Fantastic! For my Catholic brothers and sisters who might be skeptical I encourage you to relax and wait and see. Ortlund's book is no where near as controversial as you might first think. No Catholic bashing, no reading of Calvin or Luther into Church Fathers. Instead it's a great starting point for Protestants to start learning about the Church Fathers all the way up to the Medieval Period. Sure there are going to be fundamental disagreements. He's a Protestant, many of you are Catholics but that is EXACTLY part of this channels mission. To encourage conversation across the divide and develop a better understanding all round. Looking forward to this and the discussion it will bring!

Protestant here wrestling with the catholic church for ten years. Keep up the work Austin. May we answer His prayer of unity!

Anglican here. Appreciate this conversation. I grew up Pentecostal, but Im happily ensconced in the Anglican (ACNA) church, and my husband is a priest. All of the reform, but with all of the liturgy. Perfect place to be!

You are officially two of my favourite Christians. I'm at a loss as to who would give this a dislike, but it takes all kinds to make a world I guess.

I really appreciate his comments on mary , as a catholic i find it refreshing to hear a protestant speak so highly of mary. Very good conversation

I am still a protestant but learning more about the Catholic Church sent me sailing across the Tiber. I am actually looking for reasons why I shouldn’t be a Catholic, I’m trying to row against the current so to speak. So I’m really looking forward to this interview. However, watching his video addressed to Cameron gave us a clue on what he would say. It’s likely to be on the vein of “stay a protestant so you can pick and choose for yourself what you think is the teaching of the Bible and the Church Fathers”. The best allure of Protestantism is doctrinal relativism. If he can provide proof that Christ designed His church to be doctrinal relativists, I’m all ears. Can’t wait!

Really enjoyed this episode! Thanks man! Huge fan of the Ortlund family and all their works.

Thank you for introducing us to Dr. Ortlund and his youtube channel. I'm an evangelical trying to get into reading the church fathers, in my spare time. I have a better understanding of how to approach "theological retrieval" from this.

Keep going Dr Ortlund. As I listen to you, I am understanding better where you stand. I like the candid approach. Whether you stay where you are in terms of religious affiliation or you convert, your thoughts and insights are so important to the unity of the Church. It is a bridge, and yours is a voice for all on all sides to read and study the Bible and the past to be more aware of our Lord's command to be One.

God bless you, Austin. Been enjoying your journey. Very logical series of guests. You’re digging deep, brother!

So many thanks for the huge depth, honesty, love and humility of your conversation. Which doesn't reduce it's intellectual sharpness at the same time. Hundrets of TV stations could learn sooo much from you, me included!!! As to the content: Holy Scriptures, Historical Sources, treasures of experience, own reasoning.... all that is essential. AND I found one more incredible source of truth and faith, which wasn' t mentioned by you yet: The reports of near death experiences (NDEs) What a new treasure of proof

Such a needed discussion and word of encouragement for those struggling with the “existential angst” often attached to the pursuit of understanding biblical Christianity.

🙌 Wow, this touched me deeply. Dr Ortlund, what a humble man! As a Baptist, journeying towards the Catholic Church, this was a bump in the road... and I think I appreciate that... but it's very inconvenient.🤯 I'm truly thankful to my Baptist family and church, where I "got" my faith, salvation and baptism... But I have to be honest, I've never met a Baptist pastor quite like dr. Ortlund, who is academically intellectual, humble towards the Mother Churches and has a high view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist... That's a paradigm shift to me and my experience. I probably question his view on the Magisterium though... This is a new concept, but it seems to me that God installed a "magisterium" already in Deut 17:8-9, for interpreting tricky questions. Jesus then carries this authority and gives it to the Apostles - with the keys to bind and loose (interpreting God's law, not just forgiving). The Apostles later share this authority with the first elders/deacons (Act 6), and solves issues together with the elders at the first Counsil (Act 15), in a Magisterial role... And through Church history that Office is continued. (?) Anyway, an other great episode Austin!

Love the Ortlund's! Gavin is awesome. His father Ray has preached some of the best sermons I have ever heard, and he is a man of character like no other. It's so cool how all his children are amazing men and women of God as well!

I just finished watching this on Patreon and fully enjoyed his perspective, even as a Catholic. I second Dr. Ortlund’s advice at the end. Great job, Austin, once again! You asked hard-hitting questions in such a charitable way and kept the interview flowing. Dr Ortlund has a CS Lewis tone in his speech and perspective that I really appreciated. I’m excited that a Protestant is encouraging his fellow Protestants to dive into Church history and better understand where they come from. Great job to both!

Bravo! Speaking from a Roman Catholic point of view I LOVED this interview! I completely respect his “intellectual honesty. Thanks for this, Austin!

I love this interview and am looking forward to reading Gavin's book. I am studying church history and need a little guidance! Thanks for sharing this Austin.

I enjoyed this! Growing up in a faithful protestant school with an amazing religion teacher, I’ve adopted more of a protestant approach to theology rather than the catholic approach. I’ve had a lot of unlearning myself as I dive deeper into my faith all by myself with the help of many books and youtubers, one of them would be this channel. Glad to see people being intellectually critical and not use strawman arguments!

As a protestant who's feeling the pull to Orthodoxy very strongly, thank you for this interview Austin

Very excited for this.

I enjoyed this so much.

Much looking forward to this. I'm very close to Crossing the Bosphorus -largely down to Church history and the emptiness within so much of Protestantism today.

I converted from non-denominational protestantism 5 years ago to Catholicism. I got to say that I really appreciated this conversation. The lack of historical roots is what mainly caused my conversion. This helped make me realize I was probably just comparing the best of Catholicism to the worst of protestantism. I'm still no where near even considering reverting back to my former ways, but I at least am gaining more respect for my fellow brothers in Christ.

This will be very interesting. I'd like to hear from more Protestant theologians and historians ☺️

Not to sound like a negative Nancy, but I'm going to list out some challenges I'd have for the good pastor: @11 minutes: The common claim is that in Protestantism, every person is his own Pope. He rebuts that by saying it isn't true if you're part of a tradition which has rigorous theological standards. Alrighty, but if a Protestant person finds a teaching within his tradition which he cannot countenance, isn't he free to find a tradition which doesn't have that problem? That is to say, you might subscribe to a certain authoritative view of Christianity... but you chose which authority to submit yourself to and can choose a different one at any time you like. So in what way does this avoid the caricature of each person as his own Pope? @14 minutes: Here he lays out the core reason why it is often said that "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant". He notes that he wants to be able to look at the historical record and "sift through and determine what you think is true and false". He begins by applying that to the Marian teachings, but I'd want to know why I cannot apply that to other teachings as well. What principled reason is there for saying I possess the liberty to dissent from some doctrines and not others? What stops me from employing that principle with the Council of Nicaea? Is there a principled reason why Nicaean fathers' understanding of the Trinity is binding on all Christians forever, but not their understanding of Baptism? To be a Protestant who is familiar with history forces one to adopt a very selective understanding of the Holy Spirit's guidance over the Church, and one which inevitably boils down to: "That which I agree with was spirit-led. That which I disagree with was an accretion." @17 minutes: You are correct. The belief is that the Pope couldn't do that. The comparison I make is asking, "What would you do if an Atheist showed you a genuine contradiction in the Bible?" The proper answer from any Christian who confesses Biblical inspiration is: "That won't occur." @31 minutes: The conclusion he reaches about the Canon is that its possible for us to imagine the Church recognizing the canon without having the same authority as the canon. OK, but considering that the Bible was discerned and put together by a bunch of fallible humans, what level of authority does the tradition of the canon arise to? Is it something a person has the freedom to question? He spoke earlier on about how the Protestant tradition allows one more leeway to engage history critically and discern which doctrines to adopt. Can I do the same with the doctrine which states that the letter of Jude is the inspired word of God? Or can I licitly dissent from that? @39 minutes: He notes the example of baptism. I'm not familiar with the distinction he drew about he drew between covenantal vs non-covenantal infant baptism, but whatever that distinction is, it doesn't erase the fact that 100% of the early Church believed the baptism regenerated and should be done to babies. One cannot excuse himself from the tension of dissenting from that unanimous witness of history by saying they weren't in perfect agreement about how this thing they all agreed upon worked. That is a way of ignoring the problem, not solving the problem. @49 minutes: This is something which is often said of converts to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: "They are primarily motivated by smells and bells". I've listed to every episode of The Journey Home on EWTN and talked to a handful of converts in person. I can't think of anyone who said this was their primary motivation. And that this is so often said to be the motivation is a bit demeaning. The people who I've listened to converted because they 1) saw intractable problems with Sola Scriptura leading to division 2) read the early Church and saw how different it was in belief and practice and 3) saw the answer to both issues in converting to a historic apostolic church.

Another excellent interview Austin. I think it is important to remember how much Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree on regarding the faith. We spend most of our time highlighting the disagreements while overlooking the many points of agreement. For example, all three of these traditions would accept as truth the statements of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The disagreements would arise as you delve into the details of what some of those statements mean, particularly how they define "the holy catholic church" and "the communion of saints." However, even there all three would affirm that even these statements are true in some way.

Very interesting! I was first introduced to Christian history through RC Sproul, who in many ways (and despite his brilliance) despised the Catholic Church, back when I was an Evangelical. It is from him that I gained, particularly, an appreciation of Athanasius. I thought it was very interesting that Ortlund here expresses a belief in Mary as the Mother of God, but denies her Perpetual Virginity, since that is something affirmed not only by Luther (which we would almost expect) but also by Calvin and even Wesley, roughly 200 years after the initial Protestant revolt. Anyway, love these videos Austin. Keep them coming! God bless you brother!

Protestant response: The nineteenth century witnessed the conversions of two prominent Anglican clergymen to Roman Catholicism. Both men would ultimately become cardinals in the Roman Church, and both men would profoundly influence Roman Catholic theology. The first was John Henry Newman (1801-1890). The second was Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892). Newman is probably most well known for his involvement in the high church Oxford Movement and for his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). Manning is best known for his advocacy of social justice and for his strong support of the doctrine of papal infallibility following his conversion to Rome. He played a key role in the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). What I find most interesting about these two men is their approach to history and what it tells us about the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Newman famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” He believed that if one compared the teaching and practice of both Protestantism and Rome to the teaching and practice of the early church, one would be forced to conclude that Rome was the true heir of the early church. Of course, he had to posit a rather complex theory of doctrinal development in order to make such an idea plausible to himself and others not already inclined to agree. But be that as it may, Newman believed that the study of history supported the claims of Rome. Cardinal Manning, on the other hand, claimed that for a Roman Catholic, “the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy” and that “the only divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour” (The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost). In other words, to examine church history in order to find support for the claims of Rome is to demonstrate a lack of faith in the Church of Rome. It is to place human reason over and above faith. If you want to know what the early church taught, all you have to do is look at what the Roman Catholic Church teaches today. The Roman Catholic theologian Walter Burghardt expresses the same view in connection with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which was defined as dogma in 1950: “A valid argument for a dogmatic tradition, for the Church’s teaching in the past can be constructed from her teaching in the present. And that is actually the approach theology took to the definability of the assumption before 1st November 1950. It began with a fact: the current consensus, in the Church teaching and in the Church taught, that the Corporeal Assumption was revealed by God. If that is true, if that is the teaching of the magisterium of the moment, if that is the Church’s tradition, then it was always part and parcel of the Church’s teaching, part and parcel of tradition.” Manning and Burghardt are simply being consistent with belief in the infallibility of Rome and of the pope. If the church is infallible, appeals to history, tradition, and Scripture are superfluous. What the church teaches now must be what the church has always taught, regardless of what the actual evidence from Scripture and/or tradition might say. Rome truly has no other choice if she wishes to maintain her current beliefs and practices. If she were to appeal to something like the Vincentian Canon (namely, that the true faith, the true interpretation of Scripture, is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all), the pope would have to give up all claims to supremacy over the entire church, and the bulk of Roman peculiarities and practice would have to be jettisoned. Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries. Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16). Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic. - comments from the Rev’d Dr. Keith Mathison (Presbyterian

I really appreciate how you say i really appreciate 1000 times every video

Hi Austin. Congratulations on your engagement. You two are about to start a wonderful adventure! Thank you for having Dr. Ortland on your show. I was very impressed with both of you for looking past the Catholic caricatures and seeing the complexity around the RCC. I hope RC's take the same approach. Being raised RC, leaving for the Lutheran Church and returning to RC I know a lot of Protestants who love God, have an active prayer life and are turned off by the elitism of RC's. If we are Christ's church on earth we are to reflect our Lord who humbled himself more than anyone of us could ever do. When I pray about this I always get directed to this bible verse in Mark 9:38-40. Austin and Dr. Ortland are definitely not against us! I feel the Holy Spirit challenging me to honor and respect people's free will as much as God. He wants us to have debate and allow each other through prayer to come to our own conclusions AND still love the person. Trust that the Holy Spirit isn't finished with any of us and look into our own hearts for areas to grow in love for one another! I believe there is nowhere else on this earth that you can commune body and soul with our Lord Jesus Christ and through Him the Trinity. It has changed my life. That's what I want for everyone. That's why I'm RC and would love more people to experience this (in the RCC too!)

Austin, thank you for hosting and posting this. This is my first time visiting your channel. I look forward to learning more. Gavin, thank you for your encouragement that Protestants take a higher view of Communion. You have certainly made good on that emphasis in your work since this early podcast aired. As a Baptist raised with a memorial view, I am getting there. John of Damascus has been a great help. In the quote below he demonstrates the diversity of thought you mentioned and lands somewhere between strict memorialism and strict transubstantiation as currently (overly?) defined by Rome. "The bread and wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself...Let us draw near to it with ardent desire...and partake of the divine coal, so that the fire of longing within us, along with the additional heat from the coal, may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal (Is.6:6). Now coal is not plain wood, but wood united with fire. Likewise the bread of communion is not plain bread, but bread (sounds like it's still bread?) united with divinity." (On the Orthodox Faith 4.13) As to the when or how the change takes place, John exhorts us that this is connected to the Spirit similar to the Incarnation and that the manner cannot be further searched out. My thought is that if two or three gather in Jesus' name and He is there with them, then I think He is certainly aware and able to make Himself present in a special way through the elements whenever they are shared without us understanding or otherwise directing the mechanisms. Cheers!

You guys are great! I very much appreciate your conversation on this topic. I’ve had friends convert to Catholicism from Protestantism and although they didn’t mention Newman’s phrase, it was clear that that was a significant motivator for them, and I certainly came across it numerous times as I had the sometimes challenging (and ultimately very fruitful) conversations with them about their conversion. They’ve opened up a whole new Roman Catholic world for this protestant and I’m grateful for that. I also was never convinced that the best of Protestantism, as Gavin points out, was not also deeply in history. Next time you talk with Gavin, could you please speak to Western Christianity’s overemphasis (in my opinion at least) on certainty? If certainty was what I was after then Roman Catholicism, at least the form which the popular apologist present, offers a better argument for satisfying my desire for certainty and I’d probably become Roman Catholic too. However, what the historical Christian tradition promises is not certainty but trust within relationship in Christ. On that note, I have to say that I disagree with where Gavin ended the conversation when he said that the search for ‘truth’ is more important than the ‘smells and bells’. Historic Christianity invites us into relationship ‘in’ Being itself, not with ‘a’ being called God. Therefore, I think the smells and bells are the best ways to encounter reality because we encounter reality sacramentally most profoundly, and then rationally, if we can find the thoughts or words. Certainly propositional knowledge matters a great deal! But I think we moderns overemphasize it. I’d love to hear you bring this up with Jonathan Pageau whenever (hopefully) you can have him on the channel.

I'm really glad I listened to the conversation, it was very respectful and charitable. More reflective than anything. For me, it doesn't solve the dilemma of theological/moral relativism and the unresolvable problem of unity among Christians that are non-Catholic. What's true for one is true for all. A 73 book canon Bible can't be true for one Christian, but a 66 book canon true for another. Saved by faith alone can't be true for one Christian, but not for another Christian. But this is how true ecumenism works, you discuss/study/pray and seek out what's true. It's not, 'let's just agree to disagree'. Good job guys!

So many thanks for this conversation! And especially the way, how respectfully you are leading it. One suggestion for you personally: to study not only the present and the past, but also the future. NDE-s / near death experiences / show us so beautifully, how God is ( as far as earthly words are able to describe) In His loving light, the dominational differences evaporate like water or dew of the night in the bright and warm sunlight of a summer day. Best, Martin, from Austria, EU

As someone else experiencing the “existential angst,” this brought me a lot of encouragement. The interview was conducted very well and asked important questions in a non-threatening way, and the answers were nuanced and charitable. This is really good content, and it meant a lot to me watching it this evening!

Appreciated the video! Would so love to speak with you about the Church! I could give you some of my notes from Scott Hahn’s Biblical Foundations course that would be SUPER helpful. It’s important to keep in mind that it’s the story of scripture that gives the greatest weight to the Church’s role as the final arbiter of Divine Revelation! (Also just spoke with Dr. Ortlund a few months ago about a mutual friend we have-we are hoping to grab coffee either in LA or up where he lives). Super grateful for you both. Mors per Evam, vita per Mariam! God bless

Uh oh. This title is bound to trigger some people, haha! 😂🤣 Looking forward to the discussion!

The Roman Catholic Church 1. The Church is one. 2. The Church is Visible 3. The Church is Forever 4. The Church is Truth 5. The Church is messy. 6. The Church is a Kingdom 7. The Church is teacher 8. The Church is mystery 9. The Church is hierarchal 10. The Church is Holy 11. The Church is Apostolic 12. The Church is sacramental 13. The Church is Catholic 14. The Church is dynastic 15. The Church is mother 16. The Church is real. 17. The Church is authoritative 18. The Church is the bride of Christ. 19 The Church is the mystical body of Christ. 20. The Church is unchangeable.

As a former protestant converted to orthodoxy I would like to say - Learning church history to find the only true Church is like examining the chemical composition of a painting to understand it's beauty. Catholics and Protestants have similar mentality, similar phronema, so they can understand each other, more or less. But there's no way for a westerner to understand Orthodoxy outside of Orthodox Church.

liked the discussion interesting points

I think it is a great contribution. Even if true comprehension is necessarily on one side (because True can only be one), he appoints very interesting arguments, different from what I have heard in the past. I have always thought that the main difference between protestantism and catholicism comes from the Communion of Saints. Even if for us catholics Mary is very important, those four dogmas just follow that humans are called to sainthood today; that the bound of communion is not broken with death. Ultimately, God has wanted to divinize men and share with us His Glory. For us, that promise is fulfilled today, for protestantism we will need to the end of the times. Then, it is not shocking that those dogmas exist. On the other hand, an interesting question would be what the place of the Holly Spirit is in all of this: the Holy Spirit is also the one who "remind us of what Jesus has shared with us". If those dogmas exist, is to show how infinitely generous God is. By Mary being chosen, kept away from sinning, taken to heaven and crowned queen, it's the whole humanity that has being honored. And finally, we would need to ask if God would have let fall in error the whole christianity for those many centuries. Sorry for this long comment!

As a catholic I really really liked this video 😇

Wonderful video. Dr. Ortlund was sincere and humble, as I could see. It just let me with some questions to wrap my head around. one will be, how can he explain when he said “the catholics have history and evangelicals have the bible” It hard form me to understand when catholic most of there teaching have biblical text to it. The last one was when he referred to evangelicals converting to catholicism or orthodox because a bad church experience in a evangelical church, with this I think we see it across the board. Thank you Austin for this video it was fabulous i may be looking to get dr. Ortlund book 👍🙌

Once again, you’ve provided a good interview with a person who presents a case calmly and without attacking anyone. As a “cradle catholic”, I agree with him 100% that a person should not convert to the Catholic faith just because of ornate churches, beautiful liturgies and such. The “bells and the smells” are “fringe benefits” of being Catholic, but is not why one should convert. As for the Immaculate Conception, one question that has been debated is how could the Son of God be born of a sinful person? This is one reason we believe that it was God’s intention all along that she be the mother of the Messiah, and preserved her from all sin. After all, “…for nothing will be impossible with God.” On the perpetual virginity of Mary, tradition has it that she was born of elderly parents. So, if this is the case could they have wanted a stable future for her after they died? The Gospel of Luke says she was a virgin *betrothed* (promised?) to a man named Joseph. In those days, marriages were often arranged between families. Could it be Joseph was an older man who was a widower? And in those days, they didn’t have Viagra, so perpetual virginity is possible. And once again as in the Gospel of Luke “…for nothing will be impossible with God.”

As said in a previous comment I'm a Protestant leaning heavily towards Eastern Orthodoxy. This has been on the grounds of its Trinitarian Theology (Monarchia of the Father), Essence/Energies distinction, and of course Church History. This was an interesting video. I've only watched it once but here are some of my thought points. 1) Dr Ortlund mentions that the Reformers do look to the Church Fathers (mentioning Anselm and Augustine). But which other ones and why? What's the yardstick for choosing the Church Father? 2) He makes an interesting point about the Bible and Church using the analogy of a student and their parent's letter. But it doesn't really advance any new defence of Sola Scriptura. I've got others but these are sufficient for now.

I’m Catholic and have no intentions of leaving my faith but I did enjoy this interview. I’ll be honest I get distracted easily so I definitely missed parts but it seems to me that there was not much criticism of other denominations for not believing what he does which is great because honestly I often see Protestants bashing Catholics in the KZfaq comments sections I agree of course that discussions need to be had about our differences and why we believe that we’re following the truth, but we also need to focus on what we have in common and praise God for it.

Great conversation. Awesome guest and interview! Regarding the bodily assumption of Mary, if she were not bodily assumed into heaven, her remains would have greatly venerated by the Church. The burial sites of the apostles and early martyrs were usually well known or documented. How much more would the body of the mother of Jesus have been deemed important. If the Catholic Church is wrong about the dogma of the assumption, one could argue that the life and lordship of Jesus is cast into doubt. An atheist would of course say that bodily assumption is pure nonsense. An atheist would also say that given that assumption into heaven is impossible, Mary, if she existed at all, died an anonymous death like millions of other ancient people and of course nobody knows or cared where she was buried. But if Jesus is who he said he was, his mother’s death and burial would have been well documented by the early Church. Or Mary was and was always known to have been assumed into heaven by the Church. If the Church is wrong about this, I agree that you can disregard her authority on anything.

Thanks Austin, great interview. I like that he has educated himself about Marian doctrine and I think it is unfortunate that Mary doesn’t get more love and devotion to Mary. I wish they weren’t so afraid. love forthe mother of God will only enhance their scripture tradition.

Orthodox take a different approach to dogma compared to the Catholics. Specifically, there is much less of it. We see the function of dogma as demarking the boundary of the faith against heresy. It doesn't need to specify an opinion on every topic! For example, the Assumption of Mary is an allowed Orthodox *opinion*, but not a required *dogma*. Lacking a Pope, the difficulty of reaching consensus on new dogmas has left the faith relatively simple. I find it refreshing that the official stance of Orthodoxy on many issues is "we don't know". But as an Orthodox, I'm not free to follow my conscience on matters of doctrine because I'm part of the body of Christ. If I have strong conviction that I am right and the church is wrong, then it is my responsibility to bring that to the church in humility and good faith. I suppose we share a collective conscience, rather than individual ones. We practice our faith together and we search for truth together. We do not practice our faith alone, following our own opinions. The context of the church, in the life of the Holy Spirit, is the best context to seek truth. It is not easy to live this way and it is very contrary to the spirit of the age. But I believe it is the way for Christians to live and to struggle towards God - together. I've heard it said, "To go fast, go alone. To go far, go with a friend." Within the fence of Orthodox dogma I find a lot of freedom to seek truth, but not infinite freedom. It is important that I am not deceived by what I want to be true. It's a great discipline to be connected to so many other Christians, in the past and the present. For example, it is a joy to share a communion with Athanasius, who was an Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria. The church is united in the body and blood of Christ, from the distant past and unto ages of ages. And we are all responsible for helping our brothers to salvation

He’s a good man

Austin, you have the coolest job in the world.

The hardest thing about being interested in church history and using the insights of the church fathers is being totally alone. It's hard enough to find someone who has enough biblical knowledge to discuss biblical doctrines like real presence and baptismal regeneration. When you add historical sources most pastors have crickets rattling around in their head when you mention these things.

I've been really struggling with some of those questions since a lot of people I know have converted. I just can't be convinced by catholicism when I read the scriptures. Dr. Ortlund has been really helpful lately for me.

27:23 was interesting, relating to councils and authority. 41:00 - There are Protestants who hold a high view of the Lord’s Supper 41:33 - Ortlund said that he’s more like Calvin on the Lord’s Supper

I love what he said about Humans being "Traditioned" creatures since we are all inherently influenced by the past

Great discussion! Of course there are some doctrines (Eg: the assumption ) which are accepted basically on Church authority - thus if one decides that Christ did not establish a visible Church with binding teaching Authority - then this is a major stumbling block towards moving towards Catholicism or Orthodoxy. But it should be said - that the doctrine of the ASSUMPTION isn’t OPPOSED to Scripture and perhaps implicitly supported by it. I mean we know that after the resurrection- many witnesses saw people / saints who bodily rose from the dead. Presumably those folks are in heaven both body and soul - so Mary being in heaven - Body and Soul- doesn’t go “Against” scripture. I find it telling that every Church that has apostolic pedigree (by this I mean those Churches that have an organic connection with Christ through the laying on of the hands - such as the Coptics, Orthodox, eastern orientals, and Catholics) - all believe that that Mary is in heaven both body and Soul. Karl Keating s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism@ - gives a reasonable explanation why some of the Marian doctrines - were not as developed early on. For me - I left Protestantism essentially secondary to the Church s early belief which was universally believed by all Christians - in the Eucharist as being the Corporeal presence of Christ - and the issue of Authority - in other words did Christ establish a visible church with binding teaching authority (which in my view seems apparent in scripture - when viewed simply as an historical record). I think the point Austin made about “what if a future pope does this or that” - I understand how that can be a problem. I think - Robert Bellarmine s explanation on how a Pope can lose his papal office is Germaine here but too exhaustive to discuss here. I am always aware however that many of the Fathers thought the anti- Christ would either be a Pope or supported by a future pope - so in that sense we need to know what was “the faith once delivered “ - as we are obligated to hold fast to it.

Hey, Austin. Love the discussions! Keep 'em coming! Regarding the analogy of the child with the note. First, I think we should lean on more than analogy to determine where we end up intellectually (though that may not be what's happening here). With respect to the content of the analogy, I find it lacking. First, the premise assumes a lower intellect of the Church by making it a child. Of course, lower than the mother but why not an adult child? The protestants are assumed to be adults in this example (the school official). Second, how does the child have the ability to reassemble the note without knowing how to read? Just by shapes? Ok, sure. Did the mother tell the child what the note was? Likely. If not, who has authority to determine its meaning? The school official (assumed to be Protestant) which goes back to my first point of the premise. We could go on and on but the analogy doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I would ask the original question, how can the Church be given the authority to determine what scripture is but not have the authority to interpret? Who do we trust? What I see (and I may be wrong) is protestants going to some combination of own conscience guided by the Holy Spirit and the smartest most holy man or woman preaching those like beliefs or otherwise teaching with interpretive authority themselves. But if we find the same criteria for determining truth in two conflicting theologies, who is right? Is my premise off?

Bro. Ortland makes an interesting point that some of the early church fathers were siding more with the Protestant theologians than with todays Catholic theologians. It’s also interesting to study how each church father defined the nature of God. Athanasius was the first to affirm the Divinity of Jesus, The Father and the Holy Ghost, while the others somehow felt that the Father was above the Son in Glory and the Holy Ghost would eventually get an honorary mention in the Nicene creed in 380 AD for proceeding from the Father and the Son

Why would you want to stay separated from the Eucharist?

I would love to see a debate with him and Trent horn.

Curious about how Dr. Gavin Ortlund's Baptist church preaches history and teaches/ serves the Lord's supper. My only experience of the communion in Baptist churches did not ever teach the presence of Christ in the communion. Interesting that he verifies the historical view of Christ's presence in it.

He said it’s not true that Protestants aren’t their own pope if you belong to a church that has its own doctrinal standards. That’s not true because all you have to do is decide you disagree with those authorities and their doctrinal standards. And then go and start your own church community with its own unique doctrinal standards and become a pope of your own community.

St. Peter said: We are not open to having private interpretation of sacred scripture? This is the main problem of Protestantism. It’s a matter of total obedience to Jesus Christ’s Holy Catholic Church. Everyone wants to be a Theologian. We are suppose to be taught by the Magisterium of the Church. The pillar and bulwark of the Truth. God Bless!

I am struggling with the Eucharist, it's been really hard to be on the Protestant side, please can someone help me? Some video, book or something, may God bless you!

I agree that in the hypothetical situation where the pope pronounced an incorrect statement of dogma there would be a problem. I think we would have to recognize our error on papal infallibility which is also supposed to protect the church against the gates of hell. It would mean that the whole structure collapses. I don't think most catholics have the time or ability to sift through all the church fathers and biblical texts to find the necessary evidence for or against a particular dogma. We just have to let the theologians do it for us and hope/believe that they are right.

My question to Dr. Orlund is that Is it not like Apple trying to fit on an orange tree by trying to fit protestantism in the history of church fathers or is it not like entering into history from the window or back door??

Soon, he will be soon, the logos the Word makes it unevitable when ur heart and mind are open

the church father for Protestants is luther end of story. Church “history for Protestants starts in the 15 century. There are some people that are convinced that abortion is totally acceptable they are bound by their “conscience to agree with abortion. But what if the person puts their pride aside and accept that the church from her history might know more than us . We can put our trust in Jesus Christ and the church he gave us. Our friend above has a lot to lose by becoming catholic, I’m sure that plays into why many pastors don’t convert

If the Roman church did obey the book of Romans and the Messaiah of the bible ,there would not be a protest. true faith is before the church, Jesus's faithfulness is beyond time. God is deeper than all human history.

As Catholics, Church history is below the Bible, but not below Sacred Tradition. All Sacred Tradition is part of Church history, but all history (as far as I have learned) is not Sacred Tradition. What I would disagree with is picking and choosing or bending history to your own interpretation of the Bible. This was an excellent guest, God bless! I am very grateful for this video because many of my protestant friends will not read Church history. I would be curious what he believes about what the Bible-based Church did in the second and third centuries before there was a canon of scripture. Thanks for another fabulous video!

I appreciate these videos because they challenge my path into the Orthodox Church. But ultimately they confirm that my decision is correct.

To suggest that our conscious is above the teachings of the Church that Jesus founded, smells of pride.

Excellent conversation with a fascinating guest. Dr. Ortlund's hypothetical scenario in which a Catholic Christian finds a Papal teaching disagreeable (who could imagine!), reveals his underlying method of interpretation. He seems to think that Catholics are those who find the teachings of the Catholic Church agreeable. Protestants however, are those who don’t. While this is sometimes true, it isn’t the method that faithful Catholics use when interpreting the teachings of the Church. Dr. Ortland, it seems, reads history using the interpretation method of personal agreeableness. In his study of the first Christian millennium, he is comforted that there is so much with which he can heartily agree. This approach reminds me of a dramatic portion of John Henry Newman’s, Apologia, who writes of his recollection of his studies of Church history while vicar at University Church of St. Mary the Virgin (SMV) at Oxford. He writes about when his method of interpretation changed in an instant. He says in part V of the Apologia Pro Vita Sua, “My stronghold was Antiquity; now here, in the middle of the fifth century, I found, as it seemed to me, Christendom of the 16th and the 19th centuries reflected. I saw my face in that mirror, and I was a Monophysite. The Church of the Via Media was in the position of the Oriental communion, Rome was where she now is; and the Protestants were the Eutychians.” He continues, “It was difficult to make out how the Eutychians or Monophysites were heretics, unless Protestants and Anglicans were heretics also; difficult to find arguments against the Tridentine Fathers, which did not tell against the Fathers of Chalcedon; difficult to condemn the Popes of the 16th century, without condemning the Popes of the 5th. The drama of religion, and the combat of truth and error, were ever one and the same. The principles and proceedings of the Church now, were those of the Church then; the principles and proceedings of heretics then, were those of Protestants now.”

Please visit the Mormon Church next please

To Gavins challenge: If the Pope pronounces something as infallible dogma that I happen to disagree with, then if I'm Catholic, then I am in a pickle. However, while I'm not versed enough in the ecumenical councils to understand the Pope's role in any of them, my first thought is, if I were, in my understanding and by my conscience, an Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, or Pelagian when those relative councils pronounced those erroneous teachings, does my conscience supercede the proclamation of the church or does my conscience submit to the declaration of the church? For arguments sake, supposing the Catholic teachings on the Pope are true, then wouldn't my conscience and understanding be the issue, not the pronouncement by the Pope?

Thank you gentlemen for the cordial discussion. Your charitable approach Austin, is very winsome and as such continues to attract many to your channel. Well done! I don’t understand how Gavin’s acceptance of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example, squares with his Baptist denomination,as this is not their view. Would have liked to have heard this fleshed out a bit more. I am no student of theology or history, I am one of the majority of very average folk having a basic understanding. As such, we, “some guy” or “some gal”, “getting to the bottom of this” individually, is honestly just not very tenable. My journey from evangelical protestantism to Orthodoxy in broad strokes... Shifting ground: denomination splits accelerating under duress of cultural pressures (Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican,Lutheran...) just a matter of time before mine splits! Discovery: there’s church history before 1500’s! How embarrassing not to have known this my whole life! Learned: Orthodox 101 class, historical beliefs of the church pre-reformation eg. baby baptism, Eucharist, the Saints, the church, etc, etc Standing at the crossroads: do I follow the truth where it leads? “Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always and by all." St. Vincent of Lerins ,5th century. With the little I knew of the historical church, I knew he was speaking of much more than my evangelical protestantism. Entered Orthodox Church July 2020 🥰

I recently researched as much as I could find online as to what was the true history of Christianity from the beginning. We know the Roman Catholic claims. What I found did prove the RCC claims are false. What became the NT canon was not the decision of a church/council. It was a process by ordinary believers in what became clear as being inspired and what was not. Councils only made formal what had already been decided. These councils were before the RCC existed anyway.

John Henry Newman (A former anti Catholic) said. "To be deep in history is to ceased to be protestant".

I'm asking this question from a position of ignorance after having watched the full video: Why are theological developments that take place after the 4th century problematic for a protestant? Is the "Human tradition" < scripture therefore less valid and open to cherry picking since humans can't provide any substantial insight to settle questions beyond the scripture? Do most protestants believe that theological concepts that lack definitive historical development prior to the 4th century are mostly or fully bogus? What makes the first 4 centuries superior to the next 4? Dilution of tradition over time or that any further development beyond the deposit is bad? Do protestants assume that the Church begins to be tainted after this period once it becomes a state religion? As an aside, I find Dr. Gavin to be an eloquent speaker.

I believe that from all denomination people will go to heaven if their heart and tradition along with their religion practices are done with sincere hearts to honor and love Jesus who is God encarnacion in human flesh and Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity or as some orthodox brothers and sister say: one of the essence of God. God Bless you all my brothers and sisters.

It's wasn't the smells and bells that brought me to Orthodoxy (they felt very foreign to my Church of Christ experience) I was looking for depth and meaning. Reading the early church fathers has been such a blessing. I think much of protestantism doesn't emphasize church history because it doesn't go with their prosperity doctrine.

According to Catholic teaching, Catholics are not to go against their own conscience as long as they have a well formed conscience. So the scenario that there is a dogma which we disagree with and are still bound to is not accurate. We are not supposed to casually pick and choose what we follow. Having a well formed conscience is a key component to rejecting a dogma. The church leaders are our holy teachers not dictators.

min 41 about the Eucharist or as Protestants refer to the Lord's supper. How about the Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans (ca. 107 AD)? In which he talks about the heretics that denied that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ which suffer for our sins... Check New Advent you can find the this epistle there. I am still with Cardinal St. John Henry Newman, "Deep in Church History is to cease to be Protestant". (and yes, I referred him as a saint. The Catholic Church has declared him to be in Heaven and we are not). God Bless.

I agree with so much that Gavin says. I love his channel and his irenicism. But, who was God? RC and protestants agree on the Trinity, right? So was Mary the mother of the Trinity?

Very great video ! I do not believe the orthodox hold church history to be infallible ! However it has to be of great importance ! I see where this Protestant is coming from but I do not feel consistent with for example being a part of a tradition that looks nothing like the layout Justin Martyr wrote out in the second century ! Josiah Trenhams appeal to scripture on these matters such as where Christ said “the gates of hell will not prevail against the church “ and his proclamation to the Apostles “The Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth” is something that I think discredits Protestantism , and I say that sadly coming from a Protestant background and currently not identifying as any type of Christian

I echo the words of Saint Paul, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." ~ Galatians 2:21If Mary was sinless, then Christ died for no purpose, for God could have had us all born in such a state, and preserved sinlessly, as He supposedly did with her, and Christ never would have had to suffer.

I do wish he would have mentioned more Church Fathers :) And.....the metaphor at 29:30 didn't make any sense to me (maybe I'm missing something). I mean, if that metaphor were the case, then the Biblical canon might be incorrect. Children make mistakes, we all mistakes, and if that's the best we can do for the Biblical Canon (a best guess), we couldn't place it any higher than Church Tradition. And secondly, if the principal wasn't sure about the child's "re-taping," effort, who would he contact for clarification? I think he'd contact the mother :) Maybe it's just me, but I see that as a return to the Church -- the original authority -- because Jesus left authority to a living body of Apostles, who appointed successors. But it was a very good video (I like this guy). He's too the point, and makes arguments on both sides. I like that he has a great respect for those he disagrees with, and the historical church. Concerning the Mariology dogmas, we can see the early church debating them: her perpetual virginity, her role in salvation history, her immaculate conception etc., And we also have fathers who debated the Holy Trinity, the Christological doctrines and disagreed as to what Christ's nature was.

I remember being asked by Erick Ybarra why Eastern Catholics profess St Joseph was sinless his entire life and bodily assumed to heaven. I said we in the East don't make a dogma like the West we just have it in our liturgy and that's what we do profess. This is why despite of late 8th century record on Marian assumption. In the East Dormition has been celebrated long before the West. That the witness to her assumption is written on the page of scripture itself in the Book of Apocalypse! Unlike the West the East always profess in Dormition as early as testimony of scripture. The West accept the Book of Apocalypse too late to realize Dormition as early as us in the East. To be rooted in history is to cease being Protestants. Not because Protestants are lacking historicity but because reformation shouldn't cause schism. Bring the reformation inside. Not outside. Let's follow Jesus staying in the Temple in Jerusalem and not the alternative meeting place among the Essenes community. Reform and stay inside. Come home. Let's build the Church together.

Just for simplicity, if a set of arguments gives you a different conclusion, and you failed to refute that set of arguments - then why would you not be convinced?

“MAY they be ONE, Father, as You and I are One.” You have to believe that Jesus’s prayer was answered. What Church is still ONE church which has had an unchanging set of core beliefs for two thousand years? Jesus is not a polygamist.

i watched the video and the doctor is a nice person i did find something odd of what he said, that if the pope decides to change something in the future will i be willing to accept it. at minute 24:00 he talks a about the canon that gave the bible and he says it was given to us by a lot of people but he dosen't say it was given by catholics and a catholic pope. Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome around A.D. 393 Pope Damasus

_Here is an arrangement of an ancient Irish prayer. How_ _many Protestants will want to say this?_ *Irish Litany of the Virgin Mary* *• O Great Mary,* *O Mary, greatest of Marys,* *O greatest of women,* *Queen of the angels,* *• Mistress of the heavens,* *Lady replete with the grace* *of the Holy Spirit,* *Blesséd and most blesséd,* *• Mother of eternal glory,* *Mother of the heavenly and earthly Church,* *Mother of love and indulgence,* *Mother of the golden light,* *Honour of the sky,* Hear the petition of the poor, spurn not the wounds and groans of the miserable. *• O bringer of peace,* *O gate of Heaven,* *O golden casket,* *Maiden of love and mercy,* *• Temple of the Divinity,* *Beauty of virgins,* *Mistress of the tribes of Israel,* *Fountain of the gardens,* *• Cleanser of sins,* *Cleanser of souls,* *Mother of orphans,* *Breast of infants,* Let our devotion and our sighs be carried through thee to the presence of the Creator, for we are not ourselves worthy of being heard because of our evil deserts. *• O refuge of the wretchéd,* *O star of the sea,* *O handmaid of God,* *Mother of Christ,* *Abode of the Godhead,* *• Graceful as the dove,* *Serene like the moon,* *Resplendent like the sun,* *• Destruction of Eve’s disgrace,* *Regeneration of life,* *Perfection of women,* *Chief of all virgins,* O powerful Mistress of Heaven and earth, wipe out our trespasses and our sins. *• O garden enclosed,* *O fountain sealed,* *O Mother of God,* *• Perpetual Virgin,* *Holy Virgin,* *Prudent Virgin,* *Serene Virgin,* *Chaste Virgin,* *• Temple of the Living God,* *Throne of the Eternal King,* *Sanctuary of the Holy Spirit,* *Daughter of Jesse,* Destroy our wickedness and depravity. Raise the fallen, the debilitated, and the fettered. Loose the condemned. *• O cedar of Mount Lebanon,* *O cypress of Mount Zion,* *O crimson rose in the land of Jacob,* *Fruitful like the olive,* *Blooming like the palm,* *• Glorious Son-bearer,* *Light of Nazareth,* *Glory of Jerusalem,* *Beauty of the world,* *• Noblest born of all Christian people,* *Queen of life,* *Ladder of Heaven,* Repair through thyself the transgressions of our immorality and our vices. Bestow upon us through thyself the blossoms and ornaments of good actions and virtues. *• Appease for us the Supreme Judge by thy prayers* *and thy supplications.* *• Allow us not, for mercy's sake, to be carried off* *from thee among the spoils of our enemies.* *• Allow not our souls to be condemned,* *but take us to thyself for ever under thy protection.* *• Moreover, we beseech and pray thee, holy Mary,* *to obtain, through thy potent supplication,* *• before thy only Son, that is, Jesus Christ,* *the Son of the living God,* *• that God may defend us* *from all straits and temptations.* Obtain also for us from the God of Creation the forgiveness and remission of all our sins and trespasses, and that we may receive from Him further, through thy intercession, the everlasting habitation of the heavenly Kingdom, through all eternity, in the presence of the saints and the saintly virgins of the world, which may we deserve, may we enjoy, in all the ages of ages. Amen. _This arrangement has the salutations in batches of twelve interleaved_ _with the responses. It is quite unlike any other litany._ _The salutations may be read at a brisk pace. The dots_ *•* _indicate_ _where the prayer leader may pause to draw breath._ _This is _*_not_*_ an approved litany. For your own use, you may copy and_ _paste it to a word processor and reformat it as necessary. You may print_ _off a few copies, laminate them, and pass them out to your friends._ _The Catholic Church does have six approved litanies, and we suggest_ _saying them all with equal frequency. This litany is best said as an_ _occasional and exotic extra._

You are both famous for pleasant and mutually respectful dialogue with Catholics which is why I watch these shows. Here is the “but”; but, despite all your interactions with Catholics you apparently don’t understand it is ok, as a Catholic, to have a difficulty, borne of conscience, with a dogmatic teaching. Just look at Copernicus and Galileo to see what this looks like. Copernicus is the model of the right way for a Catholic follow conscience. Galileo was not, although he could have left the Church and escaped his house arrest. That he didn’t , has always fascinated me and should probably give you something to think about.

I would like to take the analogy of the boy with the message for his teacher a bit further: The mother might have said more to the little boy than she wrote and he might have repeated this to the teacher. This would be as true as the message and an addition to it. If it contradicted the message the teacher would have to believe that the child was lying or mistaken and base her reply just on the message. If it was just an addition she could believe what the little boy said as well as the message. If one believes that the apostles and their successors are inspired by the holy spirit one can believe them as well as scripture. If they contradict scripture I think one must believe scripture which was compiled by the church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. St Paul says scripture is useful to correct error.

What about the Apostolic Fathers? It's clear by the writings of Ignatius of Antioch that the eucharist IS the actual body of Christ. What about another Apostolic Father i.e. Clement of Rome (who was a successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome) who even though St. John the Apostle was still alive was contacted to resolve a dispute in another Church? What about Ireneaus of Lyon (circa AD180) who explained the primacy of the See of Rome and listed all of the Popes/Bishops of Rome from his day going back to Peter? I believe it was John Henry Cardinal Newman, an Anglican who converted to Catholicism, who stated "to be deep in history is to CEASE being Protestant." He is spot on:+) God bless~

I feel stuck in the middle of all the different Trinitarian Christian groups EO,OO,RC, Protestant etc. It's weird.

What a great guy and great christian!

Obviously not trying to be a jerk to Gavin but I really doubt someone can do that and be BAPTIST. If we're talking Anglican or Lutheran that makes some sense to me but the fact that no one had Baptist presuppositions until the Radical Reformers is highly, highly problematic to me.

hi loved listening to my protestant bros! Makes me understand you more! we have other great speakers also and would love to listen to you with them like Brad Pitre, Scott Hahn, etc!!!

How to be deep in history and be Protestant? Answer: economist Bryan Caplan’s concept of rational irrationality. "Caplan posits that there are two types of rationality: • Epistemic rationality, which roughly consists of forming beliefs in truth-conducive ways, making reasonable efforts to avoid fallacious reasoning and keeping an open mind for new evidence. • Instrumental rationality, which involves choosing the most comprehensively effective means to attain one’s actual goals, given one’s actual beliefs. Rational irrationality describes a situation where it is instrumentally rational to be epistemically irrational. Caplan argues that rational irrationality is more likely in situations where: • people have preferences over beliefs, i.e., some kinds of beliefs are more appealing than others, and the marginal cost to an individual of holding an erroneous (or irrational) belief is low... ...Rational irrationality is not doublethink and does not state that the individual deliberately chooses to believe something he or she knows to be false. Rather, the theory is that when the costs of having erroneous beliefs are low, people relax their intellectual standards and allow themselves to be more easily influenced by fallacious reasoning, cognitive biases, and emotional appeals. In other words, people do not deliberately seek to believe false things but stop putting in the intellectual effort to be open to evidence that may contradict their beliefs."