The Case AGAINST The Papacy w/ Dr. Gavin Ortlund

Ever wondered what a case against the papacy might look like? In this livestream, Dr. Gavin Ortlund, a Protestant expert on Roman Catholicism, presents his case against the papacy.
Dr. Ortlund's channel: / truthunites
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on KZbin: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Catholicism #Papacy #Jesus

[@jordand5732]

Please do as many videos as you can with Dr. Ortlund. These are amazing. I will be sending in money with questions next interview. This was an amazing discussion. I’m a catholic but when I look for the opposing views. Dr. Ortlund is my go-to. He is incredibly gifted and uses these gifts for Jesus very well.

[@hayatelaguna7599]

Ottlund is among the worse when it came mes to catholicism. Albrecht has thoroughly debunked him on many occasions, so much so that he has exposed him to the extent that he's shown that he's not even qualified to speak on the matter.

[@iishadowii7477]

lol just a huge backhanded compliment

[@garyboulton2302]

@@hayatelaguna7599 How about you try to get them to debate.

[@hayatelaguna7599]

@@garyboulton2302 ortlund is scared of Albrecht

[@garyboulton2302]

@@hayatelaguna7599 Let's be serious or let's end the conversation. Gavin's debating Trent Horn this year. I doubt he'd debate trent but be scared of Albrecht lol. Unless you are actually joking, which is possible.

[@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast]

Glad you had Gavin on. He's one of my favorite Protestants to hear talk on this topic. Opposing views shouldn't remove charity.

[@bradleesargent]

@@tony1685 when Paul encountered people wanting to use scripture alone to enforce circumcision as a means of salvation Paul literally makes a beeline to the apostles to resolve the issue. He does not simply open some scroll to make a biblical argument. Also Jesus quoting the 10 commandments does not quote all 10.

[@malcolmkirk3343]

Nope, they shouldn't. But they should require more research than just reading the scriptures; particularly if the "investigator" is predisposed to limiting his research to just reading the N.T. scriptures. Why is that not the best way to go? Because there is a large amount of background information in the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant which have bearing on these issues. There is also a good amount of information to be reviewed from Church fathers, both East and West. In sum, Ortland has done a poor job of research and analysis. Heschmeyer, Sonna, Lofton, and Tyler have done a good job. I was very surprised to hear one of them bring up D.H. Wenkel's excellent work which I'd all but forgotten about, along with others. In sum, Ortland comes to erroneous conclusions because of his limited scope of research, and several fallacious arguments on which his case is founded.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@malcolmkirk3343 He used the bible, but that's too limited? If we can't turn to the scriptures about Christian matters of doctrine, what good is the bible, and why did God even give it to us?

[@parkerzurbuch]

I am a Catholic, and I love being Catholic. I have to say, though, that Gavin's argument in this video is the best I have heard against the papacy. It is the linchpin doctrine and ecclesiastical attribute between Catholics and all other Christians. I applaud him for this great argument, and how he irenically demonstrated his case. He has given me so much respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

If it's the best case what about it do you affirm? What convinces you still that Gavin is wrong?

[@forwardechoes]

Yeah, he his for sure the best one I've seen. Also his posture helps. But with all due respect, there isn't much competition. It's usually hate, straw man, made up stuff... - Here there is a conversation, logic etc... But yeah, the best by far but still fragile and subjective. William Albrecht, made some videos about this gentleman Pastor. If you want to check it out. He did invite him for a debate.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@forwardechoes I'm aware of William and listened much of his stuff and initiall interaction with Ortlund, I find Ortlund more convincing and more charitable also.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@forwardechoes check out Dr. Steven Nemes words of life, The Other Paul, Goy for Jesus, Dr. Jordan Cooper, etc

[@forwardechoes]

@@Adam-ue2ig Very Insightful" - Great that we now, have your own personal and subjective opinion.

[@luisr5577]

Never hear about Dr. Ortlund before. He is amazing!

[@kennylee6499]

he is

[@zekdom]

14:30 - Popes and Mary 20:30 - silence in scripture 20:58 - silence, Constitution and President 21:40 - the early church writers 22:30, 38:18 - Augustine and Jerome 24:39 - the Trinity 25:50 - bishops 27:05 - the shepherd of Hermas 30:03 - Cyprian and the chair of Peter 34:37 - Ortlund on Matthew 16:18 and infallibility 38:50, 39:18, 49:13 - Matthew 16 and supremacy 40:36 - Augustine and the rock 41:57 - Even if it’s Peter… 47:50 - Cameron’s take on the surface-level reading 52:10 - Protestants’ lack of serious exposure from the other side 52:46 - Peter and leadership 53:17, 54:27 - silence and biblical inerrancy 53:50 - John 10:35 59:01, 1:00:00 - Pints With Aquinas

[@amadeusasimov1364]

Gavin Ortland is fantastic at his thought process through this. It seems that he's able to break down what is being said and what the scripture is conveying. Thanks for sharing this discussion.

[@ACF1901]

The church came before the bible.

[@ACF1901]

@YAJUN YUAN The bible was not "written" as one book. It was not canonized for centuries after the death of the apostles. If all you need is the bible for "church doctrine" then protestants don't form one church, because they all have different doctrines.

[@ACF1901]

@YAJUN YUAN So you are your own pope deciding those books are not the word of God then. See you set yourself up as the authority to determine the word of God, or otherwise you are relying on some other man to determine the word of God.

[@rosel9785]

Dr. Gavin Ortlund was recommended to me by my son. I appreciate his demeanor.

[@dannymcmullan9375]

From watching this it appears that Cameron has already decided to convert. He is simply looking for a logical way to justify his conversion in his own mind. He says he is in a journey like he is searching for the truth. Don't think that's totally true.

[@alcomproduction]

Maybe his girlfriend is Catholic

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Dr. Ortlund has considerable objections . And his manner is commendable E. Ybarra

[@albertaowusu1790]

Don't encourage him.

[@timmaddock2672]

You're a legend Erik. Love your respectful approach. God bless.

[@lordzorg2498]

In my opinion Gavin killed it. Presented a very compelling case against the papacy seeped in both scripture and history

[@repentantrevenant9776]

I was really surprised by Cameron’s response - I’m starting to get the impression that he’s accepted Catholicism more strongly than I realized. Dr. Ortlund made an incredible case essentially culminating in “there is no good evidence for the papacy either biblically or in 1000 years of church history - all of the evidence points to it being an accretion.” Cameron didn’t really seem to dispute that conclusion, but seemed to say that it amounts to just a “small bit of evidence against the papacy.” I get that Cameron wants to avoid arguments from silence, but, if Ortlund is correct, the silence seems deafening. I’d want to ask Cameron: in arguing for the papacy, at what point does it stop being “avoiding arguments from silence” and becomes the fallacy of “argument from ignorance.”

[@whosweptmymines3956]

Yeah, I was surprised by Cameron's response as well. I think Dr. Ortlund may have hit the nail on the head when he talked about Protestants being shaken when they find out that Catholics actually have arguments, even if they're not that good in the final analysis. As a Lutheran, I think I almost got taught more growing up about Catholic doctrine than I did about Protestant doctrine, so I'm always surprised to hear how little my fellow Protestants often know about it.

[@koppite9600]

@@repentantrevenant9776 Tradition has Popes since before John was written.

[@coloradodutch7480]

Historical data has no single bishop leading the church in Rome until mid 2nd century, even RCC historians have documented that.

[@JD-np5xq]

One thing I've noticed about both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox arguments is that they often beg the question that when the Bible / early church refer to things like the "church," they are referring to the specific ecclesiastical tradition that they are a part of in exclusion of all others, when that is often the very question at issue.

[@countryboyred]

Exactly, this is one of the biggest problems I have when I talk to Catholics online. They say “the Church” and I say “which one”?

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

I mean, it's not that serious a difference. Yes, papal supremacy constitutes a major difference between Catholicism and any other Christians. It is a major distinction. But the model of apostolic succession as the authority structure is nigh universal before Martin Luther, or at best Peter Waldo. No other sects survived the late classical era or the early medieval period that can claim an alternate authority structure, other than one common to all varieties of Orthodox and the Catholic Church: my bishop was given authority through ordination by someone who ultimately was ordained to do the same by the Apostles, who were ordained ultimately by Christ.

[@timmaddock2672]

Thanks for providing such a thoughtful and compelling case Gavin, and thanks Cameron for your efforts in setting up this up. Really helpful for my personal journey! More please :)

[@pixieburton3131]

This is absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!! Thank you so very much!!! Pastor Ortlund, bless you and THANK YOU!!!!!

[@JohnnyHofmann]

Dr. Ortlund is awesome! Great discussion

[@TNFLHT]

Looking back at these... it's easy to see with hindsight Cameron already had his swim trunks on during this interview.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

We'll see if it lasts. Has he looked into indulgences and treasury of merit yet, and how they all relate to purgatory? Those are some real humdingers. For a Christian who already had a strong bible background to be able to accept all that just baffles me. Then again, I see pastors convert to Catholicism. I heard Trent Horn allude to sort of admitting that he didn't agree w/ everything, but he didn't go into any detail. There has to be some sort of plugging your nose for some, and just jumping in.

[@pauloofernando]

This was awesome! Thanks so much! It would be great to see more debates/conversations between Catholics and Protestants. :)

[@kristopherbaptiste9773]

I'm currently a student at a Lutheran seminary and I think the idea of Papal supremacy is already discredited if you look at St. Paul's testimony in Galatians chpt. 2. Paul knew Peter personally and what is interesting is that he reported that there were three "acknowledged pillars" of the Jerusalem church, not one (2:9), and that Peter shared leadership with John and James the Brother of Jesus. It's also interesting to note that the number 3 isn't even exhaustive of the number of possible pillars, but that Peter, James, and John were simply the ones who were expressly named. Furthermore, Paul didn't even recognize these pillars, which included Peter, as having a special kind of authority over any other apostle, saying "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)" (2:6 NRSV), which implies that Paul saw himself as Peter's equal, along with every other apostle. This is further strengthened when Paul confronted Peter to his face over being peer pressured to not eat with gentiles in 2:11-14. For Paul to call Peter out implies an equal relationship between the two, as opposed to a superior/inferior dynamic, since he did not feel obligated to show deference to Peter's decision, but instead openly questioned and criticized it. In Acts 15, we continually see a collegial style of leadership among the apostles that doesn't seem to imply any kind of special role to Peter. In fact in the Jerusalem council, it was James and not Peter that gave the final word and made the final decision (Acts 15:19) with the final decision being ratified democratically among all of the present members (15:22). I think this really discredits the idea of Peter being in a unique position of authority since he doesn't really seem to be leading from a place of unique authority. Rather he seems to be a leader within a cohort of other leaders. Theologically speaking, this could be understood if one compares Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16 with Abraham's call in Genesis. Both men were chosen because of their faith, because they responded positively to God's word. Thus, just as all people who posses Abraham's faith become heirs to his legacy (Gal. 3:6-9), all those who posses Peter's faith become active participants of Peter's blessings. Thus, while Peter received a unique privilege as being the first to confess Christ as Messiah, all those who follow Peter's confession participate in the blessings of that confession as well, hence every other apostle did become leaders equal to Peter because they too began to believe as Peter did.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

The fact the papacy is never explicitly stated in the new testament, and that there's no OT model for it either, shows me very clearly that these few scriptures are being stretched well beyond their limit. The OT testament priesthood is very explicitly laid out. There was no doubt about a priest's duties. In the NT, a bishop, pastor and teacher's duties and requirements are laid out. A pope is the most important of them all, God would not leave it to guess work. This had to be a manmade invention.

[@koppite9600]

It's in full display in Acts 15 7

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@koppite9600 I can read the whole chapter and what's on display is that Peter said he was called to preach to the gentiles and the same Holy Spirit given to all them, was given to the gentiles. Then James seemed to close the meeting. They quoted a prophecy: 17so that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does these things 18that have been known for ages. So the council ended w/ them agreeing the prophecy had been fulfilled. I see no evidence of popery there. You do, your church says that's what that means, so it doesn't matter what the context actually shows.

[@koppite9600]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 who was chosen by God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles? Peter, Paul or James ... or add anyone else. Why did Peter quote his selection, it doesn't make sense for him to quote it to his fellow apostles if they were also chosen. I claim that he means he is The Pope.

[@WooCashM]

God would not leave the Holy Trinity to guesswork either, and yet there isn't a single mention of the "Holy Trinity" or the "Triune God" in the OT or the NT.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@koppite9600 Problem is, that makes no sense. To clarify, Peter says he is called to preach to the gentiles. That's all that means. Where you get, I'm also the pope from is anyone's guess? It does not fit context whatsoever and just comes out of left field. That's why any Christian who is not taught w/ CAtholic tradition never reads any of that, and says, oh yeah, Peter must be pope, because it's not there. You think it's there, because you have layers of Catholic theology taught to you. I'm a Christian who has followed Catholic theology quite closely and sought Catholic sources for years to see where these kinds of teachings came from. I have sincerely tried very hard to see what you guys see. I still can't, and it's not for lack of giving it an honest shot.

[@timmaddock2672]

A dialogue between Gavin Ortlund and Erik Ybarra would be really interesting Cameron. Both are really thoughtful, charitable and focussed more on scholarship rather than apologetics. Dr Brant Pitre would also be a worthy interlocutor.

[@malcolmkirk3343]

My guess is Dr. Ortland will not go for that. Why not? Because it puts him up against scholars who are VERY well studied in the early church fathers, church history, and all the dated rationalizations Dr. Ortland applies to avoid the problem of Baptists teaching (in relation to church history). There are gaping holes and self-contradictions in the arguments regarding church history which most Protestants (esp. Baptists) put forward. Reading Protestant church history books in seminary was a study in self-defeating arguments. In other words, if you just switched many of the arguments around and applied them to Protestantism, the Protestant authors end up refuting their own arguments. Additionally, Protestants of various stripes REFUTE EACH OTHER on many, many doctrines of their faiths: Baptism, and the Eucharist, Communion (including form, nature, function), Clergy (inc. gender issues, church government issues, etc., etc., etc.). On and on it goes.

[@timmaddock2672]

@@tony1685 Are you suggesting that Gavin, Erick and Brant do not follow Jesus? If that is the case, then I must not either.

[@alcomproduction]

@@countryboyredthe early church fathers did

[@whitneymathis2863]

Dr. Ortlund, I think the biblical evidence for inerrancy is crystal clear and overwhelming in comparison to the papacy. Thank you for your work.

[@Skanderberg79]

Ironically, The Papacy precedes the Bible. It was a Pope the one who made the Bible Possible.

[@YeshuaMoshiaHaolam]

@@Skanderberg79 There was an old testament canon genereally aknowledged and in use before there was Peter, the supposed first pope. There is no debate about the right scriptures between Jesus and any jew, there is only debate about the right meaning of scripture.

[@stevenbiliai679]

Thank you Dr Orthlund, it's my first time to see and hear you speak, definitely rare and gifted and inspired. Very well thought out and well presented. Glad you addressed the 'system' and not the members. Thank you Cameron for your ministry, its touching peoples lives in a real and important way. 'the Truth will set you free'. God bless you both.

[@wootsat]

is Trent's 5-hour rebuttal to this out yet?

[@nathangraham2189]

LOL, as a Catholic convert, I can appreciate the humor in this, and I absolutely love Trent Horn. But hey, we’ve got to be thorough, right? 😅

[@lonedesertfox]

@@nathangraham2189 you’re right! 5 hours isn’t enough! Lol

[@CMartin04]

It's not because he couldn't, but they had a conversation on baptism one month before this.

[@josegeda7807]

As always Gavin did an awesome job defending the Protestant view using an irenic approach…..I learnt a lot and feel edified……👍🏾

[@augustinewilliam3855]

1Pet 5:1 Peter addresses elders not from a position of authority or superiority or supremacy , but addresses as a "fellow elder". Peter is one among coequal elders. And then goes on to point to Jesus as the "Chief Shepherd" - the one who alone is Supreme.

[@jonnichols4663]

This was the best video on this subject yet. Dr Ortlund was articulate and generous in his speech. Would love to hear from him.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

His debate on sola scriptura, w/ Trent Horn, was just excellent. They were both so good, and get along so well. Trent is about the best apologist debater out there, but Gavin gave him a very respectable go. I even saw a Catholic disappointed w/ Trent's performance, so I guess he was too impressed w/ how well Gavin did, even w/ how gentle he is. It was on Pints with Aquinas channel about 3 months ago. Gavin was saying he had another debate w/ Trent, which I hope is still in the works.

[@8og7crtxrftghjujhre4dztu8ljg]

Cameron: There is a little bit of evidence Gavin's facial expression: What?

[@cristian_5305]

If you genuinely want a scholarly robust protestant voice, Dr. Jordan B. Cooper would be an amazing contribution to your journey

[@TheJason909]

Former Lutheran turned Catholic here, and I agree.

[@cristian_5305]

just wondering, what finally brought you to rome?

[@howdy2496]

@@TheJason909 What made you take the leap?

[@Ash-js2ig]

Lutherans are catholic just not Roman. This point is very misunderstood by so many.

[@davidliu7967]

@@TheJason909hope you didn’t lose the gospel when you left the church to go to Rome. Ultimately that’s what matters most

[@jacobfowler8705]

I think this was a great overview of different arguments for and against the papacy. I really like Dr. Ortlunds approach and would really like to see a more in depth discussion on the different arguments. Again i really enjoyed the video and would love to see more!

[@FrankGrauJr]

Catholic claims about the teaching authority of the RC church are either circular (wherein they say that only the RC church can interpret the Bible, and they say so because the RC church tells them so, which is the same circular argument made by all authoritarian cults), or else they argue from scripture and history, in which case they’re admitting one doesn’t need the papacy to arrive at Biblical and historical truth.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I get told that sola scriptura is merely a circular argument. This is apparently because we didn't initially have the bible, so the authority was handed to the church leaders to guide us into truth. That's how they justify putting tradition up w/ the bible. Though in practice, I really can't see that they have scripture as equal, they clearly put scripture as subordinate to their traditions. How else could they get so upset at the very notion of sola scriptura, even when it's explained that doesn't mean only the bible, but the bible clearly above tradition.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

Ortlund vs. Horn 7-hour debate, make it happen!

[@timmaddock2672]

That would be so good!

[@DrKyleBailey]

Great discussion

[@mitromney]

Though I'm Catholic, I agree with the case dr Gavin makes here. It's 100% true that for a doctrine that basically gives Church unlimited theological power over the entire Spiritual reality there needs to be a solid foundation all around - in Scripture, in the Fathers, in the History etc. I have mixed feelings about the Papacy myself. I have no issues following it's authority personally, so it's not like I feel the need to convert elsewhere, but subjugating all other Christians to it, especially the Orthodox Christians who also have their own Apostolic roots, is just unacceptable based on vague quotes and late developments. This is why I especially support the modern ecumenical approach to old anathemas and other means of damnation that Church used to give to everyone who dares oppose it. Thank God for Vatican II which proclaims other Christians as no longer heretics but our Brothers and Thank God for wide-spread theological ecumenical efforts that unite us over key doctrine like Joint Declaration of Justification, which broadly speaking solves the Soteriological disputes, or at least gives us a way to coexist theologically on the same threshold.

[@Golfinthefamily]

Vatican II contradicted other official catholic doctrines... so what do you do with that? Which is correct?

[@vinsvalentin]

Amen 🙏

[@mitromney]

@@Golfinthefamily The latest council is "technically" the binding one. Catholic Church makes a lot if updates all the time. And always the latest updates are the ones that are to be followed. It's pretty simple.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@mitromney what I mean was, if different councils contradict themselves, then where is the infallibility?

[@alcomproduction]

@@Golfinthefamilyif truth is relative then you can change anything. This is why they put tradition over scripture

[@TheOtherPaul]

A solid case as usual doc! I wish you brought up the issue of Clement of Rome, whose letter has some peculiar features and silences that call the early papacy into question.

[@Pax-Christi]

Ah the classic argument from silence...

[@TheOtherPaul]

@@Pax-Christi yes, which is perfectly valid in historical inquiry, provided you have strict criteria

[@matthewbroderick6287]

The other Paul, why did Peter say greetings from Babylon, rather than Rome. To name the successor to Peter in persecuted times was dangerous. Yet, the office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@YAJUN YUAN Jesus wants you to come home to the Church He built on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! I love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth

[@gfujigo]

Is Clement of Rome different from Clement of Alexandria?

[@marcuswilliams7448]

The next account that immediately follows "the gates of hell" scene is our Lord saying to Peter "Get behind me, satan"; that Peter, rebuking the Lord, had, not the things of God, but man in mind.

[@Draezeth]

Not to mention soon after, the disciples come and ask Jesus which of them is greatest... and don't get an answer, let alone Peter.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@@Draezeth Well, he does give an answer; i.e., the one who would be great must be a servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. But, certainly, He doesn't specify St. Peter and say "And you, Peter, as the greatest of all must be servant of all."

[@republiccooper]

Cameron, you're an intelligent guy. I'm impressed by your ability to quickly synthesize and retain information.

[@skyscraperphilosopher8476]

Really enjoyed this!

[@MrAmericanaSam]

This has been an incredibly edifying video. This issue you guys brought forward, that there is a scarcity of higher scholarly defense for the Protestant Christian position, has put shape to a subconscious grievance of mine I haven't even been entirely aware of. I'll be working to educate and equip myself to join the ranks of the intellectual unorthodox. 1 Peter 3:15, baby!

[@shebvarghese351]

Great job Gavin!

[@pappywinky4749]

I really want to express how awesome and how humble Dr. Ortlund is. It's great to listen to him answer tough questions with humility and openess. One argument I heard and think is a solid position is that Peter being the rock on which God would build is church specifically refers to the church of Jerusalem and the ministry towards Jewish people. It would make a lot of sense based on Peters ministry and how he worked. Peter was working to convert the Jewish community. I can't remember the specifics of the arguments, I would have to find where I heard that again. But hearing it made a lot of sense to me. Basing the whole papacy on this passage and the one where people stopped when he talks sound like taking things out of context. It's too specific a situation to base an entire doctrine on it. Especially such an important one. The papacy is viewed as importantly as the trinity, the plan and accomplishement of redemption, it's such a vital part of catholicism that you would think it was based on more than a few select passages that are vague and open to interpretation.

[@Seven_1865]

36:12 🤣 boy have I been here in debates. So glad to be introduced to Gavin!

[@emiliorabell894]

Would love to see you bring Dr. Jordan B. Cooper on the show. He's also a protestant apologist and scholar that does great stuff on KZbin!

[@matthew7491]

Did you guys coordinate denim jackets? It definitely enhances the veracity of Dr. Ortlund's argument.

[@alcomproduction]

The reason there are not a lot of Protestant people trying to correct orthodoxy or Catholicism is because we are busy reaching out to those that don’t know Christ

[@carlidoepke5131]

Thanks, Gavin! The silence in the Bible on the pope is deafening. Enough said…or…not said! Ha. No glimpses of a pope. Clear the roles in the Church…elders and deacons. Clearly laid out in multiple books of the Bible. And…Not even a glimpse of the pope in those explanations of the roles on l in the church.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

That's what is so stunning. The Jews had nothing approximating a pope in the OT, and their priesthood is very specifically laid out. The NT is not as specific about the new priesthood, because it seems it was meant to be fairly different than the OT. Absolutely nothing about a pope though. They glean huge amounts of information from the keys to the kingdom scriptures, even though Jesus said the same to the other apostles.

[@TyranBatten]

​@@saintejeannedarc9460 I totally agree with you. I think Catholics argue that the papacy is continuing the line of David as instituted by Christ. So Davids eternal kingdom is fulfilled the papal succession. But its really tenuous to try and draw that line imo.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@TyranBatten Their argument seems to be more based on the seat of Moses. Either way, they are relying on old testament types, like they do completely when it comes to all the Mary dogmas. This is convenient when NT scripture is not there to support their theology. Overall, they seek to continue the OT priesthood, the continual sacrifice through the giving of the Eucharist, and a works based, fulfilling of the law based walk w/ God. Christ clearly abolished that in the NT, and called us to something much different.

[@TyranBatten]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 agreed

[@jasonengwer8923]

Gavin made a lot of good points. One thing that didn't come up was the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources (heretics, Jews, and pagans). Men like Aristides and Tertullian wrote apologies in which they responded to objections to Christianity and anticipated potential objections. They address the deity of Jesus, his virgin birth, his resurrection, the second coming, the inspiration of scripture, how to interpret various passages of scripture, Christian moral standards, the apostles, Christian teachers, the nature of the church, and many other topics. But they say nothing of a papacy, to explain it, defend it, anticipate objections to it, or anything else. Trypho, Celsus, and other early opponents of Christianity show no awareness of a papacy, in contrast to the many and explicit references to the papacy among non-Christians in later centuries. We see many references to a papacy, including explicit ones, among non-Christians in our own day in books, on television, etc. The best explanation for the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources is that a papacy didn't exist at the time.

[@hc7385]

You need to be invited to these youtube conversations as you have a broad level of academic knowledge

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I would definitely like to hear more of this. That's a great argument. Are there videos or apologists that make these arguments in detail? I haven't heard this used before, but it's gold. There is no real talk of the papacy, no records of popes in the first few centuries, and thankfully also none of the praying to saints and deifying Mary in the first few either. All accretions.

[@intellectualcatholicism]

I really love Gavin Ortlund and appreciate his sincerity and rigor. Michael Lofton of Reason Theology and I (Suan) will be doing a review video. Also, Cameron Bertuzzi's fairness is wonderful and refreshing.

[@Jonathan_214]

Looking forward to this. Would be cool to hear yours and Michael's response to Gavin saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that there was no authoritative/infallible structure in place in the OT.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

If it was really infallible and you follow it all the way to its logical conclusions that seems to me to bring up the question what would prevent one from thinking you should be an Orthodox jew?

[@intellectualcatholicism]

@YAJUN YUAN I've addressed this precise question before elsewhere, but I'll provide a brief summary here. 1. There's a distinction between a magisterium and an oral tradition. Insofar as I can tell, Moses established an institution in the Old Testament to interpret and apply the Torah. I don't rule out the possibility that oral traditions from Moses were handed down, although Jesus clearly indicates a corruption of this tradition by His time. 2. Yajun is correct in saying that my response is this: the authority of the Sanhedrin was transferred to the apostles by the New Moses - Jesus Christ. 3. The Sanhedrin claims succession from the Biblical authors - the prophets, judges, and kings - and high priests. If this claim is correct, then I do accept their prior teachings over Israel. 3a. The main thing to note is that Moses installed a judicial system over Israel to interpret and apply the Torah (priests and judges can occupy this seat). Moses did not directly build the Sanhedrin, but the Sanhedrin can claim to be within Moses' seat (as Jesus says) if they have succeeded to that position as the judicial officials of Israel who - like the prophets, judges, kings, and high priests before them - interpreted and applied the scriptures. The Rabbis (and I'd argue the sages) claimed an unbroken succession from Moses. 4. The Sanhedrin's view of "infallibility" is strange insofar as they believed that they could bind God to their own rulings. I do not consider that a valid instance of infallibility. Nonetheless, the Jewish sources are insistent that the Sanhedrin had divine inspiration and guidance from the Holy Spirit. The only place where the Sanhedrin comes close to the Catholic conception of infallibility is that the Sanhedrin under certain circumstances claimed to have the power to be able to bind all of Israel to its rulings forever. 4a. Although I think it's reasonable to say that these permanent rulings of the Sanhedrin are infallible, the Jewish sources do not provide further detail on the status of these rulings. I am now more cautious about saying that the Sanhedrin is infallible and would rather say that I think that's a reasonable but unverified stance.

[@intellectualcatholicism]

@@Adam-ue2ig The reason why I am not an Orthodox Jew is because Jesus is the Messiah, the foretold royal son of David, the New Moses who has brought us a new law and judicial order, God incarnate, and my savior who died for me and loved me despite knowing my sinfulness and weakness.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@intellectualcatholicism The intention of point was more subtle than that, the argument goes more like Catholics are carrying over things into Christianity from Judaism that should not be, such as arguably infallibility claims, exclusive authority claims, the priesthood i.e an ongoing exclusive priestly class with the all the attached claims to authority etc. Obviously Christ is the Lord, that is not one of the doctrines in dispute.

[@cameronc1509]

It seems to me that Cameron is 100% settled on being Catholic before he had any of these discussions with Dr O, or Dr White.

[@TyranBatten]

Yeah it was really strange to hear such a weak case from him that basically boiled down to "it just sounds like it means the papacy when you read it". Felt a little like he wasn't really hearing what Gavin was saying.

[@firingallcylinders2949]

You could see where he was heading, people predicted he was gonna convert to Rome awhile ago

[@jzak5723]

Is there some rule that says you can't have a guest on who might disagree with you? So what. This wasn't about keeping Cameron Protestant or making him Catholic, he simply wanted to have Dr. Ortlund give a talk on what he has concluded about the papacy.

[@calebsmith1899]

nice! I Dr. Gavin is awesome.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

It's interesting to note the ubiquitous absence of the Roman Catholic Papacy in the entire New Testament.

[@anthonywhitney634]

Hey Cam, maybe a good way to rephrase what you were trying to say about Peter, the rock, keys etc, would be to say from that scripture you could infer that Peter had some kind of leadership role (I don't think that personally). I think Gavin's point is that even granting that, 'Supremecy' is still a non sequitur.

[@8og7crtxrftghjujhre4dztu8ljg]

Thank you for this interview! I'd like a video on the OT canon.

[@ThePostmillennial]

Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck. The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do? The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical. Lord, help this weary soul. 🙏

[@paulyoshida1747]

As a fellow protestant, I acknowledge your plight. A few things came to mind. First, Roman Catholic perishes aren't all the same. Yes, they may have more continuity than if you were to go from a Lutheran church to a Baptist church, but there are better and worse perishes, priests, etc. So, it's not necessarily a uniquely protestant problem. Second, and this may not help, but perhaps it will put things into perspective...this is also a luxury for those of us who live in the US. If you've lived in a non-Christian country, as I did for 15 years, you will find that far too often, you have almost no choices at all, unless you're willing to travel an impractically great distance for each service. In such a situation, you do what you can, and may have to continue in your faith in the privacy of your own home most weeks. Compared to that, saying I don't like the myriad of choices that are available to me sounds like a mild issue. Third, if you genuinely do not find a suitable ministry near your location, and this burdens you, it may be God's way of speaking to you. You may need to begin a ministry where you are at. This is a very difficult suggestion, but, as protestants, we take the great commission(Matthew 28:16-20) personally. I'm sorry if none of this is helpful. May Christ be with you in your walk.

[@countryboyred]

Catholic church’s aren’t one monolithic unified body. I’ve been to TLM that might as well be an entirely different church it’s so different than NO. I’ve been to eastern Catholic Churches that don’t say the Filioque and revere saints that were deemed as heretics by the RCC. It’s not a monolith. And the grass isn’t always greener no matter where you go. Good luck.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

"Lord, help this weary soul" The heart of Catholicism is the Mass, where the bread and wine is transformed into the Resurrected Christ. One of two realities exist: 1. The Church universally errored for 1500+ years and didn't know it on the Eucharist. The Church said it was the body of Christ, just as Jesus said, THIS IS MY BODY, yet it errored, universally errored and didn't know it. ALL of Christianity being pagans without realizing it. This means either Jesus was a horrible teacher or all the disciples were horrible listeners and/or teachers themselves. or 2. The Catholic Church has been right all along, and the protestant interpretation of scripture, which didn't come along for 1500 years, right. Highly recommend watching Dr Brant Pitre's video taken in front of a local parish below. It's taken from his book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmWYc3t6h6Zqprcsi=2sc79vQXq8lh--m0

[@Miatpi]

"We should almost have Trent on the show at this point" Yes! :))

[@ProfYaffle]

Gavin and Trent have a debate planned for Autumn (the Fall - I'm in the UK). They had a couple of response videos to each other that you might be interested in if you haven't seen them

[@jattebaleyos116]

or Eric Ybarra

[@Miatpi]

@@ProfYaffle Thanks! If you think about their videos on the purgatory, yes, I've seen that. Interesting stuff indeed. Looking forward to their debate. Both are so nuanced and charitable.

[@ProfYaffle]

@@Miatpi yes I did mean those, sounds like you already knew. I struggle a bit with Trent, but I am willing to accept I may be biased and wrong

[@firingallcylinders2949]

CC should bring on James White as well

[@EnHacore1]

Excellent talk! I just can't comprehend how a person that takes a good look at church history can accept all the deviations of the catholic church.

[@MrWoaaaaah]

Which denomination has the least deviations?

[@EnHacore1]

@@MrWoaaaaah would say protestant churches in general are pretty close. If I were to go with a "traditional" church I would pick the Orthodox church over the Catholic church.

[@michael7144]

I agree 100%

[@forwardechoes]

Well... all protestants come from a major deviation 1500 years into the church. So, long live irony.

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

@@EnHacore1 which Protestant churches please?

[@Jo0zek20]

Brother Gavin is beautifully gentle in his arguments and discussion. I can learn that gentleness from him. Cameron also. Trent Horn is also someone I would love to drink beer with!

[@asiaaviator5353]

As Gavin is a Baptist pastor, I'd love to see a debate between him and former baptist *Steve Ray* who is now a Catholic apologist and author of _"Upon this Rock"_ or with former Baptist pastor *David Currie* who is also now a Catholic apologist and author of " _Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic_ ."

[@Peter-jo6yu]

St Optatus of Milevis was a North African bishop in the 4th century (contemporary with Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom etc). I'll just let his words speak for themselves: "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit." St Irenaeus Bishop of Gaul in the 2nd century (Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Apostle!) "It is a matter of necessity that all churches should agree with the Church of Rome, on account of its pre-eminent authority". Cyprian of Carthage, a martyr-bishop in the 250s, who was beheaded for his faith, says "Rome is the principal Church, from which sacerdotal unity has its source"

[@WisdomThumbs]

Reading his words, you’d think Peter’s writings must have said “I am the ordained head of the church and all should consolidate under me.” But no, Catholicism had to concoct such arguments later and apply them ex post facto. Was he a Christian or a Peterian? Clearly the latter.

[@MrWoaaaaah]

@@WisdomThumbs are you God, or human?

[@WisdomThumbs]

@@MrWoaaaaah Are you going somewhere with that question, or trolling?

[@MrWoaaaaah]

@@WisdomThumbs I'm making the point that you cannot know whether Optatus was a Christian or not (despite your claims to such knowledge) as that knowledge is known only to God.

[@WisdomThumbs]

@@MrWoaaaaah If you're trying to argue that a Catholic *saint* and *bishop* was anything other than a Peterian (especially since we have his writings to judge by), you're barking up the wrong tree. The only doubt is whether he turned back to God in his final days or not, which is irrellevant to his life's work prior.

[@yourfutureself3392]

Very interesting video.

[@kentemple7026]

Turretinfan also has a massive blog with lots of historical quotes from church history and early church fathers.

[@EnHacore1]

Please do an interview with Dr Ortlund expanding on his view of the ortodox church

[@supajooce]

I’m so sad this is over. I really wanted to comment on the Roman Catholic teaching on the veracity and biblical proof of the papacy. You mentioned Matthew and Jesus saying to Peter, you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church. In referencing Dr. Brant Pitre, this is a good passage to verify the papacy but when understood in a Jewish lens, and in conjunction with Isiah 22:19-23. The original Greek word used for “church” in Matthew is Ecclacia meaning assembly of gods people. And usually this term was used in the assembly of the Israelites in the temple where there was a rock. The emon shetiach meaning the foundation stone. The stone was where the arc of the covenant used to be and where the blood of the sacrifice of the lamb used to be sprinkled. The church Jesus was talking about in this passage was the church body. Not necessarily the church as a building. Also, to reflect on “the keys of the kingdom” and the binding and loosing refers to isiah 22:19-23. Where eli’akim is discussed. He is the “Al Bayith” of his day which means he was the “over the house” aka the leader over the house of David, 2nd in rank to only the king. It’s an office, mirroring the office of the pope. And as an office, this role gets passed down over the centuries from person to person. This is what first century Jews would have understood. The Al Bayith’s role, like the pope (papa aka pope), was to be a father figure to the kingdom. In the pasage Isaiah mentioned that whatever the al bayit opens none shall shut and whatever he closes none can open which is a saying symbolic of his power to make binding decisions. Aka papal infallibility. I think that often people dismiss Catholic doctrine because of their lack of understanding of the original Greek or Hebrew text and translation, and lack of knowledge of first century Judaism thought. For a better explanation of the Roman Catholic view of the papacy, I implore you to look at this video of dr brant pitre, 1st century Jewish and biblical scholar discuss it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hojOnoCEq9eSqtE.

[@user-uc1yb7hy2n]

Αμήν Victoria. Αμήν.

[@supajooce]

I really suggest you watch the video about the papacy by dr brant pitre. It addresses the Son of God comment by Tony, and a lot of other arguments against the papacy. Thanks! Here’s the link once again: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hojOnoCEq9eSqtE

[@repairerofthebreach777]

Isaiah 22 is about Jesus

[@kentemple7026]

Ecclesia - εκκλησια does not mean "foundation stone". It means "church", "assembly", "congregation", or "those who are called out from" (the world) ek = from, out from, "kleasea" - the one called"

[@repairerofthebreach777]

@@tony1685 don't want you to misunderstand. I'm Orthodox. So we do believe in apostolic succession but not that Peter had a special role.. all were given the keys to bind and loose.. judas office was filled with Mattias... Paul as well was an apostle who appointed Timothy alone.. but the key of David belongs to Jesus as He Himself says in revelation...

[@jasonengwer8923]

Most likely, the binding and loosing mentioned in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are performed by means of the keys, which means that Peter isn't the only one who has the keys. These themes are all part of a larger imagery involving doors and such. See the many other references to keys and binding and loosing elsewhere in the New Testament. The religious leaders of Israel in Jesus' day, angels in Revelation, etc. are referred to as having one or more keys and/or binding and loosing without having papal authority (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52, etc.).

[@oisinofthefianna3246]

Incorrect. In the ancient Near East when a King would go on a journey, he would give the Keys to the Kingdom to his vizer. We see that repeated in Matthew.

[@jasonengwer8923]

@@oisinofthefianna3246 Nothing you've said shows that my comments were incorrect. Even if we assume the journey context you've referred to, that doesn't change the fact that Matthew 18:18 implies that Peter wasn't the only one who had the keys. You can't begin with an assumption that only one person could have the keys, since entities are often paralleled in partial rather than complete ways (e.g., Jesus' being paralleled with Israel, even though Israel is a group rather than an individual; Jesus' being paralleled with Moses while being different than Moses in other ways). And since Matthew 18 implies that multiple individuals had the keys, any assumption you or anybody else makes about how only one individual should have the keys is overturned by what Jesus said in Matthew 18. Jesus didn't agree with your assumption.

[@oisinofthefianna3246]

@@jasonengwer8923 Only the vizer/vicar held the keys. The Keys did not belong to all. God gave the Keys to Peter.

[@TamerSpoon3]

@@oisinofthefianna3246 Restating your position is not an argument. He already said why your interpretation is wrong. Jesus (supposedly) gives the keys to bind and loose to Peter alone in Matthew 16, but in Matthew 18 Jesus is speaking to all of the disciples and tells _them_ that they have the power to bind and loose as well in verse 18. So which is it? Was it just Peter as Matthew says in chapter 16 or is it all of the Disciples as Matthew says in verse 18?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@jasonengwer8923 the keys are never mentioned for the other Apostles. Just given to Peter by Jesus in Matthew 16, Peter the rock. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Seven_1865]

It’s interesting to me that “the gates of hell will not prevail” sounds more like an offensive attack from the church against the defenses of hell. Not an attack from hell against the church. You don’t attack with your own gates.

[@reepicheepsfriend]

It could be a reference to the Biblical concept that the leadership of a city or town would meet “in the gates” - so it’s not literally about gates, but about the power and authority of hell.

[@Sora-yq1td]

Please please please do an interview with Jordan b Cooper as well, someone who is very knowledgeable from the Protestant position (Lutheran side). I'm glad ortland mentioned him as I find his channel very enriching!

[@corymoore5093]

I don't understand why this is so complicated? The papacy is clearly not in the bible, nor is the idea of the papacy. One would never conceive of the papacy just simply reading the bible, and before someone points out how do I know what the bible says or means without some sort of magisterium, read 1 John 2:24-27. "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as as it has taught you, you will abide in him."

[@davidliu7967]

It’s only complicated because Rome makes it complicated and distorts history to try and make its case. Church authority is a real thing. Councils and leaders to help us learn, interpret and grow, but an infallible office that didn’t exist at all for the first 500+ years of the church is not only unbiblical and unnecessary but is also a heresy factory that has completely lost the gospel and introduced gnostic, pagan and mystic legends as dogma. It’s absurd and a complete denial of history to affirm the papacy as it is in Rome today

[@charlesjoyce982]

If all you need is the holy Spirit to teach you and not men then why does Paul say that some men are teachers and also to submit to the authority of your spiritual leaders?

[@corymoore5093]

@@charlesjoyce982 I don't know that Paul said any such thing and I didn't say all you need is the Holy Spirit. I supposed you are referring to Hebrews which we don't know for sure that Paul wrote. In any case, Paul was talking about the new church leaders, whom were not teaching falsely. What you should be reading is what Paul said in Galatians. "But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel than what we have preached to you, then let him be accursed. " Paul, nor any of the Apostles, taught the papacy or the priesthood as conceived by the Roman Catholic Church.

[@charlesjoyce982]

@@corymoore5093 1 Cor 12:28. Some are teachers. There was always a hierarchy in the Church and a duty to obey. The hierarchy was meant to perpetuate itself through the appointment of successors and trace itself to the Apostles.

[@corymoore5093]

@@charlesjoyce982 Except the appointment of successors is no where in the bible. There were church leaders of individual churches known as bishops and elders and that is biblical but not one supreme infallible leader. The pope is not in the bible nor is the Roman Catholic priesthood. All you have to do is show me the passage in the bible that teaches a pope or the priesthood as conceived by the Roman Catholic Church. You won't be able to because those are institutions that didn't come into existence until hundreds of years after Christ and after the bible was written.

[@MrWoaaaaah]

Whilst I'm no expert, I've read most of the available patristic documents that touch on the papacy--hundreds of letters. Whilst there definitely is a development, the gist of it is in the earliest centuries, although there wasn't clear agreement on the details. I'd say the bishop of Rome was widely seen as having some undefined, unique authority. This wasn't just honourific; it had practical teeth. This doesn't definitively support modern papal claims, but it is most compatible with Catholicism. To those who reject the papacy as an accretion/deviation, I'd question your consistency. We all accept development... Why else do we have a 27 NT book canon and call God 'homoousious'? How do you know these aren't accretions too? How do you judge? And what is God's role in all of this?

[@sandmaneyes]

As a layman and convert I think it was an accretion but then again the Church started with a bunch of people in a room and God was in the room and in them. It can certainly grow as it is made up of life.

[@michael7144]

All developments aren't necessarily God breathed, maybe it comes down to what jesus said about his sheep hearing his voice? Plenty of varieties to choose from when considering denominations, and many have varying accretions. I believe in God, and Jesus. That draws me to the bible, to learn more about God and the life of Jesus, I see the truth in Jesus's life and way, I do not see that life or way in roman Catholicism. I dont think the papacys accretion can be compared to the trinity, that is quite a stretch. When you have no reason to believe roman Catholicism dogmas their arguments become transparent, I was a catholic for the first 25 years of my life.

[@whatsinaname691]

I wouldn’t say that the bishop of Rome had full papal authority from the letters. I look at it like Dr. Ortlund does 29ish minutes in as Rome was the big city and where Peter and Paul died. We would expect that bishop to have a greater sway than the average bishop. That doesn’t make him a pope by any stretch of the imagination. Edit: Just thought of an analogy- instead of the bishop of Rome being the president, he often feels more like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His vote was the same as everyone else, but the others perceived him with a greater degree of reverence

[@MrWoaaaaah]

@@whatsinaname691 Reference your chief justice analogy and the pope's vote being equal to others... in the council of Chalcedon, the council fathers try to pass canon 28. They, and bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, begged Pope Leo to ratify it, but he didn't, so it didn't pass. They accepted that he could do this. Compare Leo to Dioscorus of Alexandria at the same council. He disagrees with the council and is excommunicated. This doesn't seem to me to suggest the Pope's vote was equal. He had the power to determine what was passed in the councils. When he disagreed, it didn't pass. When others didn't agree, they were ignored or kicked out of the church. The early byzantine historians (like Sozomon, if memory serves) recognised the Pope could ratify councils too.

[@MrWoaaaaah]

@@michael7144 I was a Protestant for the first 25 of mine! I'm not suggesting the trinity and the papacy are completely comparable.. but 'homoousion' is certainly an accretion! For a long, long time, the papacy was accepted universally in the West. And even in the East, they accepted far more of the papal claim than most protestants today would accept. I think your position practically condemns a large chunk of Christendom as not being Christ's sheep as they, according to you, are not hearing His voice. I'm sure you didn't mean this, but your position comes across quite arrogant to me.

[@FIRE0KING]

Edit, I made this comment before the superchat. Awesome that many already know Micheal Heisers book and work! So, first and foremost, I am glad that this channel exists, great work Cameron. Second, Im not so sure the face value reading is the best thing, as it ignores a great deal of context and as you dive deeper into language study, context is more important that the words because a word means nothing (obviously not THE Word because that is Christ lol) without the full context (era, culture, location, author, audience, passage, etc) Third, Matthew 16 is the go to for Peter's Supreme role for most Catholics but I think that both catholics and protestants overlook a really important context for this story in Matthew. Dr Micheal Heiser has an incredibly informative piece on this, not sure which lecture. (sorry) Anyway, most people don't know the culture of the Ancient Near East. (Myself included but I'm working on it through Dr. Heiser's work) The region that Jesus and the apostles are traveling has enormous significance to the narrative. Caesarea Phillipa where the large mountain is. There is a huge boulder there. And below that Boulder is a place referred to as something like the gate to the underworld. In Greek the underworld is called hades. In the koumran texts, that passage is better understood as '...I will build my church on this rock and the gates of hades will not withstand it' as in hades with take the beating instead of the church will successfully defend itself. So the catholics say '...this rock' refers to Peter and protestants say '...this rock' refers to something like Peter's strong faith but with the better older translation of 'withstand' instead of 'conquer' it gives an offensive feeling. As in Christ was making a victory claim over hades. And the 'rock' could be the rock that is above the door to the underworld. Christ was poking the divine rebels in the eye. Which prompted them to crucify him because he died like a week later. And the rest is glorious Christ history. Suffice to say, I love both my catholic and protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. And Dr Micheal Heiser's work is of utmost importance to every Christian who wants to dive as deep as humanity has into the story of God found in scripture. It's not that his doctoral work is better than others. It's that he is bringing the scholarly view to the layman in digestible, understandable language and he is incredibly transparent on what the opposing positions are and why he falls where he does. May God bless the whole church and guide us in the direction of Christ the King Holy Holy Holy is his name!

[@peaceandjoy2568]

Thanks to Dr Ortlund for the respectful way he speaks his disagreements with the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. It's a refreshing change to find a rare Protestant who treats us with respect. I appreciate Dr Ortlund albeit I firmly hold the papacy to be willed by Christ Our Lord for His bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church so that there may be a living Magisterium. The papacy grounds the faithful on Truth when they are tossed about by new doctrines of reformation. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will preserve the Chair of Peter from teaching error so that we the faithful can avoid the dangerous practice of "leaning on our own understanding" when interpreting the Bible.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Where did Jesus say the chair of Peter???

[@OldThingsPassAway]

Re: Matthew 16: I think you can get to Peter having some authority, but I think getting to infallibility, supremacy, and succession is impossible to get there from only that text. I see this in the same way that people argue we are dual substances from 1 Thessalonians 5:23. You just can't get there grammatically. With Matthew 16, you have to assume certain things about what it means to be or have a church to get those other things from the text.

[@gto2111]

I hope you'll have a catholic apologist to respond. So as we hear both sides.

[@John_Fisher]

Disclosure: Catholic here. I really appreciate Dr. Ortland's attempt to be fair and know that it's correct when he points out the same types of errors occurring on both sides in misrepresenting the other, and he really does a reasonable job at avoiding falling into that himself. That being said, I don't think one comparison he repeatedly made hear isn't fair: He compares the lack of an explicit definition of the nature of the papacy as being like the Constitution of the US not mentioning the Presidency. A Constitution is a document whose sole purpose is to lay out the principles of governance of a group. I think anyone asked "What did the author of the Gospel's want to communicate?" would be mistaken to put "Explain the principles of governance of the Church" anywhere at the top of the list, the authors clearly had other intentions about documenting the life and earthly ministry of Christ. You might still make the case that we should expect some description of the governance of the Church that He built, but it's not the same as to expect a documentation explicitly describing the roles and rules of governance.

[@drewloewen6079]

@YAJUN YUAN too bad their entire faith was invented only 200 years ago…

[@rolandovelasquez135]

One more other thing. Thanks again Gavin.

[@drewmiller2613]

I'm a Catholic convert (former Lutheran). And I had many objections/lack of faith towards the papacy and I found a book that really helped me clear up my doubts. It's called "Pope Fiction" By Patrick Madrid. In the book, Patrick debunks (I think around) 30 objections people have against the papacy. It's one of the books that were one of the final pushes to me converting to Catholicism. It's a really good read. 👍👍😁😁

[@sotem3608]

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it!

[@drewmiller2613]

@@sotem3608 Your very welcome, I'm glad to help 😁😁👍👍

[@drewmiller2613]

@@tony1685 I find it ironic that you call the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon when that is one of things Patrick debunks in his book.

[@drewmiller2613]

@@tony1685 How exactly does the Catholic Church not know God and not walk in truth.

[@drewmiller2613]

@@tony1685 Some verses from the Bible that support the papacy are (first obviously) Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 14:23-27, Matthew 17:24-27, Luke 5:1-10, Luke 22:24-32, John 10:16, John 21:1-17, Acts 1:15-26, Acts 10:1-48, Acts 15:1-2, Matthew 10:2. If you would like a good explanation why these verses support the papacy, you can visit the Catholic Answers article, "The Papacy in Scripture: No Rocks Required". And also why can't Christianity have a hierarchy? Judaism has a hierarchy, the current leader is Yitzhak Yosef who is the Shepardi Chief Rabbi. And many parts of Jewish life are under the jurisdiction of Chief Rabbis (i.e. the chief Rabbis are the ultimate authority, just like the Pope). And even if the papacy isn't scriptural, having a leader is necessary for such a large group that Christianity is. If we never had a Pope/ultimate authority the Bible would be up to the interpretation of the individual and no one would know what the DEFINITIVELY CORRECT interpretation of scripture and church teachings are (i.e. complete chaos). You also should probably read the book I recommended before spouting your easily refuted conspiracy theories. And finally here is a video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHy5Z4OOiLR3nac

[@jmorra]

"Sift you like wheat," and thus...papal authority!! How on earth do apologists arrive at this? I think Dane is right: people already have it in mind. So when we have " a woman" mentioned in Revelation, it means, "the immaculate conception!" Maybe it does ( and I rather like the idea of the immaculate conception), or maybe the doctrine hunters are seeing what they want to see.

[@GregonYT]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but you asked about KZbinrs who address Catholicism, but I didn’t hear anyone mention Anthony Rogers. He’s been addressing it a lot in a very thorough and academic way.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check him out. Dr. Michael Brown does to an extent too. He had a debate w/ William Albrecht, who apparently claims he didn't understand the terms of the debate, so he went in and based his whole intro on his own terms, outside the parameters of what the debate was supposed to entail. Which put a whole damper on the rest of the debate, as Dr. Brown did not have a rebuttal, since Albrecht's material was out of the scope of the debate. A mistake, or a tactic? Hard to know for sure.

[@KerryLiv]

Jesus' prayer for our unity is and will be answered. The very fact that He prayed makes it impossible NOT to happen. John 17:20-23 - Very exciting, praise God! - Thank you Cameron & Gavin

[@geomicpri]

15:30 “The RC (papal) claim, in its effect, is a claim for a kind of authority that punctures our accountability to the Word of God. It untethers us from the accountability that we should have to the 1st century apostolic deposit.” Boom right there. That be some succinct sh!t.

[@wmarkfish]

On the rock issue Michael Heiser claims it pertains to the actual rock they were standing on i.e., Mt. Hermon, where the fallen angels fell to earth and where a temple of Pan was that was called the gates of Hell by the Jews.

[@jaim0368]

More of this please! I really want to hear more about Heiser's view!

[@ajpalazuelos3831]

I am very compelled to believe Dr. Ortlund’s view.

[@CranmanPhotoCinema]

1. Id love to have Gavin address Sola Scriptura, and Catholic objections to it 2. Marian hymns and whether there is a distinction with a difference between dulia and latria in these regards

[@TheRoark]

Then you should go to his channel and watch his video on sola scriptura and prayer to the saints!

[@joshoastler6504]

Gavin has already done a bunch on Sola Scriptura on his own channel and a great conversation with Jimmy Akin: Part 1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/enfFd4dnjtmHqrM Part 2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnOvoYSMac2Bjdk

[@TheRoark]

1. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/enfFd4dnjtmHqrM 2. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioK1gmCYl9KJrKs

[@georgenicolas2857]

Those rudely telling Cameron to stop making this videos, grow up! There is A) nothing wrong in sharing his journey on HIS channel and B) there are many others in his position that will benefit from these kind of videos. It was a great interview and I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Ortlund. He is not a Catholic bigot like most and has a desire to help and explore. There is so many points I would like to raise but the one screaming out to me was in the case of infallibility. I believe the gates of hell has been successful within different Protestant denominations especially the Methodists and Episcopalians e.g. Gay marriage. Cameron I am praying for you brother. I converted to Catholicism a year and a half ago from one of the Eastern Churches. May the Lord bless you and your loved ones and keep using you as a vessel for the faith.

[@jordand5732]

George, Fellow catholic here. Agreed with every word you said I think. Good comment

[@georgenicolas2857]

@@jordand5732 Once people realise what Catholics actually believe instead of what non-Catholics tell them we believe it becomes a game changer. It was for me. Peace be with you 🙏🏼

[@Frosee14]

Keep praying for him even when he doesn’t convert to Catholicism

[@georgenicolas2857]

@@Frosee14 I've prayed for him in the past when he asked for prayers and I've prayed for people of all religions and atheists. It's what we're supposed to do and want to do. Implying one only prays for fellow Catholics is utterly stupid. If Cameron doesn't become a Catholic he is still a Christian and brother in Christ.

[@forwardechoes]

@@georgenicolas2857 And one can expect Cameron to become Catholic... short of him being "close minded" it's very likely his journey will bring him back home.

[@YovanypadillaJr]

You should get Michael Lofton from Reason and Theology as he's interacted with Ortlund before or Joe Heschmeyer, who you have talked to.

[@eskercurve]

A big argument Protestants have against the Papacy is the infallibility doctrine. This is understandable when most Protestants don't understand that infallibility does NOT mean perfect, and is only applicable to doctrine. There have been some very bad Pope's, even antipopes. One had six kids with four women, after he became a priest. One "sold" the Papacy. But these Pope's never had doctrine in error which was ultimately not corrected, or ignored by the faithful. In those cases, after the Pope dies, his views are corrected. This has happened a few times in history. So we see that even if a Pope has erroneous views, they ultimately fail to take root and are, like the Gospel says, "seed fallen on the road." This is one facet why Jesus promised the fires of hell will never compromise the Church fatally.

[@drewmiller2613]

Yes, EXACTLY!!! 💯💯💯😁👍

[@eskercurve]

@@tony1685 funny since I am studying the Bible and have come to the opposite conclusion. Yes happy sabbath & Sunday!

[@eskercurve]

@@tony1685 so the Bible verses your quoted clearly state that only those who keep His commandments truly love Jesus. We are all sinners and have sinned from time to time, so all of us have at times not loved God. Thank God for Confession, by which we are absolved of our sins. So we all, even the various Popes throughout history, have on occasion strayed from the Truth and the Life and the Love of Jesus. And, as the prodigal son and other similar parables teach us, if we have a repentant heart, He will forgive us. So, does the Church walk in Truth? Occasionally, no. And we see there has never been a period in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church has there never been controversy (indeed the various epistles warn of early heresies). But It always manages to learn, and grow past them, often times through Saints who in their lives pulled the Church out of the issues of the age. Notable one is St. Francis of Assisi (against opulence of the Church, which after his life went on an austerity reform), St. Thomas Aquinas (combating the "Protestant" heresies), and many others. We shall see how the current crises of sexual misconduct and ecumenism and schism with the Germans will be addressed, but I have faith that His Church will pull through it, as it has for 2000 years.

[@eskercurve]

@@tony1685 As I said, sometimes it does (for example see the Arian heresy), but there are always people within the Church teaching the Truth (in the same example I believe it was St. Augustine who settled it) who end up convincing the Church of the Truth. So yes it is still His Church, because any errors get corrected. This is, as I said, part of what Jesus meant by Him saying Hell shall never fatally overcome His Church. A more recent example is an encyclical by Pope Paul VI. He had asked his advisors what to make of contraceptives. When they came back with mixed opinions, thus communicating error, he rightfully corrected them. He wrote how contraceptives are basically the same as abortion due to how they work and he also referenced how in the OT God specifically said masturbation is an abomination, and sex with contraceptives is the same. No pope since then has written or taught otherwise because Paul VI's note is the Truth and is by now considered Tradition because it is rooted in Truth.

[@eskercurve]

@@tony1685 Doctrine is only borne out of many years of debate and review and practice. Rare is the papal bull or council declaration of infallible truth which wasn't preceded by many years of debate. For example which books and letters were included in the Bible was fluid for the first 300 years or so, then was stable for 1200 years until in a fit of rebelliousness as expected of a reprobate as Martin Luther it was reduced to remove books which support Catholicism. But can the Church have doctrine, given the definition above, in error? No. Can it have sinful leaders? Oh yes. There are bad priests and good priests, good Popes and bad Popes, faithful consecrated religious and not. They are all people, but God chose us to be the light and the salt of the earth. And where the salt loses its flavor will eventually be trodden down by man. As Jesus promised in the same chapter of Matthew you cited, His Church, even in times of great turmoil like what I mentioned and even in Acts and the letters, that His Church always triumphs in the end. Patience and seeking the truth is needed by the faithful. And the light will never be extinguished.

[@therougesage7466]

Only 6 mins in and I’m hooked , I’m not usually on the side against Cameron, but the papacy seems like what we wouldn’t want , like a human being who is infallible that isn’t Jesus just doesn’t sit right with me

[@huey7437]

🤔 good point

[@nathangraham2189]

Yes, except no one believes that the Pope is infallible. Papal infallibility applies to a very, very specific set of circumstances only, and has been used by the Pope to declare authoritatively on an issue…I believe twice (off the top of my head) over the last 2,000 years. It’s not as though the Pope willy nilly makes up teachings and declares them handed straight from Heaven! In all other matters and in all other times, the Pope is every bit as fallible as you or I. The doctrine, in the end, isn’t about the Pope at all: it’s about the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s promise that He would be with us to the end of the age, that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, and that the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against Her. Pax Christi.

[@huey7437]

@@nathangraham2189 I understand. The point is against the office. Im surprised that idea didn't come across clearly to you... unless you didn't watch the video

[@nathangraham2189]

@@huey7437 Sure, i was responding to the point above about being skittish about the idea of another infallible person, and merely pointing out that’s not how Catholics understand the Papacy, that’s all.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

If it's only been used twice in 2000 years and that's for 2 of the Marian dogmas then what good is it. The "church" claims to have sole ability to interpret the Scripture yet depending on who you ask 0-7 verses have been infallibly defined.

[@repentantrevenant4451]

@53:33 I don't think that the comparison between the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and the doctrine of the papacy was apt. If you read the New Testament, and ask the question "What did Jesus, Paul, and the biblical authors think about Scripture?" you will easily walk away with, if not biblical inerrancy, some form of a *very* high view of scripture. If, instead, you approach the text asking "What did Jesus & his followers believe about the office of the papacy?", you will find almost nothing to support it, and even some areas that seem opposed to the idea. *Every* time Scripture is self-referenced in the Bible, it is clearly assumed to be a source of authoritative truth. The same cannot be said of the papacy every time church structure is brought up. Tl;dr: The doctrine of scriptural inerrancy can easily be inferred by a reading of scripture. The office of the papacy certainly cannot.

[@davidsewell3490]

I haven't read a lot of St. Augustine's works, but did he write about being against Pope Gregory the Great, the pope who held the papal office during Augustine's life? I just did a quick search, and multiple sources say that Pope Gregory assigned Augustine to England to convert the Anglo-Saxons. That indicates to me that he submitted to the supremacy of the Pope. The Pope seems to have held a level of authority in the early Church.

[@CausingLewis]

I’d like to pile onto Gavin’s response about inerrancy being defensible from scripture a reference from Paul in 2 Tim. Where he says that scripture is “profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God would be fully equipped” (vs 3:16) If Paul says that scripture is sufficient for teaching & correction, it seems like inerrancy is proven by the inverse. In other words, Paul would not instruct them to teach doctrine with error (which he calls out numerous times), but says that scripture’s use is for teaching and correction, presumably because it is trustworthy (without error.)

[@tonywallens217]

It says useful. But doesn't say sufficient. Useful toward the end of making the Christian fully equipped. Notice the person in question is already a "man of God."

[@OrangeRaft]

Come on man, the surface level reading of the "on the rock" passage is a referral to Mt. Hermon where the gates of hell were said to be in the old testament because the bulls of Bashaan lived there. (I'm referencing Michael Heiser's work here).

[@5BBassist4Christ]

I think one of the big reasons that there's more Catholic content than Protestant content is because some of the Catholic views really boil down to Protestants not being saved (stuff like the rejecting the Marian dogmas). On the other hand, many Protestants are okay with saying that Catholics are saved. That's at least been my experience debating Catholics online. With that then comes an entirely different priority. Protestants don't need to debate Catholics other than for the sake of knowing truth. Protestants are more focused on general apologetics where the lost world is perishing. But if Catholicism is true and Protestants are not saved, then Catholics have evangelical reasons not just to save Protestants, but also defend their fellow Catholics from falling to Protestantism. So the mission field to save the lost is different: the lost to the Protestant is the atheist, but the lost to the Catholic is the Protestant.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

I largely agree to your point here actually but atleast some Protestants think Catholics have a different gospel i.e because of a works based system/sacramental, infusion of grace piecemeal etc and they think atleast potentially Catholics are part of the mission field while also simultaneously thinking a bigger priority is the atheists etc.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

In my experience with Catholics it depends on who you ask regarding their stance on Protestants...the Vatican 2 "modernists" accept Protestants are atleast potentially saved i.e separated brethren or perhaps invincibly ignorant while atleast some trads or sedavacantist types hold to the old pre Vatican 2 "no salvation outside of the church" doctrine in a more literal rendering such that Protestants are not saved.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@Adam-ue2ig Mormons tend to have that same attitude towards Protestants as traditional pre Vatican 2 Catholics.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

@@Adam-ue2ig I definitely agree that some views on Protestant salvation does more depend on the individual Catholic. However, it can be hard in Catholicism to really defend your views if the church has to affirm such things. So it does seem as though most Catholics trying to accept Protestant salvation are kind of dancing on thin ice. Now, I don't know a whole lot of the deeper views and dogmas of Catholicism, but this is what I've noticed in the wrestlings of the layperson. Regarding Protestants rejecting Catholic salvation, I do agree that this view can often be held as well. In fact, this is the view I was taught when I was younger, but I think my entire family came to reject this idea as we grew. The way I view it (and I feel like most Protestants would agree with this) is that there are many Catholics who do truly have a genuine relationship with Jesus, and are thus saved. But there are also a lot of Catholics with whom it is all empty religious practice lacking any genuine faith. But these two categories of genuine faith and empty religion are true of any denomination and creed. I think that ultimately, salvation is between the divine judge and the humble sinner. A man may not even know for 100% certainty rather his own wife is truly saved.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Dr Ortlund seems like a great guy - appreciate his tone and humility! I will thank him for making it easy to see where our roads differ. One such fork in the road was the requirement of the papacy to demonstrate supremacy and infallibility from "get-go". My thinking is that if we have an agreement on a "special leadership role" for Peter + Apostolic succession we are already a long way towards the papacy. I was surprised both of them discounted biblical support for apostolic succession. I would think that the Tradition from Aron and his sons, the Levites, and the whole priestly tradition could be one clue to "succession". I would think it almost obvious that Matthias succeded the office of Judas (as they had to be twelve). Furthermore, I find it strange if there was not an apostolic succession. What would such a thing mean? Would it mean that churches could be planted without the blessing of the existing church (leadership)? Does it mean that the power to bind/loose was lost with the Apostles? Would the gates of Hades not prevail while Peter lived, but prevail later on after he died? As long as all the Apostles are jews, and if they saw themselves as the seed of the new Israel (12 tribes), it's hard not to think of succession would be important. Also Clement affirms this in year 80. Furthermore, Ortlund has certain expectations on what the Bible should contain. I had a similar argument back in the days when I was a Protestant. The argument went like this: Since the Bible is not clear on how to interpret Baptism or Eucharist, we must conclude it's not that important. This comes out of a Sola Scriptura view - everything of importance must be in the Bible, or else... But there is a missing piece in the puzzle here, which is "development". If you don't allow for the development of the church and its understanding of what Jesus did - yes, probably the Church of today is not the same as in year 50 or year 100. John Henry Newman converted to Catholicism in the 1800s and thought about the Church like an organism. So in his view, the Church *should* change, but it would essentially be the same (just like we're the same, but different from our childhood). Taken together, it seems to me strange how we can avoid the thought of something like a unified Church under a single leadership, and the leader must be believable. Had the Orthodox Church not broken off, the joint leadership would have been easier to see as well.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@YAJUN YUAN I struggle to take you seriously as an SDA. I have read EGW's book - not something one can take seriously. You manage to believe that Christians through 1500 -1800 years really have misunderstood the Sabbath celebration, misunderstood hell, misunderstood the end times, misunderstood the baptism, and misunderstood the eucharist. Pretty incredible that some after so long time figured it all out. Did they somehow receive a special revelation from the Holy Spirit, while in the previous 1500 - 1800 years the earlier "Christians" did not hear from the Holy Spirit? Do you honestly believe that?? I really don't want to argue with you. As I said, I cannot take SDA (or you) seriously and I certainly will not spend hours trying to argue with an ardent believer in SDA.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@YAJUN YUAN if you think SDA is in line with RCC, then join her. If not, you think she misunderstands it and that SDA somehow has the correct answers. That must be your two options - don’t try to circumvent it.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@YAJUN YUAN it’s about authority - that’s for sure. Everyone can argue, and all positions can be argued. You can site and quote and so can I. In the end you will have to trust an authority. It can be yourself, some professors, EGW or a particular church. I know you want to say you trust the Scriptures, but in reality it is an interpretation of them you trust. The choosing of the interpretation comes down to authority. When you see this clearly you simply have to choose the right authority. Which is the oldest church, led by pope, founded by Jesus Christ.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@YAJUN YUAN In that case you are your own pope. You must be infallible (in some sense). Also, many atheists will say the same as you - they must obey their conscience. But the complete truth may never ever have meant (by God) to be discovered through solitary endevour. In fact it makes much more sense that it is a collective endevour.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@YAJUN YUAN I agree, but I think most «modern people» place way too much emphasis on the individual part.

[@alexjurado6029]

Dr. Ortlund said here that he would need to see first century historic evidence to be convinced of the Papacy. What about Clement of Rome? He was the 3rd successor of Peter (4th Bishop of Rome) who wrote at the end of the first century and asserted his authority over the church in Corinth, even though Corinth is not part of Rome and had its own bishop.

[@nathangraham2189]

You know, many scholars out there, and I agree with them in looking at the evidence internal to I Clement, think that it was actually written as early as 70 AD? It’s an ongoing debate, but would make that letter even stronger evidence for the Apostolic origin of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

[@alexjurado6029]

@@nathangraham2189 I’m of the opinion that it was written more around AD 90. But I must admit that I haven’t looked into this topic very deeply. Either way, regardless of the 20 year difference, It is indeed solid evidence for the Papal supremacy in the first century. I really would like to see Dr. Ortlund engage with this.

[@nathangraham2189]

@@alexjurado6029 Agreed. It’s a fascinating academic debate but among other things, like with Acts, there’s the problem with Clement’s letter that he doesn’t mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which would seemingly be important if he knew of it. Also though, Clement states at para 19, 40, 5 “To the High Priest, indeed, proper ministrations ARE allotted, to the priests a proper place IS appointed, and upon the levites their proper services ARE imposed.” He continues in 41 as well talking in the present tense about the Temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, so it seems odd if it was written so long after the destruction of the Temple to write in this way. But regardless, it is convincing evidence to me of a first century understanding of a leadership role and primacy of at least some important sense for the ongoing holder of Peter’s office.

[@alexjurado6029]

@@nathangraham2189 this is fascinating. I’ve heard a theory about 1 Clement, that it was actually written over time. That he began to write it around AD 69/70, and then finished it in the early to mid 90’s. I didn’t know how likely this is, but it is fascinating to think about.

[@nathangraham2189]

@@alexjurado6029 That is interesting for sure…would be over my head as to the particulars of why some might hold that position, though I would say that if true, nearly all of it still would have likely been written by Clement early on, as there’s only another 19 or so passages after the first 44, where the present-tense discussion of temple sacrifices is discussed, and those subsequent passages are all very brief as well, a sentence or two only in length pretty much for each…fascinating indeed!

[@geraldbritton8118]

See Heiser about "On this rock", it had nothing to do with Peter. Heiser maintains that Jesus was referring to Mt Hermon, where they actually were. This was (as per Heiser) a challenge to the principalities and powers -- long worshipped in that very place.

[@lukewilliams448]

Heiser's view makes literally no sense then - Christ deliberately changes Simon's name to Peter (Rock) and that in Judaism is very significant.

[@geraldbritton8118]

@@lukewilliams448 Agree that Jesus gave Simon the new name Cephas. Heiser doesn't dispute that. Rather, Heiser maintains that "rock" in Mat 16:18 is a double entendre -- particularly because of where they were when this happened. I'm not a very good apologist for Dr.H but he makes a solid case for this in Hidden Realm that is worth reading and pondering.

[@geomicpri]

22:26 ‘We have so much detailed information about the offices of the church in the New Testament that, given the gargantuan authority invested in the papal office, why is there not a single verse saying, “Oh, btw…”?? It’s as surprising as if the (American) Constitution never mentioned the president.’ Right??

[@daneumurianpiano7822]

I've heard the argument that the viewpoint of Peter and the viewpoint of the Judaizers was the proper view, and that Paul's emphasis on grace was a weakening of the "truth" and a ploy to win Gentiles. How might the current discussion relate to the Protestant-Catholic debate regarding grace/faith and works?

[@jonnichols4663]

I’m not sure why it seems reasonable that something as significant as the papacy would not be explicitly mentioned anywhere in Scripture. If the papacy is not something found or paralleled in Judaism and many forms of Christianity, the catholic papacy appears the exception, not the rule...the noise rather than the signal. Rather, what is found repeatedly is communal discernment over and over again. Jewish elders meeting at the city gates, or Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Moreover, the reference to "bind and loosing" in Matthew 18 is a communal power and responsibility given to the church. Similarly when Paul writes, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16)... the reference is to the text, not the authors. This means the process of authors, compilers, and editors producing the text, which is "God-breathed." The communal process is as important as the individuals who were involved as Peter references, "...men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:21). Proverbs 11:14 "Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in an abundance of counselors there is victory." It may seem philosophically wise to have an individual who is invested with supremacy and infallibility. It speaks to that place in our souls that cries out for certainty, security, and assurance. However, to have security, and assurance in any other than Christ is idolatry. Many protestants treat Scripture this way (Father, Son, and Holy Bible). The flesh loves to move to and live in the extremes. Lastly, I wonder if it is no surprise that the papacy is a western church development as the West is marked by an ever-increasing individualism. As the West moved away from community identity it needed something to fulfill that void of authority. The result was the papacy in Catholicism and infallibility and inerrancy in protestants churches. When the community was no longer viewed as the locus of God's presence and work, then substitutes were found. Thus, and only thus, do I see the "need" in Cameron's philosophical question. Why does it seem that Papacy is the best world solution? Because we lack the vision to see the beauty beyond the messiness of communal discernment. We desire certainty and haste over peace. We desire to be "right" over being in right relationship with each other.

[@alexjurado6029]

An example of Apostolic Succession is in Acts 1, where there Apostles choose a successor for Judas. Peter even calls the position that Judas had an “office,” and that it had to be filled by another. If Judas, who was the least of the Apostles, had an office that had to be filled, then so did the other 11 Apostles.

[@TamerSpoon3]

If you actually read Acts 1, you would know that Judas' successor had to be someone who had traveled with Jesus during his entire public ministry and was an eyewitness to the Resurrection. Peter also quotes from Psalm 109 where David writes about an accuser who is tried, condemned, and then replaced. Peter says the speaker of the Psalm is Jesus and that the accuser is Judas. He then says that someone should be appointed to take Judas' place just as David had written. So even if Apostolic Successorship was a thing for everyone and not just Judas, nobody alive now fulfills the requirements to take the positions.

[@alexjurado6029]

@@TamerSpoon3 and if you read 1 Timothy 3, you would see where St. Paul gives the real qualifications for the Apostles’ successors. And you’ll see that nowhere in that letter, nor in any of the other epistles, does it say that the bishops had to be eye witnesses of Jesus. Sorry, but your argument doesn’t work.

[@TruthUnites]

Replacing one apostle with another apostle is entirely different from the transmission of authority from an apostle to a bishop, which is what apostolic succession means. The former hardly counts as proof for the latter.

[@alexjurado6029]

@@TruthUnites actually, no, it’s not different at all. The Greek word for “office” that is used in Acts 1 that refers to the position that Judas had is the same word for Episcopacy or “Bishopric” in English. The Apostles were the first bishops. And all of the other famous bishops of the first century, like Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, etc, are all successors of the original 12 bishops - the Apostles. Apostolic Succession is crystal clear in Scripture.

[@EricBryant]

True. And Acts 1 further disproves Petrine Papacy. Surely if Peter was the chief authority of the other 10, he would have simply appointed Judas' successor, no? Why would they pray, ask the Holy Spirit - and then draw lots of all things - for something so important, if Peter had all authority???

[@mjdillaha]

Not even going to read the comments until I watch it, but I’m predicting that Cameron’s Catholic flirtation ends today.

[@Michael-kx4jv]

I would seriously consider reading Edward Denny's Papalism before going the direction of RCism.

[@christianf5131]

Yes

[@joshuarhawi]

Check out Tony Costa's channel "Toronto Apologetics". He recently had a pretty in-depth discussion about the papacy with Dr Edward Dalcoure. Both very knowledgeable protestants with very good arguments, including the exegesis of Peter and the rock. Anthony Rogers is also awesome in this regard. Thanks for this convo!