! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Christos Kyrios sure! "But primacy is given to Peter as the Church is founded on him", ( Church Fathers, authority, Cyprian, 246 AD). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Christos Kyrios why would I give up the Truth that Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and built His Church on Peter, as Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! 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

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Christos Kyrios I did give the citation. You just didn't like it. The citation is taken from Cyprian's homily on Authority. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@juliolopez5630]

why are so obsessed with our church ???? walk and save your self satan has alway have wanted to destroyed Jesus"s church but no heretic and blasphemies against her will ever corrupt and destroy her,,,, you my friend is going against jJesus him self and our bless mother the holy virgin marry and against St Michael the archangel who is protector of the church by GOD him self GGOD LUCK ON THAT ONE !!!!!!

[@historyclarification5881]

Is there a book out there on inter-textuality vs. typology that he's recommended?