Austin's icon collection keeps getting progressively larger. Before long he will no longer have a bookshelf, but an iconostasis.

I grow up in a small town of Mexico were all my generation were and are Catholic. It was when I moved to USA that I found out all different Christian denominations. I thank God that I didn't get confused and stay with my faith strong. I wouldn't play with that.

I love how humble Dr. Ortlund is. It amazes me how strongly someone can disagree on such important matters and still be so kind and loving. I definitely can see Christ working in and through him. I so appreciate his call to us listeners to read for themselves, in the bible and the church fathers! To me(and that’s obviously subjective) it feels like he is really trying to see Catholicism at its best, while Protestantism is not seen at it’s best...overall I am so thankful for you guys and would love to learn more through your ongoing conversation with Dr. Ortlund. Glory to god

I'm 7 months late and I don't care bc this is SUCH a good discussion and as a Protestant considering Catholicism I'm so thankful for dialogs like this.

Dr. Ortlund has raised the esteem of Protestantism as a whole in my Catholic eyes by his strong endorsement of Christian history as a whole. This channel (and some of the related ones) have convinced me to subscribe for future content, cross-tradition, Protestant, or otherwise!

I am incredibly blessed to be alive at a time when there is so much great Christian content that I will never have enough time to listen to. Also, cool sweater.

Cordial Catholic is THE definition of enthusiasm

Gavin standing his ground. I was waiting for this.

I was away from the Catholic Church for 25 years until I got to the place where I got low enough to really seek the Lord. I started listening to Pastor Fred Price who just passed away---rest in peace Pastor. He said, "it's not enough to follow me on television, but you have to be part of a local church". I started looking with no intention of returning to the Catholic Church; however, He led me to a Catholic Charismatic prayer group and the praise and worship practice therein. A year later I returned to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass during Holy Week. The Lord along the way revealed various things like the importance of the Brown Scapular devotion, the Rosary and the importance of the truths of the Catholic Faith and the teachings of the Holy, Apostolic Church. One thing I have learned, is that if there is anything about the Catholic Church that I'm struggling with, I ask Jesus and He has shown me clearly the truth. Otherwise, you will just spend a lot of time arguing over words. God bless!

Loved this conversation!! I would love to see a conversation regarding the Eucharist specifically. Thanks so much to you all for taking the time to do this!

Outstanding discussion moderated by Gospel Simplicity and Cordial Catholic! Joe and Gavin’s discussion was spectacular! Time really flew! Kudos to y’all!

Excellent video, Austin! I've been looking forward to this for a long time. Both Joe and Gavin are knowledgeable and respectful. I would love to see another one of these where the two discuss the Marian Dogmas :)

Hello everyone, Protestant here. Was really glad to see this dialogue, between a Catholic and Protestant having a civil argument. Which I have seen angry Catholics and Protestants just lash out in anger which will help no one in the end.

Gavin Ortlund is such a gift to us Catholics. One sword sharpens the other ⚔️

Conversation aside, I appreciate your incorporation of iconography into your devotional life. Seeing as you hail from a protestant background, I think it demonstrates growth and discernment and lends a great deal of credibility to the sincerity of yourself and your channel.

This is very strange to me. I've never heard a Protestant so articulate and knowledgable, even on Catholicism. I was really impressed by him. Most of the Evangelicals I've heard, are just about reading the Bible. Not at all interested in history.

Awesome discussion. I am a cradle Catholic gramma! I think some of this has to be accepted on faith. So much scrutiny can cause disbelief anyway. Don’t we just have to do our best to understand it and make our choice and have trust in God’s directive for our faith? So great that you are having a respectful discussion and disagree politely! Love this! Thank you.👍✝️

I have to say, I much prefer discussions like these to antagonistic debates. Keep up the good work!

If this went 3 hours long, I would still be all like... It's over already?!?

This was a wonderful (and cordial) debate about the Papacy, the apostolic succession, and Christian unity as a whole. Thank you all so much for providing a great example of loving one another even in our differences. As an Orthodox catachumen, I find the question of the papacy of extreme importance, because (as was said) it is sort of the defining question of Catholicism as opposed to non-Catholicism. I appreciate the thorough discussion and presentation of both sides. Very well done. To God be the glory.

Cordial Catholic is looking at the camera in such a way that every single Catholic watching knows exactly what's going down. It's great.

Very nice to see so much information about the early church. Glad to see people who are of different religions openly discussing their views so others might be saved in a calm manner. Great podcast!

It has INTENSE in the title so I'm looking forward to it haha. You've been putting in that work Austin!

This is really great! Thanks Austin. I'm mind blown right now.

Man, I would like to see Trent Horn/Jimmy Akin with dr. Ortlund p.s. I must say, Joe did a great job. Defending catholic position is harder than vice versa, wether you discuss orthodox or protestants. Nice job Joe!

What a great convo all around - great work guys!

I loved this discussion, thank you Austin for hosting it. I do have to admit my secret shame, though. When Dr. Ortland’s camera went black my COVID total lockdown brain immediately filled in that space with a kitten filter, and Dr. Ortland saying “I’m prepared to go forward. I’m live and I’m not a cat.” I’m sorry. I apologize for inserting my stupidity into a wonderful discussion.

Great video! Loved seeing the cordial debate and discussion. We need more of this! Would love to see you have Dr. Brant Pitre on at some point or Dr. John Bergsma.

Thanks for making this discussion happen. So enriching. Joe would have to be one of the best defenders of the papacy I’ve heard. Such a quick and sharp mind, with clear analogies to bring home his points.

Me, an Orthodox: Sips coffee ☕️

These two are awesome, I m sorry the discussion ended.

The living memory argument from Irenaeus' preeminence and listing of the Popes is case and point. There is no arguing against those concrete facts.

Ok, if you aren’t on Patreon with these guys, GO!!!! This is 🔥🔥

Thank God for Church History. It really strengthen my catholic faith. Joe Heschmeyer appreciate your work my brother in Christ.

I watched both of the videos that have been done and hope to see a third one soon. 😁

I wish all debates and discussions are like this; Respectful.

This is the most wholesome debate I have ever watched

Jesus Christ Himself said that the Holy Spirit was His replacement after He ascended to heaven. Not the pope. let me ask you catholics a question. does your pope, who dresses in expensive robles, hundreds of thousand dollars in jewelry, lives in a place worth billions of dollars, calls himself "his holiness" and "infallible" look like the descendant of peter???

This has been a great show! These guys put forth a respectful, and super informative conversation. I really enjoyed it. I think the pastor had a lot of intelligent pushback....but I think Joe fired back with intelligent answers...which is why it was fruitful to sit in on. I would love to see more shows like this. Thank you Austin and Keith! 🌷

I love Gavin´s way to approaching this discussions!

Oooh yay! They’re back!!!

Thank you Austin and Keith? /Cordial Catholic. I agree with Joe that the faith of a convert adds much energy and wisdom to the Church. If I followed the bouncing ball tonight Gavin's premise was that if the Papacy and infallibility are not in the New Testament they are contrived. I submit that Christ did not work w flip charts and explain His message explicitly at all times. Several times He expressed his frustration at the Apostles' failure to understand. While references were made to extra biblical sources I didn't hear Tradition discussed. It has always confused me that Sola Scriptura is the only foundation, yet it wasn't put together as a canon until the 380s and 390s. Prudence and discretion were required in that editing. Thus is not Tradition an integral part of the deposit of faith? I would ask each man to state at the beginning what are the premises from which he proceeds. Thank you again for all your hard work. Where do you find time for your studies?

All 4 wonderful guests! Love it. More of this.

Joe’s passion and Austin’s sweater are fantastic

Cant wait to watch this on Patreon!

Austin, perhaps after each discussion you should have Dr. Ortlund and Mr. Heschmeyer give suggested reading in the comments, to point us in the right direction for us to dig deeper, and if they suggest primary documents, which specific passage should be of special interest. In fact, I would very much appreciate it if they both do so for this debate! God bless!

These guys have really done their homework. Incredible

Can't wait to see this one!! 😄

This comment section is so wholesome. Love it.

Listening on Patreon and this has been awesome! Have you ever considered interviewing Fr. Spyridon? He is a pretty cool priest. Possible topics could be the Jesus Prayer, relics, and icons, or maybe all three!

Greetings to all, I have pretty much given up on these discussions. There really is no new light to be shed. In the end it comes down to authority. Where does it reside,who has it and how is it exercised. Dr. Brant Pitre was crucial in my return to the Church as was Steve Ray. Sometimes it’s messy and sometimes I need to hold my nose when our leaders go off the rails with their personal opinions but Magisterially speaking I have been persuaded.

Great conversation...great work team!

Thanks, Austin for bringing these dialogs forward - it seems to me there is a great hunger to know the answer to the question Pilot posed to Jesus; "What is Truth?"

In my opinion , JOE makes very strong arguments for the papacy. Well done Bro JOE....Excellent Job 👍

These discussions are so great thank you! 🌸🙏

I think it is important to note that Jesus gave all the apostles authority to bind and loose. However, he only gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This references Eliakim and the keys to the house of David, a prime minister-ship which was a perpetual office.

Gavin is great. Such a charitable and grace filled guest. I love his show. And I'm Catholic.

I'm on to you Mr.Gospel Simplicity dude! You figured out that a channel is the best way to get some free high-level theology lessons, ha! Jokes aside, this was a very good listen indeed. I'll leave you with this one, that I heard a long time ago - "To think that truth needs no believers to be true seems scary; to know that believers often need no truth to believe is terryfing"

Wow,that was awesome!!! I love it!!💯💯😍

Great conversation! It's also funny to see Austin and the cordial catholic smiling at times when "their" guy is making a good argument xD

First, I want to say the level of depth and knowledge on these two participants is staggering. Both, at various points, had me saying, "Wow, that's a great point." Mr. Gavin is correct that an argument from silence can be a good one IF you can show that the person absolutely would have mentioned something given the context. But such argument can be significantly weakened if one can come up with a good reason why an author might not have mentioned something. On the historical data: In support of his argument from historical silence, Mr. Gavin cited the Shephed of Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Shepherd of Hermas: In Book 1, Vision 2, Chapter 4 he only mentions presbyters when he is asked if he'd given the book to the Church's leadership. However, in book 1, vision 3, chapter 5 he mentions the following offices; Apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons. I don't think either of these citations represents a clean two-office standard which Gavin says it does. My understanding of that (as a Catholic) is that in the first citation he uses "Presbyters" the way we'd use the word "clergy" - an all-encompasing word. And in Vision 3 we arguably see the same structure as we do in Ignatius, only with the word "teacher" being used to describe priests. In Ignatius, Ignatius makes it clear that a legitimate church is one which follows the leadership of its Bishop. It is true that Ignatius does not mention the Bishop of Rome in his letter, but he does praise the Roman church as being exemplary. It seems unlikely to me that Ignatius would regard the Roman church as exemplary of it didn't meet his most basic criterion for discipleship. This letter doesn't mention the Bishop, but it is also very different from his letter in other respects. Whereas all the others were meant to be teaching documents, in this one he says he has no teaching for them. In Polycarp, we do see him making criteria for deacons and then for presbyters. One could interpret that as Polycarp asserting that there are only two offices in the Church. Or maybe not. I don't think it has ever been the case that someone becomes bishop right out of the gate. All bishops were at one time priests. So when giving the criteria for entry into these offices, perhaps Polycarp is only mentioning the entry-level offices. In regard to the Biblical data: Mr. Gavin's approach to the question is a sound one. He wants evidence that Peter had a special office, and he wants evidence that it was successive. He sees evidence that Peter had a special leadership role, but doesn't see evidence that it is successive. I agree that there isn't explicit attestation that it is. However, I'm not sure that we should expect to find it because most of the New Testament was written while Peter was still alive. Instead, I think one can look at how the Apostolic authority was continued in something like the apostles - the bishops. From there a person can ask, "If Jesus saw fit to establish Peter in a special office, is there a reason why that office would no longer be necessary after Peter? The apostolic offices continue (with modification) in the bishops. Isn't it logical that Peter's role would continue (with modification) as well?" It is a plausibility argument, and perhaps not the strongest, but I think it is more plausible than saying Jesus established a special role for Peter and intended it to only last 30 years. In regard to Mr. Joe's arguments: I think his strongest argument is from the second century lists. That is: If the regional mono-episcopacy is a development of the mid-to-late second century, why are people claiming in the late second century that this goes back to the Apostles and they can produce the lists of names. If the mono-episcopacy is something which had only developed in the previous 40 years... then what the devil are they all talking about? Where did they all get this idea? Mr. Gavin's only reply to this, it seems, is to repeat the claim that we cannot rely on second century evidence because it lays on the other side of some development (46:25) and when the first century is so silent. But that isn't a proper answer. The question is why all those churches would then turn around and say that's the way it has been all along. That question got no answer. @1:42:58 - Mr. Gavin says it is unfair to compare the "Protestant Church" to the Catholic Church, but rather that we should compare the Catholic Church to a single Protestant denomination. Absolutely not. What is under discussion is the fact that we need a visible, infallible authoritative teaching office (a magisterium) to maintain Christian unity and orthodoxy simultaneously. Therefore is it completely appropriate to compare the Christian worldview which says it has one (Catholicism) to the one which says it doesn't need one (Protestantism). Mr. Gavin has not hesitated on other occasions to compare Protestantism to Catholicism when saying Protestantism confers advantages. Balking in this instance seems a bit situational. In the end, he leaves Mr. Joe's thesis rather untouched. Does the dual command of unity and orthodoxy demand something like an infallible magisterium, or not? If not, then what is the alternative which gets the job done? Sure, the Magisterium only works if people adhere to it... but that is self evident and true of literally every authority, even God's authority. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is united in a way which the Protestant world is not, and there's a real difference at the heart of it. Perhaps one shouldn't say, "The Catholic Church is united and Protestantism is divided." Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the Catholic world has (or at least claims to have) the thing which is needed if the Church is to feasibly be both united and orthodox. And this has enabled the Church to hold the center far better than the Protestant world has been able to while operating sans magisterium. Either way, I would have liked to see Mr. Gavin grapple with Mr. Joe's thesis directly. Do those dual commands necessitate God also leaving us an infallible magisterium, or not? And if not, what is the alternative which accomplishes the goal? A person can say, "Jesus and the Gospel will unite us", but if one would pardon me for having the practicallity of an engineer, until Jesus comes again in glory to claim the obedience of the nations, that's more of a sentiment than a practical answer.

So a person who doesn't know about the existence of the Pope and the Catholic church, and is reading the Bible for the 1st time, would that person walk away thinking that they need a human representative of Jesus on earth in charge of a hierarchical church that he now needs to visit in order to receive the grace of God and confess his sins to a priest that will intercede before God for forgiveness? Does anyone, without being told by another person, feel the need to look for the Catholic Church and the Pope on earth after reading the Bible?

Abstracting the Gospel from the people? From the Church? What is the Gospel without the Church? If there are no people there is no Gospel. Making that distinction that Dr. Galvin makes seems to me to be a very dangerous distinction.

This episode was just so so good

I love how Austin shows the books of both of the speakers during their introductions 😂

Joe Heschmeyer is amazing.

Great argument by Joe re: Luke 22:31. We have heard before about Jesus praying for Peter, but not the fact of the preceding context. I think that's a really, really good argument. Even if not by itself absolute proof.

It would have been great if it was posted 2 days ago on the feast of the Chair of Peter. lol

Wow... enthralling Joe answered it all for me. Such intellectual integrity and charity. Truth in Love. The prayer of unity was for all, and if all would be united it would be to return. May we all be one. I really enjoyed this one. Well done fellas. God bless you all.

Rev. Ortlund - Peace to you from a romanist. God love you!

When Joe gave the Civil War analogy, I went nuts because it was so similar. 💗

I had never heard of Joe until this video. (I came for Gavin) Wow I am impressed. So many points Ive never thought of before.

Listening to Joe's case, he sounds VERY over the top when he creates a dichotomy of either the Roman Catholic church was correct about the papacy or there was a major conspiracy which ultimately throws traditional Christianity question.... I wish his approach was more modest and fair with the evidence he's providing. he's nonetheless a very generous interlocutor with Gavin. Really enjoying this discussion so far.

What a good fruitful and often times humorous discussion. I will say the man with whom I differ, made great points.

Killing it Joe!

I'm just here to see what names I'm called. My favorites: (1) Dr. Galvin; (2) Dr. Givin; (3) Mr. Ortland. :)

I like the icons ;)

I converted from ND Evangelical to Catholic almost 20 years ago. It’s wonderful to see balanced discussion without rancor. Thanks, guys!

Of the many things I learnt in this insightful video, one thing is that I need to occasionally take sips of water throughout the day. :)

Hi, Interesting discussion. I can appreciate both the Catholic and the Orthodox claims with their bishops, councils, and apostolicity aiding in illuminating them in the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Dr. Ortlund, where are your bishops and your councils in interpreting the Bible correctly? Is there any one Protestant denomination that can make such claims? Which one would it be?

Austin, I recommend that from the Catholic perspective you do a show on the Communion of the Saints, on the mystical Body of Christ. Their is a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism on this point. So many testimonials of super natural events within Catholicism must be given a verdict. Take for example Padre Pio. Its beyond a doubt his life of service and the charisma's he manifested...so this verdict for these type of supernatural manifestations must either be ordained by God according to his Grace or by the Devil and his "holy" deception. This aspect of Catholicism is rarely discussed...which is also true for the appearances of Mary as with Lourdes, Fatima, etc...not just the event and the supernatural post manifestations, but also her message. It all must be in sink with The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures. Thanks for your attention to this aspect of our Faith.

I’ve been seeing Gavin on a lot of Catholic KZfaq. I COULD NOT have my views criticized as long as he has without losing it. He is a very patient man. We hope you come to Rome Gavin and Austin. Laudetur Jesus Christus

Love is the only guarantor of unity.

It will be very interesting to see the angle Dr. Ortlund takes when arguing this. Being Orthodox, I believe in Holy Tradition as authoritative, so I imagine I will disagree with both of them. The EO arguments against the papacy tend to be the most potent to me because they at least argue from the same footing. But I'm excited!

For anyone interested, here are a few thoughts by way of follow up! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7ZiiMKTqJPThX0.html

I would love to see you have Brant Pitre on this discussion . Excellent conversation very respectful

Super intelligent back and forth conversation for 1.5 hours. Then Gavin- “suppose there are some kids who want to go play kickball” 😂😂

Gavin is 🎯

Amazing and unsettling how two highly intelligent men can come to such different conclusions. If one is right and one is wrong, there would seem to be something almost mysterious/spiritual about having the truth of the matter. Almost as though God is keeping one in truth and letting the other remain blind. What else can one think when surely God did not design every person to know the argumentative intricacies of all things about Him.

I couldn't help but notice a particular theme that kept popping up, a difference in the way Joe and Dr. Ortlund (and, by extension, Catholics and Protestants respectively) will interpret the witness of the Fathers. Catholics will generally find it sufficient when, even if there's not much early evidence for a teaching (in the 100s or 200s), the evidence that IS there points in the Catholic direction, we can't really find any evidence that CONTRADICTS the Catholic position, and especially if by the time of the 4th century onward those doctrines are made more explicit. Whereas the Protestant will generally be more skeptical of a doctrine if it isn't pretty explicitly taught in the first few centuries. I'd be interested to see these four fine gentlemen discuss this interpretive lens and the merits and demerits of each viewpoint.

I enjoyed this, but I'd like to say: The moderators need to be less cordial. Dr. Ortlund is much more conscientious of the time he takes. Mr. Heschmeyer was given quite a bit of space to steamroll. I don't think this has anything to do with an intent to be disrespectful to Dr. Ortlund and seems to occur as a phenomenon of their respective personalities, which is why there is a need for interjecting moderators.

15:50 umm, yes, the majority of prodestants reject the pope and the concept of the pope. That doesnt mean they think he's evil or bad, but they dont believe he speaks authoritatively or infallibly.

Great video guys. Im a protestant but appreciate the conversation. One thought. I agree with Gavin except for on one item. It is actually a THREE wheeled vehicle. 1) Peter as supreme authority 2) clear instruction that his authority is passed on and 3) an understanding that this office was incorruptable. He alludes to it but scrupturaly we see the Levites get a very similar position as a priesthood directly from God in the scripture. Their election is MUCH more strongly support than the office of the Papacy. Yet in Jeremiah he laments that there is not one single priest left who is uncorrupted and still follows God. Its counter biblical to believe that mankind would hold any office without corruption. And when protestants and orthodox Christians point to clear corruption in Rome, it removes the third wheel. The office can still exist but it would need to be reformed minus heresies.

Regarding 1 Clement, I think there is evidence he wrote before August of the year 70. He speaks of the Temple sacrifices being offered, present tense. It can hardly be assumed that a member of a worldwide brotherhood, who took care of each other, and who lives in Rome, would not have known that Jerusalem fell, just as Jesus predicted; let alone that he would not know it happened nearly three decades later.

Curious about Joe's arguments for the papacy when discussing with an Orthodox... So many of his points are focused on refuting the protestant views, but don't directly refute the Orthodox views; especially the first among equals view. Future vid? Or does it already exist?

I have to admit I had some difficulties in following, not being able to catch every word as a non native speaker. Given the complex content this was not easy with the gaps I had. But nevertheless I enjoyed the discussion very much. For myself I have decided the question, yet still feel free to weigh the teaching authority against my own thinking. But I don't need to push my personal opinion: My loyalty and feeling of belonging lies with the (catholic) church. I feel that the globality and unity of the church is very valuable and needs a central authority to preserve and shield it.

On the question of the monarchial bishop of Rome question, I would actually argue that from the perspective of how information is transmitted in this time period it would be extremely unlikely that something as foundational as the organizational leadership structure of one of the most important and influential teaching offices of early Christianity to have significantly changed at all. If there was a change from a more conciliar Roman church (council of elders, multiple bishops in once city, etc.) to a single bishop we would expect to see far more explicit evidence of correspondence weighing in on the question at least from other cities (something akin to elders writing to other Apostolic sees asking if the model they are switching to is prudent). There is enough evidence that early Christianity put serious stock in its organizational structure as a way of surviving heretical sects and determining what is orthodox teaching, and such a structural switch in what is clearly an important teaching office would merit a good deal of conciliar deliberation outside of the Roman see on the subject. To use some of the same language of arguing from silence here, it would seem that the reverse tack could be taken when arguing against Dr. Ortlund's position: if it is acceptable to say that the evidence for an infallible Roman bishop among the whole church is lacking due to the information we have, it should be equally acceptable to say that the position that a conciliar Roman teaching office based in an assembly of elders is lacking due to the information we have.

Joe had Gavin on his heels in this.

I’m min 1.19 joe says that in Matt 16 one power is given to Peter only, but the verse says I Will give and in Matt 18 it’s we’re one power is given to all the apostles

1:40:30 To respond to Dr. Ortlund: Heschmeyer's point is not that the papacy will pevent people from disagreeing or damaging the unity. Of course that people are free to break away from Rome. The papacy doesn't remove people's free will. Heschmeyer's point is that if Jesus wants us to be one and in the truth, then he should give us the means to achieve that. This doesn't mean that we will actually always be one and in the truth (Jesus leaves us our free will), but it means that the possibility to be one and in the truth should always be there. However, if no one has an infallible authority, then this possibility isn't even there, which would mean that Jesus's talk about unity in truth was just wishful thinking. And here we are talking about unity between people. But there is also the question of unity between each individual and the truth. Each individual Christian is called to remain united to the truth that Jesus wants us to be united to. However, If there are many christian denominations and churches disagreeing between them about what is this truth that Jesus wants for us, then it becomes a problem for the individual Christian to know which one is right. But Jesus gives us a moral obligation to always remain in the truth he wants for us. Therefore he should have given each Christian the means to always remain in this truth. However if no one has an infallible authority, then there is no means for each Christian to always remain in the truth. If for example, I am part of a church, and this church splits into two, which is the one I should go with? If there is no permanent rock marking the place of the Church, no permanent infallible authorithy, then there is no way for me to know; and in fact there is not necessarily a right answer, since without infallible authorithy, then all the churches and denominations could be at least partially wrong, which would mean that not only the unity with truth would be compromised, but the truth itself would be compromised.