Surely, this video will not spark controversy in the comments section!
@noahjohnson2611
4 күн бұрын
Waaaar! ...in Jesus name, Amen.😂
@HearGodsWord
4 күн бұрын
Anything Gavin says causes some people to feel like they need to make a video about him 😂
@doubtingthomas9117
4 күн бұрын
Or even lengthy multi-part videos
@JW_______
4 күн бұрын
Surely not! 😂
@NP-vk8de
4 күн бұрын
Catholics are not very favourable to dialogue and meaningful discussion. I wish they were in tune with Vatican II.
@KYWingfold
4 күн бұрын
Looking forward to the super-positive comments and response videos!
@mcgilldi
4 күн бұрын
😅
@timp7412
2 күн бұрын
🤣
@joshuareeves5103
4 күн бұрын
Gavin Ortlund is an accretion ;) just kidding. Loved this interview. Everyone should go listen to the whole thing on Gospel Simplicity. Also, his book is great! Definitely worth reading.
@thadofalltrades
4 күн бұрын
My next book
@morghe321
Күн бұрын
YOU are an accretion. Just kidding. 😅😅
@joaohm.7593
3 күн бұрын
Irenaeus not only gives testimony of apostolic succession, but also of the primacy of the Church of Rome. Irenaeus himself was part of the succession through Polycarp, disciple of John the apostle.
@stevenjames6830
4 күн бұрын
The idea that because bishops and priests had somewhat interchangeable duties that therefore apostolic succession as we know it is false is absolutely nonsensical to me… in the New Testament itself we find the apostles, appointing successors, and then in writing shortly after the new testament, we find pretty powerful statements about the successes of the apostles.. it doesn’t really matter if there was a college of bishops and priests rather than one bishop of priest, they were still ordained in succession with the apostles, and their institutions were authoritative over Those that were not.. this is what is meant by apostolic succession. We don’t need one bishop or dating another bishop to have apostolic succession. We just need bishops ordaing bishops regardless if there are many at the same time. There is also Evidence from the New Testament itself such as the council of Jerusalem where James oversaw a college of priests as the bishop … this looks a lot like the monepiscopacy that would come about later.
@childoftheonetrueking7761
Сағат бұрын
Rome has as one of the official Titles of the pope as 'Apostle Supreme' and 'Petrine Apostle'. Official Vatican Doctrine claims that Peter was not only a 'Supreme' apostle Above the Other New Testament apostles, but that Also they claim that the Roman 'popes' are Supreme Apostles with Peter's Title and the Popes are Above the Other New Testament Apostles [all total False Teachings and Unbiblical ] . Its amazing to me how catholics will say, no this is just a general claim that lines up with the general claims in the Bible and completely Ignore or be ignorant of the Lengthy Details of the teachings and traditions being taught by the Vatican for all these years.
@aericabison23
4 күн бұрын
Imo the Apostles didn’t really appoint successors to their office; they appointed elders to rule over the churches they founded. They wanted each church to be autonomous, but have the same doctrine and practice of faith.
@yblackie
3 күн бұрын
At the very least, this shouldn't be excluded as a possibility
@cm2973
3 күн бұрын
Meh. I'm no papist, but the apostles clearly corrected errors in other churches. They were by definition not autonomous. But, that's a far cry from requiring unamity of bishops or some papist decree.
@aericabison23
3 күн бұрын
@@cm2973 the churches were meant to be autonomous; ofc while the apostles were around they’d guide and correct these fledgling churches until they pass away, but the churches themselves were meant to be independent congregations that followed the same doctrine and practice.
@sample479
4 күн бұрын
Wouldn't this make the Bible an accretion? Canon wasn't "crystallized" until centuries later and there was debate and "general forming" of the OT and NT during that time?
@TomPlantagenet
4 күн бұрын
The canon was formed when the scriptures were written. They were inspired by God at the time of writing. The church only recognized them “formally “ later. Of course the early church in the 1st centuries and the apostles themselves cited the New Testament as scripture. The apostolic fathers and ante-nicene fathers quotes the new teas scripture long before a council pronounced anything. Likewise, North America existed for a long time before Columbus discovered it. No one gives him credit for making North America, correct?
@bloopboop9320
4 күн бұрын
Eh, canon was figured out within the first century. Jewish OT canon was figured out somewhere between 200BC-100AD and in the Peter we read that the writings of Paul were already considered scripture.
@sample479
4 күн бұрын
Forming canon isn't only the affirmative... it's also deciding which works are not canonical. A process which was underway until the 4th century for the New Testament. Christendom still does not agree on an OT canon so...
@TomPlantagenet
4 күн бұрын
@@sample479 but the church doesn’t decide what is canon. Scripture is scripture from the moment of writing. The church can only recognize. Jesus was God incarnate at conception, decades before John the Baptist recognized Him as the Son of God.
@sample479
4 күн бұрын
@@TomPlantagenet I understand. But you’re talking about people recognizing Scripture that already is. Heretical writings, or important but uninspired writings, had to be qualified as not a part of canon. To use your analogy, someone did invent fake islands and draw maps and hand them out during the time of Columbus. Others were simply mistaken about what they had discovered or had faulty equipment and made bad maps. You would not say those “islands” were there waiting to be disproved… there was a process to determine the good and the bad maps. It took time. The NT was still doing this until almost 400AD. And again there is still major disagreement over what OT canon is.
@Jeff_Huston
4 күн бұрын
Two protestants marginalize the necessity of Apostolic Succession. Shocker. The focus here -- i.e. the governmental style and structure of Apostolic Succession -- is entirely secondary (and subordinate) to the necessity of it, which is maintaining the integrity and consistency of "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3), i.e. unto the Apostles, and, subsequently, the unity of The Church, not to mention the consistency of the sacraments. (The fact that the vitality of sacraments has been lost on many, even most, Protestant traditions is a testament to the necessity of proper, singular Apostolic Succession).
@Apriluser
3 күн бұрын
As an Anglican, I would agree.
@SeanusAurelius
3 күн бұрын
The necessity of actually thinking that Christianity is better than Hinduism and that not all religions arrive at God somehow hasn't been transmitted via Apostolic succession as practiced by your team, friend. Maybe we're not so wrong to emphasise following the faith of the apostles rather than just passing on offices.
@Jeff_Huston
3 күн бұрын
@@SeanusAurelius I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Eastern Orthodox. The differences between the two is yet another example of why proper Apostolic Succession matters.
@KevinDay
4 күн бұрын
Assuming Irenaeus was not just making things up, how would he have had a line of apostolic succession ready to cite if it had not been recorded (orally or written) from the beginning? And if it was recorded from the beginning, and considered so important for distinguishing the Church from heretical sects by the time of Irenaeus, how could it not be of Apostolic origin?
@truthnotlies
3 күн бұрын
Good question. Someone told me he or Ignatius simply made up this entire priesthood in order to protect the church from heresy. Which makes no sense. Because if they made this up and forced it on everyone and it's contrary to God's plan for the church, would not that be creating a heresy? Lol... So they created heresy to protect from heresy?
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
3 күн бұрын
There’s about a thousand different ways these things can happen. He could have misunderstood something someone else said. Someone else could have made up there being a line of apostolic succession. Someone that Irenaeus got his info from could have misunderstood what others said or made up something. I’m curious why you say “assuming Irenaeus was not making things up”. Do you not think it’s likely that early writers made things up? Why is that something that we should assume? People make mistakes in passing down info. They weren’t 21st century historians. They had bias and didn’t care about historical questions as much as we do today. Irenaeus simply claiming something many years later for something he could not have verified in a time where early Christian writers were notorious for passing down faulty “tradition” (think of all the non-canonical Christian texts) should not be something we should be putting a lot of weight on.
@HillFarden
2 күн бұрын
Wasn’t Saul then Paul called by Jesus? Was Peter involved in Paul’s conversion? If Peter was the supreme leader of the church, do you really think he’d be left out of the appointment of an apostle? If apostolic succession were true, Paul would have been ordained by one of the apostles. *Acts 13:1-2 (KJV)* 1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, *the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.* God’s work is not bound by human systems. He alone appoints leaders in His church, and His authority is supreme, making any claims of exclusive human mediation such as apostolic succession completely unscriptural. The so-called pope was not apart of this commission. It’s God alone who calls, ordains, and equips us. He is supreme all by himself. *Ephesians 1:22 (KJV)* And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
@KevinDay
2 күн бұрын
@@HillFarden Paul was directly ordained by Jesus, just like the other Apostles... Apostolic succession doesn't mean all bishops were ordained by Peter. Galatians 1:12 (ESV): 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:15-17 (ESV): 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
@HillFarden
2 күн бұрын
@@KevinDay I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that excuse. I thought your pope had supreme power over the church.
@thadofalltrades
4 күн бұрын
The discussion on Clement and the plurality of office is extremely important. There was no head apostle. The apostles governed as a plurality. They are all the foundation with Christ as the cornerstone. None is greater than another.
@chrisazure1624
4 күн бұрын
The dispute between Peter and Paul supports your position.
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
@@chrisazure1624 How would it do that?
@toddthacker8258
4 күн бұрын
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Neither of them was laying down the "I have the divine authority" hammer.
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
@@thadofalltrades Clement commanded dioceses that weren't his own, he did have extraordinary authority. Whether it was understood to be unipersonal is a separate issue and not necessary to acknowledge the fact that there was in fact one successor who carried the charism forward.
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
@@toddthacker8258 And on what grounds would Paul make that claim? I don't get it
@1984SheepDog
4 күн бұрын
Why is there an assumption that because there is a different way of explaining the priest/bishop distinction between Clement and Irenaeus that they mean substantially different things? They are so close to the apostles by time and succession that it would be crazy to think that there is *that* significant of a development for it to be really considered an alien accretion. And if you maintain this attitude about everything in the church then nearly everything can and will be deconstructed: american mega church lowest common denominator Christianity. We should instead assume that the church has faithfully passed down the divine traditions set in place by the apostles. Especially that early.
@jeffjolly1980
3 күн бұрын
I am not sure how much stock we can put in the argument that developed early= true. The gnostics developed early. Icon worship developed early and was rejected, then accepted. Post-apostolic early is important, but not apostolic. Remember that much of the early Christian writings outside the scripture are trying to establish what constitutes heresy and what is the true faith. That seems to imply if not explicitly state that very early on there were developments that were not in accordance with the word of God. Heresies are very quick to develop, and if the Shepherd of Hermas is anything to go by, people quickly fall away from the narrow path.
@junkim5853
16 сағат бұрын
Isn't there absolute rigidity of the threefold offices in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs? If there is such rigidity, why can't we demand rigid evidence based on their rigid claims and standards? If they don't make such rigid and strong claims and statements that no Church has a valid ministry or sacraments unless they have a bishop, protestants wouldn't use such words as accretion. Either way, It's clear if you watch this video, Gavin Ortlund says that accretion doesn't mean it's a bad thing and he acknowledges the benefits of the threefold office or having a monarchical episcopate. I think all protestants do acknowledge that there is a reasonable development of having three-fold offices in the Church. The question is whether this threefold office is a divine mandate and that if Churches don't have these three distinct offices they are going to hell? Showing facts that something is an accretion doesn't mean everything that is an accretion leads to deconstruction. That's totally fallacious, and you admit it's a development, it's a fact that the three-fold office was developed and not originally there after Jesus founded the Church. By your own logic since the ante-Nicene Fathers are pretty close by the time of the apostles, shouldn't this fact give more precedence to the protestant view of having a two-fold office since when you read the Didache, it only mentions the bishop and a deacon? How about Clement of Rome when he uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably? There is no one that uses a strong language of having a three-fold office other than Ignatius and we are some how going to suggest that a monarchical episcopate is a divine mandate based on just one guy? It's totally outrageous and unfair in my opinion.
@SinceAD33
4 күн бұрын
Hey, would you be willing to dialogue on this? I don’t feel as if we are being properly represented here (in Scripture, the first century documents, St. Jerome, etc).
@truthnotlies
3 күн бұрын
That would be awesome.
@henrytucker7189
3 күн бұрын
I think you miss the whole point of "succession." The reason Ignatius et al made such a big deal about it was because Apostolic Succession was the only way new believers could even know they were in a legitimate church-- not, for example, a gnostic counterfeit. There were a lot of false teachers already planting their own churches. Not every guy with a Bible can appoint himself an elder or deacon-- nor appoint others. Any real "catholicity" would be completely impossible-- as we have daily proof. A unified succession plan provides important continuity and identity for catholicity to occur-- and the "Apostolic" part ensures that it will not fail (because it carries Christ's promise-- not because the men are anything special).
@thadofalltrades
3 күн бұрын
@@henrytucker7189 Paul kindof argues against this in 1 Corinthians 3. Succession is not nearly as important as quality of doctrine.
@henrytucker7189
3 күн бұрын
@@thadofalltrades and how would an illiterate Greek slave know what was good doctrine?
@jeffjolly1980
3 күн бұрын
I seem to remember a passage in the Bible where the Apostles wanted Jesus to maintain some exclusivity with regard to their status and actions as followers of Christ. Mark 9:38 might be worth a read
@henrytucker7189
3 күн бұрын
@@thadofalltrades how would an illiterate Greek slave know what good doctrine was?
@thadofalltrades
3 күн бұрын
@@jeffjolly1980 and right before that he rebuked them for desiring position. Obviously, if it's God ordained then position doesn't matter, but what God ordained seems to pretty clearly be that the apostles governed as a unit and had equal authority.
@WeakestAvenger
2 күн бұрын
The discussion of Clement talking about two offices doesn't really address argument that there was a semantic development. Banely, that there was a proto-presbyter among the presbyters, and the word bishop/episkopos eventually being used only for the proto-presbyter.
@stephenbailey9969
4 күн бұрын
The role of the bishop (overseers) as separate from presbyters grew for two reasons: the increasing numbers of the Christian congregations and need for coordination, the need to oversee the struggle against heretical teaching. But it was when the Church leaders began to collude with the Roman imperium, becoming a state religion, that servanthood developed into hierarchy and the Church became a tool for social conformity.
@ottovonbaden6353
4 күн бұрын
Can you recommend any good books or resources on this matter? I've long been curious about the relationship between the fall of Rome and the transition of the church to a kind of pseudo imperial system in its own right.
@Weebgamer236
4 күн бұрын
@@ottovonbaden6353this is just a big compiracy🤣🤣. plus the church wasn't only in Rome but all churches from Europe to Africa formed a similar ecliseology
@samuelotache9239
3 күн бұрын
@@Weebgamer236All these churches were part of the Roman empire
@thadofalltrades
3 күн бұрын
@@Weebgamer236 the church basically dictated what happened in Europe for a thousand years, it's not a conspiracy.
@annakimborahpa
3 күн бұрын
@@samuelotache9239 Not in India where St. Thomas the Apostle evangelized.
@Yaas_ok123
Күн бұрын
Just ordered your new book, my first one. You have any nordic country backround ? Blessings from Turku, Finland !
@TheUnknownLegend1234
4 күн бұрын
Oh boy, I can't wait to read later comments. 😂
@vinceplanetta8415
3 күн бұрын
If apostolic succession is an accretion, it emerged very quickly and was such a core issue for the church up until the Reformation. Given Christ’s promise for the church, I believe that if it were proven false, it would bring into question the validity of Christianity itself.
@clivejungle6999
3 күн бұрын
But that is still conceding the issue that it is not essential and not divinely ordained. Considering wars were fought over church polity, that is a very important distinction.
@luxetvita8067
3 күн бұрын
@@clivejungle6999 You acknowledge that wars have been fought over church polity yet somehow think the entire church agreed to switch from a plurality of elders model to a mono-episcopate despite that not being the tradition of the Apostles. And that we have absolutely no record whatsoever of this takeover, and no evidence of any churches resisting this change. Debates around the dating of Easter led to threats of excommunication, but you think a hostile takeover of the leadership of the entire church was accepted without so much as a drop of ink to object?
@jsharp3165
3 күн бұрын
The validity of Christianity is dependent on Christ. It is not precariously hinged on being able to trace a lineage of men. Especially not those evil men who utterly betrayed the faith while holding those offices during the Middle Ages. Our faith is in God.
@Berean_with_a_BTh
3 күн бұрын
The kind of Apostolic succession the early church writers spoke of concerned only the tracing of their teachings back to the apostles; it had nothing to do with later claims of authority over the church.
@vinceplanetta8415
3 күн бұрын
@@Berean_with_a_BTh It seems to me that apostolic succession involves more than just passing on correct teachings. It also includes the reception of the Holy Spirit, the anointing, as well as authority to lead God’s people as evidenced in both the Old and New Testaments. Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition "The bishop shall lay his hand upon them and pray, invoking the Holy Spirit, and so ordain them" 1 Timothy 4:14: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate" 1 Timothy 5:22: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure" 2 Timothy 1:6: "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands" Numbers 27:18-20: "So the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him’" This passage shows the transfer of leadership and authority from Moses to Joshua through the laying on of hands.
@grantc9012
Күн бұрын
Is our knowledge of the biblical canon not also an accretion in this view? The authority we give to certain ancient texts is as much a part of the tradition of the Church as the succession of apostolic authority to interpret those texts.
@SaltyApologist
3 сағат бұрын
The only Apostolic Succession is teaching what the Apostles taught. Any other claim on Apostolic Succession is absolutely an accretion
@anglicanaesthetics
4 күн бұрын
Here's what I'll grant. The notion of the necessity of a rigid rite, as laid out by something like Apostolicae Curae, is an accretion. However, the notion that the presbytery is passed down from the high priest is almost certainly not. The earliest strands of data confirm two proper orders--presbyters and deacons. The praxis in the New Testament (e.g. Timothy and Titus) and certainly when we get to Ignatius is of one ruling presbyter who ordains other presbyters. *That* form is the form of apostolic succession.
@anglicanaesthetics
4 күн бұрын
I'd also rebuff the notion that bishops were akin to senior pastors. To my knowledge, there was no other bishop of Antioch at Ignatius's time. And it's telling that Clement writes for the whole church of Rome, dispersed as it probably was through multiple house churches.
@MichaelPetek
4 күн бұрын
Episkopoi and diakonoi are mentioned together several times in the NT and in early Christian writings. We can be certain that every bishop was a presbyter, but not that every presbyter was a bishop.
@anglicanaesthetics
4 күн бұрын
@@MichaelPetek Exactly! And I'd even grant that the terminology is a development. But it's a wise one, insofar as one term was used to single out a ruling presbyter. Yet the evidence shows, I'd argue, that the form of one ruling presbyter consecrated over the other presbyters, who ordained other presbyters, was the apostolic form of governance given to us by the apostles.
@anglicanaesthetics
4 күн бұрын
I'll also say, you're right that Richard Hooker thinks the episcopate wasn't of divine right. But Davenant thought it was, among other Anglican divines. And even Richard Hooker thinks it's the ideal form, for whatever that's worth.
@MichaelPetek
4 күн бұрын
@@anglicanaesthetics The clear majority of references to presbyters in the NT is to members of the Sanhedrin. Each was co-opted by ordination.
@thirdparsonage
3 күн бұрын
Granted, there was some development on this (and nearly every other doctrine in the church). But to accept Gavin's view, how can anything whatsoever in the church be authoritative? Are any of the councils authoritative? Can we be sure we're correct about any of the Christological controversies? Did the church act with definitive authority when spelling out the Trinity? There has to be some actual and definitive locus of authority for any of the theological decisions to be considered authoritative . To accept the Protestant view, pretty nearly every doctine is just up to each Christian (or individual church body) to decide. The church has no definitive authority. There is no definitive Christian theology. The finished canon of scripture has almost nothing to do with the church. We're left to guess whether the current NT canon is truly definitive. To accept the Protestant view is ultimately a house of cards. Where is the locus of any conclusive authority if 10 (or 50, or 100, including) different denominations (including a group like the Unitarians) can each have equal claim to getting the teaching of scripture correct? It's no surprise that this doctrine developed in the first couple centuries. Just because it didn't look exactly as it does today does not mean there was no transmission of authority from the apostles to the leaders in the church. What they were called at any given point is much less important then whether there were individuals who had hands laid on them who received any actual authority. If they did not, the countless Protestant denominations aren't just a bug, they're a feature. (To be sure, I say this with much love toward Protestants. I do think they get most of the big questions right. But it's in spite of their view of the church, not because of it)
@BernardinusDeMoor
2 күн бұрын
Okay, I'll run through. Things in the church can be authoritative-that is, we can treat them as considered judgments from people who are set over us and to care for us. But they are not infallible, whether in council or not. >Can we be sure we're correct about any of the Christological controversies? Well, I suppose some of that depends on what exactly you mean by "sure." I'm inclined to think that the scriptures are pretty clear that Jesus is both God and man. >Did the church act with definitive authority when spelling out the Trinity? I think so, but not irreformably. We can't teach things in such a way that they cannot be corrected. >To accept the Protestant view, pretty nearly every doctine is just up to each Christian (or individual church body) to decide. To decide, in accordance with scripture. >The church has no definitive authority. There is no definitive Christian theology. The finished canon of scripture has almost nothing to do with the church. We're left to guess whether the current NT canon is truly definitive. The church definitely teaches things, and that should be treated as weighty, because there are often plenty of theologians looking at things with care, and faithful christians. That does not mean that we cannot correct things, should we have good reason for doing so. Augustine says as much, that later councils can correct earlier ones. >To accept the Protestant view is ultimately a house of cards. Where is the locus of any conclusive authority if 10 (or 50, or 100, including) different denominations (including a group like the Unitarians) can each have equal claim to getting the teaching of scripture correct? Well, no, they don't have an equal claim. Trying to tell who got scripture right on some issue or another is not something that you do blind, with a roll of the dice. Rather, you turn to scripture, and look. The ones who better conform to the teachings of scripture are the ones with a better claim. >It's no surprise that this doctrine developed in the first couple centuries. Just because it didn't look exactly as it does today does not mean there was no transmission of authority from the apostles to the leaders in the church. What they were called at any given point is much less important then whether there were individuals who had hands laid on them who received any actual authority. I agree that they had authority, though evidently we have different understandings of what exactly that means-I think the people over you have authority, even if they are not infallible, and even if they can be wrong.
@thirdparsonage
2 күн бұрын
@@BernardinusDeMoor So you're basically saying none of the councils are definitive, and there is no interpretation of scripture we can be sure is correct. Why would anybody ever in any church setting accept anything being said by that church? Every decision any church makes is almost entirely arbitrary since there are others with equal claim to interpret scripture for themselves who disagree.
@BernardinusDeMoor
2 күн бұрын
@@thirdparsonage Depends on what you mean by sure. I think I can be pretty sure that David was a king. Why would people accept things? Because they are the authority over them, and because of the knowledge and care of those saying the things. No, decisions churches make are not arbitrary. Again, the proper judge is scripture. Just because people disagree on interpretation of something does not mean that there is no way to attempt to figure out what's the more reasonable reading. You can be justified in believing things, even when others disagree. The number of times that a church has (purportedly) infallibly interpreted scripture is extremely small.
@toddvoss52
3 күн бұрын
I had commented over at Austin's channel but I will do so again here. Not a long comment. Just that I think this is one of your weaker arguments compared to your arguments on Icons and the Assumption of Mary. I think the principles you applied in your excellent video on the Trinity can be applied here. As I watched your Trinity video, I literally was making parallel arguments for Apostolic Succession (as that term is understood by RC/EC; EO; OO). Some of the arguments are somewhat inconsistent. So Jerome's opinion regarding the fluidity of the titles/office of Presbyter/Bishop takes much of the force (such that it has and I don't think it has much) out of your point that Ignatius said the Presbyters were successors of the Apostles. In any case, I think this is a tough one for you. I don't always recommend each of Dave Armstrong's pieces because he has produced such a huge volume of material that it is uneven. But his longer response(s) to your piece on Monarchial Bishops and Apostolic Succession is very well done.
@gardengirlmary
4 күн бұрын
Great video. Totally going to check out the full video!
@AmericanwrCymraeg
3 күн бұрын
14:40 St Ignatius makes that exact claim, that a bishop is needed for Eucharistic validity. That's not a later accretion. "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains."
@hc7385
3 күн бұрын
What Ignatius says is that one should not celebrate the Eucharist in rebellion against the bishop, despising a bishop. If there is a bishop, his authority must be respected, of course.
@clivejungle6999
3 күн бұрын
But the point Gavin is making is that when Ignatius uses the term ‘bishop’ he doesn’t mean what we today think of as bishop. He means something akin to a senior pastor as the concept of a diocesan bishop certainly didn’t exist let alone archbishops. Ignatius (Like Clement) conflates bishop with presbyters (Letter to the Magnesians 7:1). He himself was likely one of several bishops in Antioch just as Clement was one of several bishops in Rome. Ignatius himself addresses the Romans in the second person plural when giving them commands.
@AmericanwrCymraeg
3 күн бұрын
@@hc7385 No, he clearly says more than that, as the quote makes clear.
@AmericanwrCymraeg
3 күн бұрын
@@clivejungle6999 We see a plurality of presbyters, never a plurality of bishops. The bishop is also a presbyter and sits at the head of the council of presbyters, not that doesn't mean his role is reduced to merely that. We disagree over if the discussion is Apostolic, but clearly in the patristic literature, long after nobody would dispute that the threefold offices were clearly distinct everywhere, you still see bishops being referred to as priests as well. Aaron was a priest. That doesn't mean that the office of high priest wasn't district from the general Aaronic priesthood or that the distinction is an accretion.
@hc7385
3 күн бұрын
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Your quote looks more like a biased paraphrase. Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
@gabrielwerling9544
4 күн бұрын
Is the canon of scripture an accretion? There’s more consistency in apostolic succession historically, than the canon
@thadofalltrades
4 күн бұрын
No, Scripture just exists. Peter was calling Paul's letters Scripture from the beginning.
@ghostapostle7225
4 күн бұрын
@@thadofalltrades That's not an answer to the canon.
@Jd-808
4 күн бұрын
You’re not understanding that God could oversee the canon but he couldn’t oversee His Church. How do I know? Because I’m a prot.
@toddthacker8258
4 күн бұрын
Scripture was recognized as Scripture long before the Church officially got involved. But, like the Trinity, the canon is something that existed from its inception and that we now understand more completely. Apostolic succession isn't like that--by its very nature, apostolic succession HAD to have been present, in largely its current form, from the time of the apostles, or it doesn't mean anything.
@BeefyPreacher
4 күн бұрын
He’s made like 100 videos on this just watch them
@arcrosby2485
Күн бұрын
Loved the discussion! Gavin, would you consider doing a video addressing the beliefs of Aaron Abke? It seems he has captured the attention of many seeking answers and it’s concerning. I feel your voice could provide helpful criticism.
@jameswoodard4304
4 күн бұрын
I would disagree on a small point. I consider myself a necessitist regarding doctrine and practice. I do not make the doctrine/dogma distinction of the Roman Church. Therefore, I do find the development of a monarchical, diocesan bishopric in itself something to push back against. Something should not be allowed to become a central element in the structure of church organization unless it is necessitated by the contents of revelation. That is, in my view, part of what it means that Christ is the sole head of the Church. We simply don't get to make such substantial changes to the nature of how the Church operates simply to relieve our own practical concerns. So, yes. Some Protestants *do* argue against the rise of bishops as a historical reality, even divorced from false claims regarding their apostolic authority and necessity. And for the record, no, I am not a radical who believes such things as not having instrumental music in church because it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Such things do not rise to the level of a teaching of the church (doctrine/dogma) or a key factor in praxis. The important matters of faith and practice are not touched by such things. But the widespread existence in the government of the church of an office that, regardless of name, is highly unbiblical in character, does. And let us not forget that Christ did declare that the organization of the Church was not to be an authoritative hierarchy of power structure as is the norm in the world. Does that not come into play with the historical rise of monarchical bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, etc. even regardless of the issues of the exclusive claims of such organizations? Does not the existence of the structural innovation itself warrant criticism? I thank Brother Ortlund for his tireless, precise, illuminating, and very powerfully applicable work. I don't have to agree with him on every conceptual point to agree with the general conclusions and aims of his work, and to be thankful for them. God bless!
@bridgetgolubinski
2 күн бұрын
Super interesting, thanks!
@Continentalphilosophyrules
4 күн бұрын
Someone's fridge is filled with that Italian brand softdrink that I enjoy myself as well :)
@williamnathanael412
4 күн бұрын
Gavin Ortlund is an accretion - through faith succession from the apostles. From Abraham in fact.
@SCOTTISHSOULFOOD1
3 күн бұрын
Always nice to see someone respond to a reasoned argument with a well thought out response based on solid evidence and avoiding personal attacks. This wasn't nice to see
@matthewbroderick6287
3 күн бұрын
Faith alone and Scripture alone, are accretions, but Holy Scripture teaches even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! Peace and peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
@BlakeCoulter777
3 күн бұрын
What a great strawman you just destroyed!
@matthewbroderick6287
3 күн бұрын
@@BlakeCoulter777 so true, Holy Scripture teaches that even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! Peace and peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@BlakeCoulter777
3 күн бұрын
@@matthewbroderick6287 While you’re quoting Scripture, it’s important to recognize that the office of the apostles ended with those directly commissioned by Christ (Ephesians 2:20). The ongoing maturity of faith, yes, but through the ministry of the Word and the Spirit not new apostolic offices.
@matthewbroderick6287
3 күн бұрын
@BlakeCoulter777 most inaccurate for Holy Scripture is quite evident sadly, as Barnabas and Timothy and Silvanus are also called Apostles. Again, Holy Scripture teaches that even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@BlakeCoulter777
3 күн бұрын
@@matthewbroderick6287 Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus were called apostles in the sense of ‘sent ones’ or messengers, not in the same category as the Twelve Apostles who held foundational authority. Ephesians 2:20 clarifies the foundation of the Church was laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone. The office of apostle in that foundational sense doesn’t continue beyond those directly commissioned by Jesus. I appreciate your prayers, and I’ll be praying for you as well! Peace in Christ.
@JadDragon
3 күн бұрын
Not a Catholic but I can call them brothers generally. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
@andrew33bird
2 күн бұрын
I remember studying Irenaeus after discussing things with a Catholic friend, and it seemed clear to me that Irenaeus' model of apostolic succession was not the same as Rome's today, nor does it hold up to church reality as it played out in the centuries after him. Basically, he was countering a heresy outside the church that claimed to have a special understanding passed down orally from the apostles. His whole point was that it would be insane to think the apostles would hide this special knowledge from the churches they labored to establish and shepherd. He then states that all churches were in agreement with each other and always have been since the time of the apostles. And the sign/seal of this agreement is apostolic succession. This was meant to be a comfort and a guarantee for all members in any local church. The only problem with this model is fast-forward in church history and there's the split where both east and west rightly claim apostolic succession, yet are not in agreement. So either update the model or recognize that Irenaeus' idea of apostolic succession (being the guarantee of truth) isn't actually apostolic in origin. Hence why scripture always speaks of the Holy Spirit being the guarantor. Irenaeus was a bright guy, but he didn't have the luxury of seeing how 2,000+ years of church history played out. Anyway, thanks for the presentation Gavin and giving the full picture of things. I hope to have time to acquire and read your book soon!
@bencook6585
4 күн бұрын
I don't see how history could possibly bear out the idea that Apostolic Succession is an accretion. The very earliest fathers use apostolic succession explicitly as defense against the heresies of the day. There is an easy and obvious defeater here. The first person who recorded the names of the four gospels, as scripture, Irenaeus, also used apostolic succession of bishops (not presbyters) as an explicit argument against gnostics. To be consistent then, you're stuck. One cannot be an accretion while the other isn't. The original source we know that defined the four gospels as we know them also appeals to apostolic succession of bishops. I really think that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion because Irenaeus is very clear that it is succession of bishops in Rome, not presbyters, that acts as a defeater to the gnostic case.
@bencook6585
4 күн бұрын
@charlesjoyce982 that is just factually untrue. This has been a common point when facing overwhelmingly negative evidence. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch were considered frauds by Protestants for years, until they were verified to be genuine. It's historical revisionism.
@stevenjames6830
4 күн бұрын
@@charlesjoyce982 that’s a theory that is not supported by the evidence and requires selective pleading
@joshenderson315
4 күн бұрын
@@charlesjoyce982ah yes, the "I don't like it so he must not have said it" argument
@protestanttoorthodox3625
3 күн бұрын
This is bold… calling a clearly scriptural practice an “accretion” is next level. Gavin is taking a hardline polemical stance these days. Everything but Protestantism is an “accretion” lol
@thadofalltrades
3 күн бұрын
@@protestanttoorthodox3625 that's not true at all. I'm pretty sure he would call a lot of Protestant stuff accretions
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
Ortlundism is an accretion.
@whomptalosis22
3 күн бұрын
Yeah it’s super easy if you just assume whatever you believe is “clearly scriptural practice”
@thadofalltrades
3 күн бұрын
@@whomptalosis22 worse, they believe the magisterium and tradition have equal authority, which means they don't need scripture to support a practice.
@tymon1928
7 сағат бұрын
@@thadofalltrades the "person" has "Orthodox" in its name, at least you should not strawman the person's position
@gainsofglory6414
4 күн бұрын
Don't agree at all with your conclusions, especially from the sources you mention, or even the original notion that a "restricted and mechanical" approach to the sacraments is bad. I find that absolutely necessary and fitting though wouldn't use those terms. The general idea you are picturing I believe is something I would picture as entirely positive and by design. But, as usual, it was a productive and fair conversation that is growing more and more rare on these topics.
@protestanttoorthodox3625
3 күн бұрын
Hey it’s Gavin “accretion” Ortland back again!!
@BlakeCoulter777
3 күн бұрын
@@protestanttoorthodox3625 lol! Looks like he struck a nerve.
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
@@BlakeCoulter777Gavin makes it up as he goes, thereby striking a nerve.
@BlakeCoulter777
3 күн бұрын
@@fantasia55 How ignorant that take is.
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
@@BlakeCoulter777 Protestants who dare to read about early Christianity for themselves, instead of relying on Gavin's explanations, see that it was Catholic.
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
@@BlakeCoulter777 @BlakeCoulter777 Protestants who dare to read about early Christianity for themselves see that it was Catholic.
@davidlarson4647
3 күн бұрын
Well done, thank you.
@AdOrient
3 күн бұрын
"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter." -Tertullian 160 AD - 240 AD Definitely an accretion
@whomptalosis22
3 күн бұрын
You didn’t listen to the video
@AdOrient
3 күн бұрын
@@whomptalosis22 I did watch the video, but to be fair it seems that Dr. Ortlund has a particularly precise definition of apostolic succession which probably wasn't fully articulated not having his book in front of him. Based on the definition he did give I'm not sure how this quote isn't testimony precisely against it. On another note my original comment was a bit dismissive and smug which isn't cool. My bad
@BernardinusDeMoor
2 күн бұрын
Well, what's the context there? He goes into this immediately following talking about the antiquity of the true doctrine, and the novelty of the heretics. The reason for this, then, is to show continuity of doctrine with the apostolic teaching (see the mention in your comment of continuing steadfast), not something about what makes a legitimate ordination. (Though note, of course, that I'm not trying to say that it would be okay for people to just form new schismatic congregations.) It made sense to demand that it not be a new thing. But expecting the same continuity to be evidence of soundness is significantly less reasonable when so many centuries have passed.
@dawsonwhite9790
3 күн бұрын
Interesting. I tend to align with Hooker, it shows up early enough and is usually pragmatic and helpful for unity and church discipline/guidance. Helpful video though!
@DrBob-gr5ru
4 күн бұрын
"Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (πρεσβυτέρους)of the church...Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους) to shepherd [ποιμαίνειν, (i.e. "pastor")] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."--Acts 20:17,28. As Schaff stated, "bishop" connotes the title of the office, "elder" connotes the dignity of the offive, and "pastor" the function of the office.
@childoftheonetrueking7761
45 минут бұрын
Rome has as one of the official Titles of the pope as 'Apostle Supreme' and 'Petrine Apostle'. Official Vatican Doctrine is that Peter was not only a 'Supreme' apostle Above the Other New Testament apostles, but that Also they claim that the Roman 'popes' are Supreme Apostles with Peter's Title and the Popes are Above the Other New Testament Apostles [all total False Teachings and Unbiblical ] . Its amazing to me how catholics will say, no this is just a general claim that lines up with the general claims in the Bible and completely Ignore or be ignorant of the Lengthy Details of the teachings and traditions being taught by the Vatican for all these years.
@Jd-808
4 күн бұрын
What does scholarship say about the divinity of Christ?
@NATAR160
4 күн бұрын
Where can we find apostolic succession exactly, claims aside?
@Jd-808
4 күн бұрын
@@NATAR160 The Orthodox Church
@NATAR160
4 күн бұрын
Scholarship is unimportant? The divinity of Christ is in the writings of the apostles. When I was much younger I was asked to read the Bible, despite not being schooled in the Word of God I didn't still need an external body for me to see that Jesus is God. Also, in this discussion he mentions church fathers n what they say, wt scholars deduce from what they say. It has never being a crime to do that. Or u think he has to say, some political institution dressed up in religious garb says this is wt it means therefore it's true, hook, line n sinker?
@Jd-808
4 күн бұрын
@@NATAR160 Yes, the Church that wrote and compiled the New Testament and chose to link it to the Old to form the biblical canon is who we should be listening to when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Not ‘enlightened’ reformers or German atheists from the 19th century. Gavin is simply cherry-picking atheistic scholarship to suit his own agenda. That’s undeniable. He doesn’t listen to what scholarship says about the trinity, the dating of biblical texts, the virgin birth, what-have-you. And the point I’m making about the divinity of Christ is that scholarly presuppositions are completely different to Gavin’s, and certainly to the Orthodox Church’s, so the entire foundation is suspect. Even if he could somehow prove these things are ‘accretion’s’ it’s only a problem from his perspective, because he’s separated from Christ’s Church, which has been guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. He’s made his burden to accurately reconstruct the 1st century church’s beliefs and practices 2000 years later using secular scholarship that rejects the divinity of Christ. It’s completely nonsensical.
@david88497
4 күн бұрын
@@NATAR160It’s just so bizarre to me that Protestants will appeal to (largely) atheist liberal scholars over the church authority
@Nsfwpodcastofficial
2 күн бұрын
Gavin aint stating the full context of what St. IGNATIUS said “Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians, 6:1). This passage shows that Ignatius believed bishops and priests (presbyters) held roles of apostolic succession, acting in the place of the apostles in guiding and governing the Church. He viewed the bishop’s authority as vital to the Church’s unity, and this reflects the early Christian understanding of apostolic succession.
@mfjh505
Күн бұрын
Gavin takes a lot of things out of context to prove his point. He's the master at this. All great heretics have this gift. He loves to deceive himself and others.
@nicolasolivera4576
4 күн бұрын
Yeah sure so what Ignatius of Antioch sayed is false when we have all the proofs that is real Is the same fallacy that Calvin used to say
@joelancon7231
22 сағат бұрын
Roman Catholic here haven't listened to this video yet, but I am a big fan of you Gavin, may I say I wish more protestants were like you as opposed to James White or Mike Gendron, I think there would be much more healthy use of rhetoric (such as perhaps a hyper fixation on the word "accretion") and more intellectually honest converse : )
@phillipwoodfin-nb7ud
3 күн бұрын
Two great men. I apologize if I missed it in the video, but does Gavin believe only a presbyter can consecrate the elements for a proper Eucharist? Or can laity?
@BernardinusDeMoor
2 күн бұрын
I don't know for Gavin specifically, but the usual Reformed take is that only presbyters can, I believe.
@MichaelPetek
4 күн бұрын
Apostolic succession means in Jewish law the reception of powers of agency (shelichut) from someone already in possession of them. Without it, the public powers otherwise exercisable by the King or the High Priest in person cannot be exercised by anyone else, and any possiblity of lawful public worship on earth would expire on the death of the last Apostle.
@gardengirlmary
4 күн бұрын
This is very interesting! I would really like to learn more about Shelichut. What would you recommend to learn more about this (references to Scripture or other sources)
@litigioussociety4249
4 күн бұрын
Except that Jesus is an eternal king, so he could appoint anyone at any time similar to the way judges are appointed after the time of Joshua. Gideon's son Abimelek is a perfect example of what happens when an accretion of worldly succession occurs. Likewise, King Saul is a similar example with the rejection of Samuel and Samuel's sons. The judges are also a good example that people should not be deciding who is a new apostle in between.
@MichaelPetek
4 күн бұрын
@@litigioussociety4249 Jesus would have to return to earth to do it. The way of appointing elders capable of serving on the Sanhedrin was always by the laying on of hands by those already in that office. How do I know that a man has been appointed to public office by Christ acting from heaven?
@tookie36
3 күн бұрын
Isn’t there ample evidence that the virgin birth is an accretion ?
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
Early Christians believed it and Reformers through Wesley believed it.
@beerad_98
3 күн бұрын
No the virgin birth is not an accretion it is believed by virtually all Christians regardless of tradition. It's directly in the Bible.
@tookie36
3 күн бұрын
@@fantasia55 the early Christians had a wide spectrum of beliefs. We can see developments already from Paul to mark and then to Matthew. Not to mention the lack of virgin births in Jewish thought. But if your belief system allows for “accretions” like the virgin birth, trinity, canon, then it’s fairly arbitrary to then say apostolic succession “proper” is an accretion.
@tookie36
3 күн бұрын
@@beerad_98 it was not believed by all early Christians tho. It was a later accretion. It was fought over and then eventually it won out. The Bible is an “accretion” if you’re going to consider all developments accretions
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
@@tookie36 Thinking the Trinity to be an accretion means you're not a Christian.
@justthink8952
2 күн бұрын
The Apostles had an office. That was why Matthias was chosen to the office left vacant by Iscariot Judas. Apostles were priest who were also bishops. Priests have teaching authority, governing authority and sanctifying authority. When Jesus called his Apostles, he just said, come and follow me. He didn't need to perhorm the rituals. Likewise, Jesus didn't need to perform the rituals of ordination of priesthood. He ordained the Apostles on the last supper when he said "do this in memory of me". We call Jesus the high priest. The high priest should have a sacrifice to offer on the altar. Jesus performed the role of the High Priest on the last supper when he offered bread and wine as his body and blood.
@childoftheonetrueking7761
Сағат бұрын
these two are being a little too kind and gracious about the abuse of this accretion and the Entire FALLACY of the Roman PAPACY and all the ripple effect of this accretion.
@raphaelfeneje486
4 күн бұрын
Apostolic succession as what the non Protestants define it to be is clearly an accretion.
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
throuh time travel, perhaps
@joshenderson315
4 күн бұрын
Protestantism itself is an accretion
@hallelujahize
13 сағат бұрын
Anyone watched Mentalist starring Simon Baker? Austin's voice sounds like Red John.
@Adam_Wilde
4 күн бұрын
Matthias from Acts 1:24-26 becomes confused
@NextLevel-k9o
3 сағат бұрын
Gavin in the end narrated way more convincing argument for the invisible body of Christ which was the activity of God in NON-APOSTOLIC churches. Similar argument is Near Death Experiences of unbelievers who convert. May Gavin start using the basic principle of Matthew 16:17 which teaches that the truth of the Son only comes through the Father.Thats true of all believers including non apostolic ones. By this IRREFUTABLE argument alone i can claim the church is invisible. Also i liked how Gavin said it ......"Apostolic is TRUE but not NECCESARY" nor the authoritative model
@eduardobauche1211
3 күн бұрын
Gavin says that there is sacramental restrictions related to Apostolic succesion, but Ignatius right away says that only the Eucharist celebrated with the bishop or his delegation of it is valid
@tategarrett3042
4 күн бұрын
Thank you so much for defending the fact that the presbyters, not the bishops, are the successor of the apostles, and that the episcopal form of government is an accretion and not the only valid norm! God bless.
@catholicguy1073
3 күн бұрын
There’s Bishops appointed directly in Scripture. Then there is also the Church government having cardinals for example that are all bishops. Cardinals for example can be done away with however organizing a world wide church obviously requires a church government
@tategarrett3042
3 күн бұрын
@@catholicguy1073 the Chruch requires a Chruch government and the government we see explicitly and directly implemented in the Bible is one that is ruled by Presbyters. The later addition of bishops to the mix, and distinction of giving them additional and higher roles is a way of doing chruch government but it is not the most historical/biblical. The Presbyterian form of church government is the closest match to that which was instituted by the apostles.
@catholicguy1073
3 күн бұрын
@@tategarrett3042 Bishops are ordained directly in Scripture. What are you talking about? Ignatius who was a bishop was ordained by St. Paul and was a disciple of the Apostle John for example.
@tategarrett3042
3 күн бұрын
@@catholicguy1073 if you watched the video above they talked about that and not only why this doesn't prove anything given that the terms were used interchangeably between bishop and Presbyters but further these events are not described in scripture - what ordination of bishops do you think occured in the new testament?
@catholicguy1073
3 күн бұрын
@@tategarrett3042 Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2). The fact the role of Bishops became more clearly defined is hardly an accretion anymore than our understanding of who wrote the gospels and the Trinity.
@samuelbranster5943
2 күн бұрын
@truthunites can you please respond or make a video on, if the early church fathers were "Catholic". I feel this claim is often asserted that all of the church fathers were Catholic. However, I think there is some equivocation on the term "Catholic" when this claim is made. God bless your work for the Lord.
@aussierob7177
3 күн бұрын
In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors . They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority". Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Is this too hard to understand ?
@Justas399
4 күн бұрын
Acts 1:21-22 makes apostolic succession impossible after the 1st century.
@joshenderson315
4 күн бұрын
@@Justas399 so the church failed even though scripture says the gates of Hell will not prevail? And nobody knew anything about Christianity until the Reformers 1500 years later? This view of history doesn't make sense.
@fernandoformeloza4107
3 күн бұрын
...nice bookshelf...
@Justeelisjust
3 күн бұрын
I can't even begin to fathom how anyone starts a project to prove that early apostolic church in Roman Empire was actually similar to evangelical baptist church in modern America. At some point you have to stop and ask yourself who are you kidding.
@survivordave
3 күн бұрын
You're setting up a false dilemma. The options of what the early apostolic church was like are not limited to "Roman Catholic Mass" and "evangelical Baptist church." Don't strawman Gavin's points as "well he's saying the RCC is wrong about X, then that means he must think Peter and Luke and Paul were leading worship with a guitar and giving everyone little cups of grape juice at communion time."
@Justeelisjust
3 күн бұрын
@@survivordave No. I'm saying that this thesis would basically mean the 2nd and 3rd generation Christians got it immediately wrong with the tradition that was handed down to them and it's only after 1800 years when baptists in english-speaking America got it right. Unhinged. Also you can read the lineage of apostolic succession of the Church of Rome from Eusebious' Church History which written on 4th century. In my eyes Gavin flushes his credibility down the toilet with the claims like this. Wouldn't be the first time. You'll see right through it once you have done some reading by yourself
@JohnMaximovich-r8x
3 күн бұрын
@@Justeelisjust It's funny that Gavin gives Eusebius (a semi-Arian) glowing reviews "He's the father of Church history!", etc. when it comes to arguing against icons yet the apostolic succession from the same "Father of Church history" isn't given the same deference.
@jeffjolly1980
3 күн бұрын
@@JohnMaximovich-r8x That is not really surprising given the Protestant tradition which elevates reason to be equivalent with tradition. Rather than deference to non-apostolic deposits, the arguments or historical facts are where the deference is given. Right or wrong, the Protestant tradition believes that God gave people reason which could help them move towards the True, the Good, and the Beautiful; to God. One might even say that a group who rejects submission to a Pope may be likely to not submit to most persons other than Jesus or the Apostles themselves. I am just pointing this out so that this isn’t mistakenly looked at as hypocrisy; it is entirely consistent with the belief set the interlocutors hold. Remember, Dr Outland doesn’t even submit to a Bishop which seems pretty explicit in some of the Church Fathers…
@Justeelisjust
3 күн бұрын
@@survivordave You falsely assumed the cultural difference is just about externals and not about the doctrinal essentials. The question is do you believe the perversion of the traditions handed down from the apostles and the followers of apostles started immediately, from 3nd and 4th generation Christians onward? This is denial of the promise made in Pentecost. Instead, 1800 years later american baptists who reject the earliest doctrines like real presence in Eucharist, authority of bishops, relics, apostolic succession and infant baptism got it right?
@matnic_6623
4 күн бұрын
i like that austin isn't wearing shoes. it always stresses me out when people wear shoes indoors...
@JW_______
4 күн бұрын
I feel vulnerable when I don't have shoes on 😂
@HearGodsWord
4 күн бұрын
Every time Gavin says anything, Catholics get triggered. He really must have them worried.
@Sonicmax8728
4 күн бұрын
Yes a 2000 year old organization is terrified of a Baptist minister from California
@Sonicmax8728
4 күн бұрын
Yes a 2000 year old institution is terrified of a Baptist minister from California
@NP-vk8de
4 күн бұрын
Catholics are an anomaly in many ways, as they feel that even meaningful discussion is an affront to their faith. The effects or Spirit of Vatican II has dissipated. 😢
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
Gavin is fighting a losing battle, because as Protestants read about early Christianity for themselves they realize he's been lying to them.
@HearGodsWord
3 күн бұрын
@fantasia55 the opposite is actually happening.
@thejerichoconnection3473
4 күн бұрын
Unbelievable. It’s right there in the Bible and confirmed by the earliest apostolic father, Clement of Rome: “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife first the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (First Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-3, c. AD 80). Apostolic succession is a direct teaching of Christ.
@haroldbishop22
4 күн бұрын
you've not quoted the bible there pal :-)
@revel77
4 күн бұрын
those who have ears let them hear.. well eyes to read in this case
@thejerichoconnection3473
4 күн бұрын
@@haroldbishop22 Acts 1:15-26.
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
@@haroldbishop22 Oh that's right, the Church must have gone apostate in the first century then.
@jty1999
4 күн бұрын
@@thejerichoconnection3473Not sure what replacing Judas Iscariot has to do with apostolic succession... Given that Judas... Ya know.
@Reasonandfaith
4 күн бұрын
Catholics affirm that the offices of bishop and presbyter were interchangeable in the early Church. Please read Pope Benedict’s Called to Communion-it’s right there, and he answers the questions raised here from a Scriptural perspective.
@rickdockery9620
4 күн бұрын
He defends his office, hmm
@Justas399
4 күн бұрын
No office of a papacy in the New Testament. Bishops were to be married with children. 1 Timothy 3
@rickdockery9620
4 күн бұрын
@@Justas399 You are making the assumption Rome follows scripture in which they do not make that claim.
@lukewilliams448
3 күн бұрын
@@Justas399 Matthew 16 (with the context of Isaiah 22), Luke 22, John 10 and John 21 prove the papal office in the NT.
@Justas399
3 күн бұрын
@@lukewilliams448 Problems with a papacy: 1- Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar of the entire church. He never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on. Nor did the apostles. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. 3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
@stevie6621
3 күн бұрын
Apostolic succession means nothing if you teach a false gospel as the EO and RC.
@amfm4087
4 күн бұрын
This is going to be an interesting video for the folks over at SSBS for sure!
@xshadowisepic1563
4 күн бұрын
Gavin Ortlund is an Acreation😂
@r.a.panimefan2109
4 күн бұрын
One thing that doesnt sit right with me about this. And is even apoint high church lutherens seem to miss. If apostolic succession (proper) as in u must have the office aproved Was actually intended by christ. Why then does christ in multiple places tell the disciples that the gentile rulers have authority and lord it over them. Not so with you. The greatest among younwill be a servent. Etc But the biggest thing that draws my attention is that when the disciples saw a man casting demons out in christs name and the disciples tried to stop him becuase they hadnt learned from the disciples. What did christ do... Did he praise or rebuke them. He rebuked them No one has worked a miricle in my name can then afterword speek evil. He all but said let him alone to spread the news.... Yet were supposed to believe that only those selected by the apostles (Biships have said authority) It doesnt square Then theres pual saying thank god i didnt baptise any of you so ud be arguing over authority saying i was baptised by pual Again how do you square this I dont understand. The thing with ignatius (One of a few things are occuring) 1 hes apostate(which i heavily doubt 2 ) he could be misunderstanding a apostolic teaching as a fallible human which is why pual said those words(as a warning against acrruing power) [possible] 3 the particular passage is a later forgery. (Possible)(some of his letters are) 4 and i see this as most likely he isnt contradicting scripture. But future power hungry men have twisted his words.... I know this if i was a apostle and i knew i could be murdered id want someone carrying my teachings forward. Possible a few in my area. To be sure sound doctrine is being taught. But i would not intend for this to give power or authority to them to restrict others from sharing sound doctrine. And surely wouldnt mean that only those aproved by them got the holy spirit... It runs counter to christ. Saying only a small select group can baptise read scripture and share gospel... 😅it just feels wrong... And people think its impossible for the 1st century church to go apostate... seriously brau Thats why pual repeatedly warned the churches to continue. Thats why he told timothy wolves would come into church passing along ordinance of demons. Thats why he told churches who have bewitched u 😂we seriously think that they couldnt go south when pual repeatedly shows examples. The roman church believes its solid... (Revalation) Why then do those churches recieve varying degrees of admonishment. Why is rome not mentioned as a ecclessia. Something doesnt sit right. I dont know what it is. Ignatius letter confuses me to know end becuase it seems to run counter to the gospel and to what christ said I dont get it
@jeffjolly1980
3 күн бұрын
Mark 9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name,[f] and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.
@r.a.panimefan2109
3 күн бұрын
@jeffjolly1980 yep. I've never heard a catholic ever read this. And whenever a protestant brings it up they either run or circle right back to tradition... You try to Pou t out tradition was what pharisees taught... And they blow bubbles and skip and ignore Something is simple wrong.
@jeffjolly1980
3 күн бұрын
@@r.a.panimefan2109 whose tradition? The Sacred Tradition of Orthodoxy which started with the Apostles as we read in the Bible, and from which the Roman Catholic Church departed by adding in new inventions to the creed and super-bishops (Popes)? Or is it the Holy Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church which dates back to St Peter from which Orthodoxy departed when it refused to submit to the successor of Peter who is divinely appointed thereby breaking bonds with the one true church? Oh… it is almost like extra-biblical tradition isn’t agreed upon by anyone… might be a problem of personal interpretations of the Bible and tradition…. Like Anglicans, or Lutherans, or Protestants Wow, it is almost like Apostolic Succession (in an individual appointment sense) and tradition didn’t stop the Church from splitting starting in the 700s…
@r.a.panimefan2109
2 күн бұрын
@@jeffjolly1980 yep Let's see there still arguing over easters date because jhons disciples disagree.
@barbershopboy05
4 күн бұрын
It seems like there is a real consistency problem with Ortlund's position in this video - on one hand he claims that there are valid changes that are deemed pragmatic by the church and then on the other hand stands against accretions. That is inconsistent. Ortlund claims that pragmatic changes to church governance are legitimate. But why? Other than his assertion he provides no historical or biblical evidence to why ecclesiastical structural changes should be permitted while other accretions are to be rejected. Either no accretions should be made regardless of pragmatism (Restorationist viewpoint) or accretions are viable including, but not limited to whatever is subjectively determined to be "pragmatic." You cannot have it both ways of denying accretions while allowing for them at the same time.
@tpw7250
4 күн бұрын
Not really. There are pragmatic changes that do not affect theology or doctrine and changes that are non binding and have practical wisdom.
@clarkcoleman8143
3 күн бұрын
@@tpw7250If I am expected to submit to the authority of some man in the church, that is binding, not optional. If that man's office is derived from accretion rather than scripture, it is a major problem.
@tpw7250
3 күн бұрын
@@clarkcoleman8143 Elders are not an accretion.
@clarkcoleman8143
3 күн бұрын
@@tpw7250 Of course not. I never said they were. In fact, I am one. Not following your non-sequitur.
@tpw7250
3 күн бұрын
@clarkcoleman8143 Me too actually. You brought in church leadership. My understanding of your original point is that Ortland is against accretions and for pragmatic changes and that is inconsistent. My point is, that isn't inconsistent if accretions are bad because they bring in new doctrines where as pragmatic changes are OK if they help the function of the church and are considered non-bindong.
@eduardobauche1211
3 күн бұрын
I acts you see many Presbiters came to see Paul, acts 20 Revelations speaks of one chief leader in Ephesus I would say this could be a clue there was among the college of presbyters, one presbyter who holds the succession Not all Presbyters could ordain other presbyters, regardless of how the rite looks
@joshenderson315
4 күн бұрын
When Gavin says, "to me" what he's implying is that he's smarter and more enlightened than the early church fathers who all believed and taught apostolic succession. It's not a mechanical or intellectual issue at hand, it's who has more authority and understanding: Gavin Ortlund, or the early church fathers?
Well, I think he's showing that, when you look at the history, not all of the church fathers believed everything the roman Catholic Church claims they did.
@thadofalltrades
3 күн бұрын
@@joshenderson315 you have to interpret the fathers like anyone else. The question is which interpretation most closely resembles the actual words and context of the church father. Gavin's position is that the Catholic position on apostolic succession is a departure from what the early fathers intended by their words.
@jeffjolly1980
3 күн бұрын
Ya! Which is why everyone should be a Roman Catholic , right? They have the ultimate authority as defined by Holy Tradition, a supreme and infallible (in ex cathedra) Pope! Just going to ignore the part where they split away from the Orthodox in 1054 though…. Or wait, Ya! That’s where everyone should be Orthodox! They have the ultimate Authority as defined in Holy Tradition! Got ourselves a hierarchy of self-governing churches that don’t disagree on doctrine, so much so that they haven’t needed an infallible council in hundreds of years (no it isn’t because of disagreements within Orthodoxy that don’t arise to heresy but still impact unity). Just going to ignore the part where the Roman Catholics say the Orthodox split from them in 1054… The Great Schism, a proof that Holy Tradition is just a little more complicated than “This is the person/persons with more authority” The reality is that either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox are the first Protestants, the only problem is that they can’t decide who is protesting who. (It’s the Roman Catholics, they were the first Protestants)
@joshenderson315
3 күн бұрын
@@jeffjolly1980 I think it's pretty obvious that Orthodoxy is the original Christian church still in operation.
@bencausey
3 күн бұрын
Don’t like seeing Gavin so angry. 😂
@AJMacDonaldJr
3 күн бұрын
The definitions of our faith are also third and fourth century. So...
@bansheebrethren797
4 күн бұрын
Protestantism is an accretion
@eduardobauche1211
3 күн бұрын
I jave heard about Jerome's passages, although there other evudence that could balance that out I wonder if that text speaks more on the matter of duties or having the bishop playing a more accentuated rol In the sense that the distinction could be there, one particular presbyter, to perform certain tasks in especific situations but not having an accentuated rol as it came to be later All this, in the mind of Jerome I would still need more research on that
@carolc6364
3 күн бұрын
I would have liked to have had a short introduction to this discussion, which I thought was quite I interesting and thoughtful.
@robharrell-xd2pi
4 күн бұрын
Apostolic succession ( papacy ) is completely foreign to the New Testament
@billyhw5492
4 күн бұрын
What about the Old Testament?
@muxion
4 күн бұрын
@@billyhw5492the church isn't mentioned as such in the OT, right?
@gardengirlmary
4 күн бұрын
@billyhw5492 I haven't done any reading on how the High Priest was appointed in the Old Testament. Do you have any references to how the High Priest was determined in the OT?
@thadofalltrades
4 күн бұрын
@@gardengirlmary Jesus is the high priest, there are no more high priests. The Levite priesthood ended at the cross.
@thadofalltrades
4 күн бұрын
Definitely no Pope in the New Testament
@JW_______
4 күн бұрын
People will bring up Ignatius of Antioch as evidence for the necessity of the office of bishop and the exclusivity of apostolic sucession. However Ignatius wrote "where the bishop is, there *LET* the people be." It was an exhortation for how the church should be organized, not the passing down of existing principles from the apostles for how the church must be structured.
@truthnotlies
3 күн бұрын
He said to follow the Bishop as the Son does the Father.
@JW_______
3 күн бұрын
@@truthnotlies In the same sentence, or next sentence he says to obey your your presbyters as you would the apostles, and to obey your deacons like God himself. Does that mean that deacons have more authority than presbyters amd are equal to bishops? Of course not - so we have to understand him as speaking in hyperbole to make a point.
@JD-eb7ek
3 күн бұрын
@@JW_______your a liar it’s doesn’t say that, it’s says “reverence the deacons as the institution of god” lol
@leepretorius4869
3 күн бұрын
How does clement use the Old Testament to defend 2 offices?
@TruthUnites
3 күн бұрын
"they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'"
@leepretorius4869
3 күн бұрын
@@TruthUnites you know maybe we should consider LXX more seriously than we currently do.
@ApostolicStorm
3 күн бұрын
Intriguing discussion, but no Apostolic succession is not an accretion. Notice that the title “Presbyter” was used interchangeably with Bishops and Priests of the early Church-not exclusive to Priests. I applaud the investigative commentaries from Protestants on the ancient Church, but they tend to miss the context that the early Church was absolutely Apostolic. Is it a sheer coincidence that all early Churches established by the Apostles and their ordained successors were all Orthodox? No trace of Papal “infallibility” or Protestantism. Purely Orthodox.
@jeffjolly1980
3 күн бұрын
This is honestly a very large struggle for me. I am convinced that the early church had Bishops who were acting in the stead of the Apostles, especially once they had died. But I am concerned about the problem of Bishops who do or teach things that contradict Holy Tradition or Holy Scripture. We are to submit to Christ and submit to Bishops as we submit to Christ, but what do we do when those are in conflict? If my Bishop permits contraception do I submit to that? This is not me attempting to bait out an argument. I just don’t know what to do when Bishops disagree with what Holy Scripture seems to say or when they disagree with each other, as has happened a lot in Christian history.
@BernardinusDeMoor
2 күн бұрын
I'm not really following what you're saying; I kept expecting to get to an argument and didn't really see a clear one. Is your claim here just that the early church looks the most EO to you?
@billyhw5492
4 күн бұрын
Is Hillsong an accretion?
@lifewasgiventous1614
4 күн бұрын
What's hillsong?
@ClauGutierrezY
4 күн бұрын
@@lifewasgiventous1614 no, it's an abomination
@lifewasgiventous1614
4 күн бұрын
@ClauGutierrezY I asked what it is.. are you a bot lol
@AndyReichert0
4 күн бұрын
nope. no institution ever added hillsong as a major component of christianity years after the apostles were dead and then tried to say that the apostles had always included hillsong in an unwritten oral tradition.
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
@@AndyReichert0 I thought it's how you know you're worshipping.
@joetech12
4 күн бұрын
The living Tradition was passed down through the Apostle's successors--there seems to be this assumption that if they didn't write everything down, it didn't happen, this is an argument from silence. It would make no sense if they did not delegate real authority before they died. The real accretion is the appeal to Scholarship in order to know the truth. The Church has never operated by appealing to the Scholarship.
@TomPlantagenet
4 күн бұрын
I think “the living tradition was passed down through the Apostles’ successors “ is an argument from silence. It amounts to “trust me, bro”. This was the same issue Jesus had with the Pharisees where their traditions were the “oral law” supposed given by Moses apart from the written law.
@angru_arches
4 күн бұрын
Whatever is true and perfect cannot be left open to the faultiness of Chinese telephone...if it wasn't taught by the apostles then it's not an authoritative requirement. Their successors were not to continue to create new traditions and then elevate them to the same reverence as scripture, the essentials of salvation...they may have utility and enhance worship, but they cannot be authoritative in a circular reasoning kinda way..
@SeanusAurelius
3 күн бұрын
Ortlund addresses this at 8:30.
@mikes.8120
4 күн бұрын
Michael Lofton’s response will be devastating
@jncon8013
4 күн бұрын
TLDR: yes
@charlesjoyce982
4 күн бұрын
Stumbling, bumbling Gavin.
@tymon1928
4 күн бұрын
hopefully to see one day a video on sola fide or sola scriptura and how it's an acceptable accretion
@r.a.panimefan2109
4 күн бұрын
And the pharasee references how many of there oral traditions. And how many times did christ qoute scripture... U forsake the commands of god for the doctrines of man... How many times Every time a tradition is mentioned in the n.t. each and every time. A apeal to the oral torah(talmud) Mishnah was made what did christ say. He qouted scripture... The argument that luther would argue the apostles is a strawman. For one apostles were prophets... To say that could be infinite regression where they discount any prophet. 😮the jews tuaght a oral trad. They claimed becuase they sat where moses sat and relieved a oral teaching of the law from Moses. And they told everyone trust us There source was litterally trust me bro. Now we get to church traditions... That or extra biblical. Infant baptism. 😮 Forced lent (or you sin )[the trad itself is cool it's the force] the trade that the lay people can't read scripture ... directly the sake kinda stuff The source Our special oral tradition that we received that no one else had... If it was really so good. Then why is a argument still ongoing about easter sense polycarp... A date Why are we still arguing about christmas. When pual warned us not to.😅 These men were the disciples of john yet they do what pual warned about. Can u not see that they weren't prophets speaking the word of God. And can make errors... So yes the bible teaches bible only It may not say those words. But in numerous places showcases it. Just as Jesus slowly reveals himself as God. Drawing on stone.(with the adulterous women) 😅 Saying i. Am (.... ) Saying u call me lord for I am John in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and wad god... Do we really need to have the word trinity present when the scripture teaches it from genisus... This is the worst argument catholics make. The word trinity was a word that was coined to describe a clear message in scripture Sola scriptura is the same. It articulate a clear teaching from christ. From every gospel. And even from pual. Pual teaches that those teaching doctrines of demons would come and fool people 😅 As to sola fide Um the book of romans. And christ. Christ says a multitude of times a sheer multitude that belief and faith will save them. Then Paul in several epistles but especially romans says faith alone. James may seem to contradict but it doesn't there are several early church fathers that say that works justify to humanity faith justifies to God. And yet again 😑 protestants don't believe works don't matter We would all agree that if you have a murderer saying he believes in christ. And then continues murdering non stop. Does he actually believe in christ. I.p. inspiring philosophy says this honestly really well. On ruslans Channel id watch this so u get it. (Catholics combine faith and santification) into salvation. Where as Protestants Believe faith and repentance gives salvation. And that gratitude then begets work. We believe in sanctification but we've seperated the two... Becuase think of this Did the thief work Surely he was in heaven before the father and the lamb. That very night. He had faith repented and seen he deserved his punishment Did he work. Faith gets u salvation It's a free gift. As pual said. But to the one who works it is no longer a gift of God but a wage.... Sigh how does christ and pual and apostles get clearer A good tree produces good fruit. The faith is the root are sanctification and abandoning our old selves is the tree And works is the fruit of being reborn. What protestants don't like is when we are told we must produce fruit before salvation Or worse yet that we have to suffer in purgatory. Let's say hypothetically a drug dealer repents and cries out have mercy on me for I have sinned I'm sorry lord please show me u are true. And he's born again. And he truly regrets his wrongs... Let's say he leaves the area he did that in walks around the corner and gets shot dead by a hit put out by a rival dealer. Is this man going to heaven hell or first to purgatory The catholics teach purgatory becuase he didn't have the apropriate works to justify him. But if this was true why did christ save the man on the cross. When he could have said you will see me but first u must burn for a time to clense yourself... This is why i.p. inspiring philosophy thinks and I agree that the works faith debate needs to stop. Becuase ultimately we are saying the same thing here. But in different terminology And ultimately the views of purgatory are the issue if that doctrine wouldn't have shown up. I doubt very much the reformation would have been as bad. So yes sola fide is taught by christ in the same way the trinity is taught.
@D12Min
2 күн бұрын
People always miss the elephant in the room. The Jewish leadership in the days of Jesus had legitimate "succession" authority based on Scripture, yet their rejection of Christ´s teaching made them lose all authority. The Catholic or Orthodox cannot claim such a scriptural authority - yet even if it could, the departure from the gospel would still absolutely disqualify their leadership. Even Paul himself would have been disqualified for departing from the Gospel according to Galatians 1:8. In general, basing new covenant authority on position and not on right doctrine and life is laughable at its face and misses the whole point of the new covenant.
@Highproclass
3 күн бұрын
If it developed what’s wrong that? Lord Knows we have a ton of developments and keep reforming is continued development
@nathanmagnuson2589
3 күн бұрын
it isnt a dvelopment
@Highproclass
3 күн бұрын
@@nathanmagnuson2589 agreed 👍
@Highproclass
3 күн бұрын
@@nathanmagnuson2589 traceable in my humble opinion
@AlexDestroyerOfEarth
3 күн бұрын
Nothing is wrong with development per se, as long as it is edification of Scripture and not antiscriptural. The problem arises when councils use words like "as it has been since the time of the apostles... Let them be anathema" about developments that assuredly were not from the time of the apostles.
@SaltShack
3 күн бұрын
Accretions are Biblical. How accretions occur is the important point. Are they result of the Holy Spirits Authority and rooted in truth and the Biblical Principles of Enduring Consensus or are they the designs of an individual. Dr. Ortlund’s major failure is his reliance on 21st. Century Scholarship as being more valuable than the Church itself. Guessing what Irenaeus and Ignatius meant when they wrote in the second century while overlooking what they participated in is nonsensical. The Church is not some Ancient thing that can only be understood from an academic archeological exercises that attempts to understand what it was or is from its ruins. Though it maybe old even antique it is not ancient! It is the living breathing Body of Christ that is continuous and uninterrupted from Pentecost. To think you can know the sum of the intentions and meaning of the Church Fathers is as fatal as you believing you can discern truth from error by reading your Bible alone without the guidance of Christ’s Church as every heresy ever uttered has been accompanied by Bible quotes.
@jncon8013
3 күн бұрын
Is truth determined by consensus?
@SaltShack
3 күн бұрын
@@jncon8013 No, Truth is determined by the Holy Spirit. We recognize the Truth by the Biblical Principles Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit.
@jncon8013
3 күн бұрын
@@SaltShack so why the mention of consensus?
@SaltShack
2 күн бұрын
@@jncon8013 “Enduring Consensus” the resounding voices of the many that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou refers to is how we may determine/recognize or have confidence that the Church remains inspired by the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles and Disciples were guided by the same principles. Peter didn’t dictate that Judas should be replaced they all decided to replace him after discussing the matter then cast lots to determine who would be the replacement. Likewise the Jerusalem council settled the first controversy of the Church by council the result of which Scripture defines as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. No one is free from error and ordination even sainthood isn’t an inoculation against being wrong. St. John Chrysostom’s views and ideas changed of the course of his life. It’s the totality of his ministry affirmed by the common voice of the Church that provide the guidance only afforded by the One, Holy, Catholic (not Roman) and Apostolic Church not because it is perfect but because it remains loyal to a Scripture and Scriptures command to be of one Mind and Judgment and to refrain from Schism.
@jncon8013
2 күн бұрын
@@SaltShack I agree there is one, holy, catholic (not Roman), and apostolic church. The church is comprised entirely of humans, and no humans are infallible, thus no human institution is infallible.
@fantasia55
3 күн бұрын
Apostolic Succession was one of the first things the Apostles did - choose a replacement for Judas.
@whomptalosis22
3 күн бұрын
And what was the criteria? Acts 1:21
@gardengirlmary
4 күн бұрын
I watched this video on Church History kzitem.info/news/bejne/0KR-r6R3q392gYosi=3cRMmY84i1GDHeG3 (i havent done a lot of reading on 2nd century church yet) Anyone have any thoughts on accuracy or suggestions on reading? (I have the list of Gavins top 5 books Augustine, Origen, Athunasius etc)
@harley6659
4 күн бұрын
Matthias succeeded Judas.
@jncon8013
4 күн бұрын
Indeed, Matthias did succeed Judas on the basis of him having accompanied Jesus and the apostles during Jesus’ ministry and on the basis of him being a witness to the resurrection, criteria no one has met since the time of Jesus. “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts 1:21-22
@harley6659
4 күн бұрын
@@jncon8013 that’s the criteria to be considered an apostle. The bishops that succeeded are not considered apostles.
@jncon8013
3 күн бұрын
@@harley6659 Right, that’s the criteria to be an apostle. And nobody meets that criteria. No apostles, no apostolic abilities.
@harley6659
3 күн бұрын
@@jncon8013 that’s not what apostolic succession is.
@jncon8013
3 күн бұрын
@@harley6659 okay, offer your definition of it if you like
@kang7348
3 күн бұрын
Hilariously bad take on the subject matter. Almost as bad as his sacraments video. This is fuel to the Catholic and orthodox side because most of Gavin’s points here are easily refutable.
@faithfulandfoolish
4 күн бұрын
For those who would like a more Orthodox or ancient view on this topic, one that is not simply dismissed by the convenient term "accretion" or the standard protestant conflation of terms or weak dismissals based on faulty presumptions and paradigms, you can't really do much better than this wonderful presentation by Perry Robinson. kzitem.info/news/bejne/w6ltnZV-bZ6SmmU
@frjamesbozeman5375
3 күн бұрын
A good video demonstration for the need for Apostolic Succession.
@RoyCarter
4 күн бұрын
If Catholicism isn't true, than anything can be; which means nothing is.
@NP-vk8de
4 күн бұрын
True to an extent, but some dogmas need historical revision, which the RCC cannot or will not accept?
@stephengray1344
3 күн бұрын
None of the points in your comment follow from each other. The fact is that "anything is true" is incompatible with both "Catholicism is not true" (since Catholicism is one example of "anything") and with "nothing is true" (which means that nothing can be true).
@SeanusAurelius
3 күн бұрын
If Catholicism isn't true, then the truths taught in scripture still stand.
@thadofalltrades
3 күн бұрын
@@SeanusAurelius exactly
@RoyCarter
3 күн бұрын
@@stephengray1344 You read it wrong, the foundation of most christian beliefs are from catholicism, including the scriptures. Catholicism has to be false for all the protestant branches to be true. Interestingly, few protestant branches claim to be singularly true, it's "you believe this, and we believe that". If it's pick and choose, there is no singular truth. If catholics are wrong, every one is. Or, of course, everyone is somehow right, which is the current state of the world, unless they don't mirror your personal beliefs. Or there is one mother church which is being denied because it calls for actual submission. "Your will not mine" is too hard a pill for most to swallow, but it was the ultimate example. Think of wide and narrow roads; then go look for some in the protestant world.
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty
4 күн бұрын
Protestants do have apostolic succession. Think of all the Roman Catholics who became Lutheran or Reformed during the reformation. The office continues with them, regardless of what Rome says.
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
they were excommunicated and they didn't have the proper intention when they celebrated the ordination rite, so no.
@NATAR160
4 күн бұрын
@@Qwerty-jy9mjBut the apostate church using church as a covering to play politics do? Who's making those rules?
@Qwerty-jy9mj
4 күн бұрын
@@NATAR160 The German princes?
@warmachine8006
4 күн бұрын
They really don't though. A lot of protestant churches today actually arise from someone, unaffiliated with any church body, deciding to become a pastor and start their own church, so no succession there. Then even most of the mainline churches deny a traditional priesthood with efficacious baptism and a Eucharistic sacrifice, so there really is no succession in protestantism
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty
3 күн бұрын
@@warmachine8006 Commonly in nondenominational/pentecostal circles, but certainly not so in more traditional congregations like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, and Anglicans. The Anglicans are perhaps the greatest stand out - they still have a bishopric to this day.
Пікірлер: 613