While looking up your search for Church Traditions, you should check out if the Baptist Church's tradition Gavin's denomination) that Baptism: 1. Does not wash away sins 2. Does not infuse us with the Holy Spirit in the sacrament. Is in keeping with what the Early Church taught, or if Gavin's view that baptism is NOT how we are regenerated is in fact, an accretion. Spoiler: It is.

I feel the same way! God put Gavin in my path right when I needed it! 🙏✝️🙏

it's not truth. He's simply arguing from a protestant view point and calling it truth. If you truly want the truth, start from a neutral stance and place yourself under Gods authority and Like Mary, Give him your yes. I am open to you father I am open to your divine and holy will, do with me as you wish. Your will be done, let there be less of me and more of you each day

Church tradition from 16th century only....

@@dman7668 Hi my friend 🤍 Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think we can both agree that baptism is a wonderful and holy tradition that is founded in Scripture. Praise God for that! I think that the idea that baptism comes after salvation is suppprted by Cornelius in Acts 10:47. He had the Holy Spirit before he was baptized and scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation. Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭14‬ and ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭4‬-‭6‬. What do you think about that?

And understand!

This kind of video amazes me. For any RC watching and thinking this caricature of Protestantism is true, have you forgotten that it was the RCC that declared all non RC anathema?! Hello? Gavin should have stressed this point. It was the Roman Catholic Church that declared all non-catholics anathema!!!

@@kurtgundywe Catholics have no issue with this.

I wouldn't say Ortlund is a defender of "historic Protestantism". I would say he's more a defender of "modern American religion" (ie, freedom to choose/create one's own religion based on personal preferences). Not that this is a wholly bad thing. "Historic religion" of any flavor is not something any of us truly want. No matter how devout we are as modern American Protestant or Catholics, we would all be put to death in both the Catholic Middle Ages or 16th Century Geneva faster than we would on the surface of Venus. We all have our heroes from the past, but we must also be aware of our tendency to idealize them into something they weren't and make them into our own creations. Also, even though I respect Ortlund's deeper motive of religious freedom, I think he's going about it in a way that woud ultimately fragment Christianity until there's nothing left of it

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. St. John Henry Newman.

@@WayneDrake-uk1ggYou must not watch him very much. Out of all American “Protestants” he’s the one of only people I’ve found that actually bases his opinions not only off the Word of God, but Church History, and theology too. His goal is to unite Christians in truth, but sometimes you have to stand your ground and disagree. That said he points out what we all have in common more then anyone I’ve listened too. Whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. And he instills the importance for Protestants to know the past so we can have a future. Many Protestants don’t even know anything about Church History let alone Theology and it’s sad, because that causes caricatures of others beliefs and causes more divisions. I know because I used to be that person who knew nothing of Church History or Theology and I’d caricaturize Catholic and Orthodox beliefs without even knowing the history and what I was talking about. Gavin is a breath of fresh air and he truly cares about The Truth, not “his truth”. And that’s obvious to see, if you listen to his story he has grown and changed a lot since he became a Christian. We all need to humble ourselves and grow in Christ. We need to understand our history going all the way back to the Apostles. Because that’s Protestant history too, not just Catholic and Orthodox. 🙏✝️🙏

Hey, I appreciate your honest look into these matters. Some people don't even do that. I myself did not even know there were differences in Christian thought (I am a Catholic now for clarity). At least you are choosing based on what you believe is the truth and not just because you go through the motions, because let's me real both Catholic and Protestants alike do that. 😅

@@dman7668Yes, I think we all do at some point. But when we wake up, and the Lord leads us out of the darkness we’ve been stumbling around in, and into His wonderful light, we can actually see! He is not hidden. I flirted on the edges of Catholicism for quite awhile. I asked questions until I got good answers. I came to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism has been twisted into something that little resembles the glorious Church that Jesus Himself founded. Through faith in Him and His gospel the power of His Holy Spirit, I have been born again, grafted into the Vine of His Holy Church. Anyone who is part of this Church is my brother or sister in Christ.

@@melodysledgister2468 You affirm like Gavin does, that baptism does not wash away sins and is not the normative means by which you are saved, you are not following the Church Jesus established and are part of a false Church. The nicean creed affirms one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and if you affirm something that contradicts the creed be you a Mormon, or a Jehovahs witness or a Baptist who denies baptismal regeneration you are violating Christian tenets.

​@dman7668 really? I never knew the Baptist view of Baptism contradicted the creed. Is there a specific citation I can check to confirm for myself?

Is Gavin admitting that the Holy Spirit allowed His Church to fall into error for 1500yrs?

That's putting it mildly. Actually they're clueless. Someone needs to remind Candice and her husband that it was the Roman Catholic Church that declared all non-catholics anathema.

It's a little ironic because RC and EO theology both teach that those outside of their respective churches face guaranteed damnation.

@@jty1999 They do, and they don't... Official documents--considered dogma, do say that. You'd be hard to find a Priest, Bishop, or even Pope today....who would claim that in Rome. I'd wager even a minority within EO would actually claim that today...even though, yes, it's their official dogma.

Indeed, is she now saying (as RC and EO dogmata state, though I will agree that many, if not most, of their members don't know this) that no one outside their respective organizations can be saved? So no one outside the RC or EO churches have been saved in the last 500 years or so? That was news to my most certainly saved Protestant self when I heard it! And yes, I do believe RCs and EOs can be saved.

If you have been raised anti Catholic, they use language like: “Those Catholics are leading people strait to Hell!” That’s where it comes from

Is Gavin admitting that the Holy Spirit allowed His Church to fall into error for 1500yrs?

​@MrJayb76 when did he say or imply that the church was in error for 1500 years? Are you new to this channel?

Glad it was helpful!

Yes agreed

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is the historic agreement signed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church in 1999, effectively resolving one of the key theological conflicts of the Reformation, the understanding of salvation. The Joint Declaration was later affirmed by the World Methodist Council (2006), the Anglican Consultative Council (2016) and the World Communion of Reformed Churches (2017), making it a multilateral agreement I believe we are now called Separated brothers and sisters

@@Ehhhhhsureeee contradictory statement. If you affirm the creed you affirm ONE Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

@@bobbobberson5627 the creed is rooted in the Bible, the divided catholic church doesn't have sole claim on it

@@bobbobberson5627this is called equivocation. You’re equivocating the noun “catholic” with the proper noun of the institution referring to the “Roman Catholic” church, as evidenced by your capitalization.

Is Gavin admitting that the Holy Spirit allowed His Church to fall into error for 1500yrs?

. . . except, Someone said the He was the Vine and His Apostles were the branches. Someone also promised to lead them into the Truth.

​@@mwidunn that's just it, because it could very well be as you say; it could also be as Gavin says; and it could also be that both of you are right on this

Branch ecclesiology is completely foreign to the fathers and councils.

@@cronmaker2 depends on which fathers or councils you are referring. The Bible already began to speak of factions in the early church (Acts 15, Galatians 2:11-21, 1 Corinthians 3:4-8). The language of John 15:5 is not the only analogy of branches (Romans 11:21-22). These passages are not exclusive to only individuals, but could also refer to groups

I didn’t have the time to watch this man’s latest spin session, did he mention Luther condemned Zwingli to Hell for his communion doctrine because the Reformers couldn’t agree on what the Bible meant?

Is Gavin admitting that the Holy Spirit allowed His Church to fall into error for 1500yrs?

@@MrJayb76 The Church is not infallible. So yes, God allows error. Just like He allows evil in the world to bring about greater goods

@theepitomeministry so when Jesus said upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against it was He lying? Also when Paul said the Church is the pilar and bulwark of truth was he lying too?

@MrJayb76 Of course they weren't lying. It's just very obvious that Christ wasn't saying bishops will never teach error when he said the gates of Hades won't prevail against the church and Paul also obviously didn't mean specific bishops cannot ever be wrong either. You're just assuming the Catholic paradigm in your line of questioning.

Mat 16: 17-19.

@@aadschram5877 Matt 16 Christ is not establishing a papal office but peters confession of faith that Christ is the son of God the true ROCK that ultimately that the Church would be built upon W. Webster

@@Romans5.1 That is a Protestant point of view. W. Webster has probably roots in Protestantism. The ealry Christians had another view. You, your pastor, your church, your denomination did not get the power of binding and loosing that is an office that can speak authoratively for the universal Church. Simon bar Jonas aka Peter alias Cephas got that power and the early Church handed this it down by laying hands on the successors of Peter, remembering the words of Jesus: "I will be with you till the end of time.

@@aadschram5877 " Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; And did all eat the same spiritual mean ; And did all drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ " 1 Corinthians' 10: 1-4

I believe you need to remove the words "of the law". The fruit of true faith is from a Holy Spirit led life, we walk as Abraham did, not according to Old Testament law as the judaizers attempted to introduce.

There's another issue with Roman Catholic doctrine. Galatians 1 forbids the addition of any extra salvific requirements besides the pure Gospel (which we know is grace through faith in Jesus as Savior, who died to make full propitiation for our sins). But some of the RC accretions come in the form of dogmas that must be believed for one to be saved. Stuff like _Unam Sanctam,_ which said, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” _Cantate Domino_ is another one, and it says all "heretics and schismatics" (like us protestants) will go to "everlasting fire." Then there's the dogma of Mary's bodily Assumption, the text of which states, “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” (I think that one would have made Paul gag.) IMO the RCC teaches "another gospel", a false gospel, and has lost all claim to being a Christian church; I think it is now on par with the JWs and the LDS.

@@rexlion4510 Gotta watch out for the wrath of Peter, Paul and Mary. and I just thought they sounded good.

I think this is a bridge to far, Martin Luther never recieved a mandate from God to "re form the Church". Jesus did not appear to Martin Luther and gave him this mission. So either he did the right thing, or he did not but the reality is we cannot say with certainty God approved of the protestant reformation. We do hear in the Bible warnings about causing division, and Luther did factually do exactly that. I wonder what St. Paul would have said about it.

@@dman7668It’s interesting that Luther supposedly was sent to save the church, yet countless Protestants today reject his views on communion, baptism, and Mary. He also excommunicated Zwingli because he disagreed about communion. Such an unreasonable and unworkable belief system.

@@dman7668 Have you ever studied the history of the Reformation? Luther had no desire to overturn anything. He believed that the Church's exploitation of believers for financial gain was unethical and spiritually harmful. He saw the indulgence trade as a symptom of broader corruption and abuse of power within the Church hierarchy. I would think you'd agree with him.

@begelston Yes I'm happy to concedes abuses were happening, the Church has since stopped those practices and it's now safe for you the protestant to continue being a Catholic as God did factually intend. The problem is now that there is no excuse not to be Catholic the reformers just kept on making different Churches and they are now collapsing as we both see with all these failed protestant Churches now affirming things that are false here are examples 1. The Baptist church not affirming baptismal regeneration 2. The methodist church confirming gay clergy 3. All protestant Churches changing doctrine on contraceptives being a sin to now it is not a sin. 4. And on and on it goes.

@@begelston Furthermore, the RCC more or less admitted he was right about indulgences, which is what the whole thing started over. The average Catholic in 2024 would be shocked at how 'Catholic' the 95 theses are; they're less scathing of the Pope than the comments section on a trad Catholic website.

Couple of quick thoughts: - In this analogy, the mechanics and institution of the repair shop have refused to accept there's anything wrong with your car - In this analogy, you haven't decided to look at your car alone, but rather a number of qualified mechanics have deemed that the current repair shop institution isn't functioning properly, and that those continuing to rightly practice mechanics can be said to truly be a continuation of the one true repair shop - In this analogy, there is a Master Mechanic who built not only the Church (er, I mean... Repair Shop), but the Universe, and He is sovereignly over all - there is no moment when the fate of the Church is left to an individual alone.

@@Mic1904 Your first point isn't true. Trent (and certain background documents leading up to it) acknowledged certain abuses and poor teaching and a number of its decrees directed them to be corrected. The second point is at least reasonable as the beginning of an argument. The third point is something everyone agrees on and doesn't really address the concerns (in my opinion).

@@toddvoss52 _"Your first point isn't true. Trent..."_ Trent happened after the Protestant Reformation, and after the events my analogy refers to, so no, my first point is indeed true at the time it's taking place. You can't retroactively say something didn't happen just because you claim it was then subsequently fixed. My third point is indeed something that everyone agrees on in principle (albeit with differing interpretations), but my putting forward of it is specifically in the context of the matter the original commenter is replying.

@@Mic1904 Thanks for engaging my comment, I think these are good points. My main issue would be with your point #2. How is one to know who is 'continuing to rightly practice' when this way of practice has not come out of the original institution, and there are multiple competing 'right practices'? And who qualified the 'qualified mechanics'? As of right now I don't see a way out of the relativism of Protestantism. Without a binding, external authority, you end up getting a lot of different mechanics with a lot of different, contradicting ideas. If truth unites, there seems to be a piece of it missing, broadly speaking, in Protestantism.

Yeah the problem with that is the Protestant version of faith is built foundationally on soteriology. Specifically on a certain understanding of justification and grace, which is somewhat Augustinian but also diverts from Augustine in a few ways. If you go back and read any church father or ancient Christian, including Augustine, they’re clearly not constructing a faith on the foundation of justification. Rather the ancient one true faith as you call it was rooted in a proper understanding of God and a proper understanding of the incarnation - the person of Christ. That’s what all of the 7 ecumenical councils were about and what all the ancient heretics were denounced for misunderstanding. Unfortunately the key to the Christian faith - trinitarian theology and Christology - was so de-emphasized in the reformation that it was barely even a consideration. The incarnation was an afterthought to the reformers. They were all humanists and were far more interested in the nature of man than they were the nature of God. But this is the wrong order. We are created in the image of Christ, he was not incarnated in the image of us. You cannot understand man if you don’t try to understand the God man.

Is Gavin admitting that the Holy Spirit allowed His Church to fall into error for 1500yrs?

@@harrygarris6921 No, Protestantism emphasises soteriology because that's our main point of dispute with Catholicism. We're Nicene, you're Nicene. Luther and his opponents usually started their disputes acknowledging this; it's even Article 1 of the Augsburg Confession, from memory.

@@SeanusAurelius we use the same confession but understand certain terms in it differently. And also although yes the classical reformers could profess the same surface level understanding of the Trinity the more you get into details the more we disagree. I honestly dont know about Lutherans as much but Calvinists hold to several trinitarian views that are not in line with the cappadocian model of the Trinity that was dogmatized at the second ecumenical council.

It seems to me that the church, historically, was really good at spotting heresies when they appeared. What Catholic teachings or practices were called heresy when they appeared? One day, we have a Pope, and no one in the church notices?

This is a great point that I rarely see made. EO and RCC are remarkably close. It’s as if Protestants think rejecting the pope gives them free rein to believe whatever nonsense they want even though the ancient Orthodox Church is separate from Rome but looks nothing like the Protestant faith clubs.

@@thegoatofyoutube1787 Well said. Justification by faith alone. Imputed righteous. Sola scriptura. Somehow nobody saw it until Martin Luther.

You presuppose that the Papists & Palamites existed for 1500 years. In reality, the Papists & Palamites birthed roughly between the Late 700sAD-1054AD. The Patrisric Period was not characterized by the Roman Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the Early Church of the Father's & the councils. The Universal Church was established by Christ, then it took the form of the Early Church, for a time, the Papists & Palamites, now the Papists, Palamites, and Protestants.

@@soupeverywhere9565 I don’t have to presuppose that the early church taught baptismal regeneration, Real Presence, prayers for the departed, imparted righteousness, and salvation by faith working through love, because it clearly did.

@@norala-gx9ld Well, except for Clement of Rome who talks about justification not by works in the 1st century, even more unambiguously than Paul, if I remember correctly, in that it's more obviously about works generally and not the Mosaic law. And the protestants routinely cited Bernard of Clairvaux to back them up on justification. And the early church fathers routinely say things that sound like Sola Scriptura. Moving to your other comment in this thread, I'll give you baptismal regeneration, and I'm not to familiar with most of the rest, but I do know that the Lord's Supper has been contested, at least. Vermigli, for example, writes about a bunch of the church fathers to argue for their support, and I'm fairly convinced that Augustine at least holds a lower view than people think.

Those 4 guys disagree on basic Christian doctrine and praxis.

@@bobbobberson5627 and?

@@bradleymarshall5489 so is it all just an intellectual exercise for you? How do you decide which one of these dudes teachings to apply to your daily spiritual practice? Since they all disagree on almost everything as far as application goes do you flip a coin or go w your gut?

@@bobbobberson5627yes we know you need people to tell you how to believe

@@danib712 we all do

Is Gavin admitting that the Holy Spirit allowed His Church to fall into error for 1500yrs?

@@MrJayb76 No. Watch the video.

@anglicanaesthetics i did. Gavin considers 90% of catholic dogmas as heretical. Therefore the Church lived in heresy for 1500yrs. There are even things in Niceae that Gavin rejects.

Why is it not relevant? Why is it not a problem?

Which one of the 33000 Protestant church’s are you referring To

@@mikebuckley46 Can you guys just stop the caricature of protestanism? Where is the evidence that Protestants denominations is 33000?? You're no different from a Muslim that says which Bible version is right. Think for yourself

@@mikebuckley46 Can you guys just stop the caricature. Where is the evidence that Protestants denominations is 33000?? You're no different from a Muslim that says which Bible version is right. Think for yourself

@@mikebuckley46 What's the difference between you and a Muslim that says Christians have different versions of the Bible?? You're using same argument.

Not everything is from the holly spirit. Is the thing. We r called to test.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Protestants view of the Holy Spirit. I think this would be a better question for Catholics vs Eastern Orthodox

@Ehhhhhsureeee you realize that there is quite literally a verse about that right. I.e. someone say Joe smo biden says God's ok with lgbt. And uses parsed verses. Is that from the holly spirit Or are we to test by the scripture. I wasn't directly meaning the holy spirit in my previous message. I was referencing that not every idea is from the spirit. Some are from devils. Wolves masquerading as sheep. And that goes for any denomination and can come from any believer. The holly spirit is God's voice. In every instance it's God guiding people by scriptures authority. In o.t.. it's specifically to prophets. Like moses (Or even those like Anna. Or john the baptists father. It's the spirit of God. I do believe I understand quite well. I have no reason to consult with groups when the bible tells me quite fine what it is. I've also felt it in moments of great confusion. Someone from hebrew roots tried to judiaze me and said reinterpreted the great sheet in acts. Saying gentiles couldn't eat pork etc. In a moment of tears and confusion I begged for clarity I knew the traditional view that all was made clean but they hurt and confused me. So I prayed I begged to know And like lightning I had all the wind knocked out of me was put on the floor. But I didn't experience pain But immense clarity. 1 John 4:1 says, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world So u want to tell me I misunderstood this. Or is saying that when the quote spirit leads everywhere and who's right... Hmm I was referencing cult groups such as Mormons. And sda. Hebrew roots etc

You are assuming many points. You seem to be assuming that all adherents of both Catholic and Protestant are even true believers ie; true Christians. Actually probably a large majority in both are just what we might call ‘cultural Christians’, who are simply adherents to the organisation and not real believers. The ‘Church’ is actually made up of all true believers who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ all over the world regardless of which Christian denomination they belong to. The Holy Spirit indwells all true Christians and guides them into what they should believe and the way they should live. The Holy Spirit does this primarily through reading and listening to the Scriptures and making the truths there what we believe and by God’s grace seek to put into practice in our lives.

"Catholics and Protestants, can have true faith and be led by the same Holy Spirit but to diverging points." - True. There can only be one truth of God. HS cannot be leading men in different directions. You should know them by the fruits of the H.S. “Every virtuous act which man performs with pleasure is a fruit.” The fruits of the Holy Ghost are not habits, permanent qualities, but acts. St. Paul (Gal. 5: 22, 23): “But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity.”

The same way you reject Vatican 1 and 2 is the same way Nicea can be rejected.

@@koppite9600 no it is not. Until Chalcedon the Body of Christ (i.e. the church) was ecumenically unified. Only 6 years after Chalcedon the Alexandrians had a political revolt and rejected Chalcedon.

@@michaelg4919what do you mean by "ecumenically unified"?

@@michaelg4919 Square what you said with Christ's promise the Church will forever never fail. Has it failed?

​@@koppite9600 Fine by me, sans the Holy Spirit no human institution or authority of any sort is reliable. We take it on faith that Nicea has divine sanction and the nonsense of Vatican I does not.

Protestants led by who? One version is for Moses and another for korah. Pick a side How do you tell the head from the usurping head? Which head did you follow why did you think it was the right one?

To be more precise, the protestants, as a movement, was/is a rejection of a Romanized version of catholicism Orr of orthodox Christianity.

@@glennedwards1065 Where's the Church they are aligning to then?

@@koppite9600 You're problem is you're desperately brainwashed to think that the "Church" is the Romanist Church or the Roman Catholic Church. It's not. The "Church" is the universal body of believers and followers of Christ, whose authenticity is measured by its adherence to the rule of the Scriptures and not by the Romanist Magisterium led by a papacy, which is another corruption of the apostolic heritage that began in the 6th century.

⁠@@koppite9600 In 1 Corinthians 2 and 3, God the Holy Spirit, through Paul, excoriates personality cults that divide over a man’s authority.That holds whether you say, “I am of Luther,” “I am of Calvin,” or “I am of the Pope.” Two biblical words are translated “church:” Synagogos means the local assembly; Ekklesia means “called out,” that is, the collective of followers of Christ who have come to God, God’s way. The church is not a hegemonic corporation; that’s churchianity, not Christianity. Your question assumes the standard is a man. It is not. The standard is the scriptures, and every man will be accountable for whether he followed what God revealed through the unchanging scriptures.

Ortland is Reformed Baptist😂 As a Reformed Baptist myself, we consider ourselves just as “pure” as our other Reformed and Lutheran protestant friends.

@@johnathanl8396 When i said "Reformed" i was considering you guys too.

@@pedroguimaraes6094 Epic, thank you for the clarification

What nonsense! Many, many non-denominational churches and Baptist churches are miles ahead of those denominations you mention. Christianity is not a denomination or a ‘religion’, it is being united to Christ and Christ alone by repentance and faith through the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. In fact most of the religious denominations you mention are essentially apostate, although there are many true Christians within them endeavouring to keep the faith!

What a load of 💩. The reformers (Luther and Zwingli)didn’t even agree on what the Bible meant so I don’t know why you’d imagine their spiritual descendants understand it properly today. Especially when the splits are endless and ongoing.

I'd be more interested in hearing from a trad Catholic how he abhors the current pope and talks endlessly about how he's a heretic, but doesn't consider it to be an act of schism.

Can't be done, always reduces to subjectivism and private judgment judgment.

Let's start with the Sedavacantists who see Francis as the anti-pope.

In 2024 I am not a schismatic as a Protestant. I am a believer. Schism assumes a split from something I was never a part of. I am a follower of Jesus, not a joiner of an institution I am asked to come home to.

@@DPK5201 How did the early Church define a schizmatic?

So true. Our pastor has said that there was a time (maybe 3rd or 4th century?) when 3/4 of the people claiming to be Christians were actually Arian.

@@rexlion4510 That's right. This is what many Christians refer to as Athanasius Contra Mundum, that is, Athanasius Against the World. The earthly church at that time was mostly Arian. It was, as you say, around the time of the Nicene Creed (c. A.D. 325), so late-3rd century and early-4th century. Overall, we should be glad that the Arians didn't win, but the Church would have learned a good lesson about what the Church truly is if they had won, since the faithful would have preserved the Church BY separation.

The reality is that Athanasius won and the true Church was not prevailed against. So we have to see that the same thing is happening yet again with the reformation as with Arianism. The Church remains and the reformers were scattered into sects proving their was no unity in this movement and it basically imploded which is why Catholicism/Orthodoxy kept on chugging along the same as usual for the most part. The instutional Church is still here.

@@dman7668 *"The reality is that Athanasius won..." Yeah. That's what I said. *" ... and the true Church was not prevailed against."* And I don't think it ever could be, especially since the true Church is the Body of Christ. However, that doesn't imply that the Roman Catholic Church could never be prevailed against. In fact, I think that is the point of the Reformation. It was prevailed against with other false doctrines. *"So we have to see that the same thing is happening yet again with the reformation as with Arianism."* I get that one could say that, but why think it's true? We could also say that where Arianism failed, other heretical beliefs and practices prevailed. It all comes down to whose truth claim is correct. *"The Church remains and the reformers were scattered into sects proving their was no unity in this movement and it basically imploded which is why Catholicism/Orthodoxy kept on chugging along the same as usual for the most part. "* Of course the Church remains, but that doesn't mean that it's the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, there is severe division within Catholicism (e.g., somewhere between 35-50% don't believe that God exists and a similar amount are pro-choice, which is against dogma), so I really can't tolerate being preached at about keeping unity by Romanists. By the way, you do know that the EO don't hold to the same, "necessary", dogmata as the Roman Church, right? In essence, though nobody likes to call them such, and they dislike being called such, EO are proto-Protestants. I know that it makes you feel like your side is bigger, mentioning them (since they do have a large degree of doctrinal similarity) that is, but they are really on the Protestant side of the isle. *"The instutional Church is still here."* Yes! Amen! The Body of Christ is still here, and it's not merely Roman Catholicism.

My buddy is a recent convert to Roman Catholicism. It seems to me, he understands “anathema” as being removed from the true Body and therefore that person is in spiritual danger (as one would be if removed from the Body of Christ). They also differentiate this: that not all Protestants are anathema. This was specific during the time of the Reformation and applied only to those who left the Catholic Church in arguing for Protestant convictions. There are many nuances, and I have issue with the Development of Doctrine, specifically how definitions seem to change in RC. As long as they use the same language as Trent they can never be wrong. I struggle with the fallacious argumentation of Rome, and this video was much needed because I do think they have the essentials. Though, accretions do keep us apart from worshipping together on the Lord’s day.

​@@Wentze Of course RC will want to change the meaning of anathema along with many other words. Without equivocation they have no arguments.

@@WentzeJust tell your buddy that the consistent, historical position of the Medieval Catholic Church is that anathema means that you effectively beyond salvation.

Actually my dude, your reformation brought the anathemas to the party first. Here’s #71 of Luthers 95 theses- 71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons,(indulgences) be anathema and cursed. I wonder if that anathema pertains to you?

Why would they want to change the meaning of the word "anathema"?

I tried to find any of that in the Bible. But no luck.

​​ How do you even know which books belong in the Bible in the first place, particularly in the New Testament? It was the institutional Church I was describing that decided, guided by the Holy Spirit, which books were in the Bible.

​@@Zenkai251 NO! They did not decide. They only recognized what had for many years been accepted as canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit..

@@DPK5201 please study the history. The 27 book New Testament Canon did not get standardized until the mid to late 300s AD. The first time in the historical record where the 27 books are listed as the correct canon of New Testament scriptures was in 367 AD by Catholic Bishop Athanasius. No previous canon list exactly matches the 27 book New Testament we have today. Look at the beliefs of the institution and the people who were the first ever to accept the 27 book New Testament canon. The first people ever in history to accept the 27 book New Testament canon held very Catholic beliefs. Why do you trust that these people got the 27 book cannon right but didn't get other doctrines right?

@@Zenkai251 well, to answer your last question, they never believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary or her bodily assumption. That's for starters. And makes me damned to hell by the Council of Trent for not believing them.

Yes, it has. (Not 'we only kept the good stuff' though - I've never heard any serious person suggest such a thing in the flippant or buffet-selection way you seem to be presenting it as)

Enter Anglicans...

You're assuming that the Coptic church of today look like what it was in the fifth century. Two separate institutions can undergo similar accretions over the centuries, simply by cultural osmosis. So the fact that two branches have grown in a similar direction tells us little about the trunk - for that you have to study the trunk itself -i.e. the writings of the Church Fathers.

@@calebkim2275 and Henry

18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 “‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, 23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. 24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. 25 Only hold fast what you have until I come. 26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule[c] them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ Jesus Christ, talking about the church age from 700AD-1500AD, He warned the institutional churches and then punished them with the Black Death.

Is Gavin admitting that the Holy Spirit allowed His Church to fall into error for 1500yrs?

@@MrJayb76 That wasn't my understanding of his video, and wouldn't make sense given the rest of his work about how the Classical Protestant traditions are consistent with the ancient church...his point (as I understand it) was that there are always false teachers creeping into the Church and that thus the Church is in continual need of reformation to clear away the many innovations which false teachers are always trying to bring in. That's why Gavin emphasized the difference between revolution and reformation. The view you're describing is more akin to the revolutionary view of church history, which Gavin and historic Protestantism explicitly reject.

@benjaminwessel5426 Gavin rejects 90% of catholic teaching...how is that just an internal renewal? That's ridiculous. The analogy of the car getting repaired instead of replaced is dishonest. It was a complete replacement. Gavins church does not look like the CC in the slightest bit. For him to say it wasn't a substantial change is beyond me.

@@MrJayb76 I mean, you're assuming that the Roman Church is the original ancient church, whereas he's arguing that that doesn't match the historical evidence. Have you watched his other videos?

Jehovah's witnesses are one such sprout. But they aren't according to you.

Protestant use of the rosary, as well as holding Mary in high esteem, are both traditionally Protestant ideas. Luther spoke very highly of Mary, for example. He also said that we should pray the rosary. His version of the rosary, however, seems to predate and exclude additions from the Council of Trent. Even if it is a plan by Rome, it's still traditionally Protestant.

I believe Daniel and Revelation predict this will happen

@@Real_LiamOBryan would like to have more facts about Protestants using a rosary. It certainly was not ever mentioned in the Bible and the very early churches spoken of in the Bible. Luther was coming from a Roman Catholic perspective and was excommunicated so was used to using the rosary and venerating Mary - so would be good to know where he recommended carrying this on. Yes I would imagine that all Christians would have a respect and esteem for Mary as she is the one who bore Jesus - very blessed by God to have been chosen for this privilege- but not a great deal is said about Mary by the Apostles and she certainly is not shown to be included in any doctrinal or faith matters. Abraham was also privileged to be used of God. Moses too and David and Rahab, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Apostles - but none of them are venerated. Except Peter by the Roman Catholics - which is not biblical. They had important roles to play in the history of the Church - but that is all. So more facts would be interesting to hear. K

@@thadofalltrades Revelation and Daniel are clearly about the Siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, so I don't see how they would predict such.

@@Real_LiamOBryan clearly you deny an older dating of Daniel then. The interpretations in Daniel cannot be so broadly painted. Daniel 2 is about a succession of kingdoms and so is Daniel 7. and 8. Only Daniel 9 could reasonably be stated to apply to 70ad and most of it doesn't. I would actually say, almost nothing in Daniel is about 70ad.

Indeed. Personally, I don't think it's wise to take anything Ms. Owens says seriously. 😊

​@@jonhilderbrand4615 LOL, me either.

You’re EO and you “love” this false teacher’s videos? Log off.

If you are EO you shouldn’t be liking this subversive content.

@@bobbobberson5627 I don't think he is truly EO. Or like some of my protestant friends living in compromise and following the newest preacher of today. And not practicing his faith, Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine to what's the new thing going on or who's the new happening speaker I can follow. A good solid foundation of old is needed one not not moved.

The problem is we don't focus on the real problems as the body of Christ. The problems are there. We are not. This is why we need unity. These problems will soon over take us without the help of our Lord and Savior. We argue about what we call ourselves. It just not right.

“The word reformation says it all”. I call it the protestant deformation.

@@BabyDingo I can see, you have not understood anything I wrote. I don't think I was playing games.

@@qazyman Agreed. Preaching the gospel is more important than preaching Churchianity. Those who insist that their Church is greater than the gospel are well known, their goal is to kill other Churches, but not to be in harmony with them.

No, the Catholic Church did not do that. It merely had no choice but to reject Sola ride in the way protestantism understands it. It had to reject it because justification can increase. That was why they had to say no to Sola Fide. Protestants do in fact, believe the same thing in practice, but just do not realize it. They do not believe justification increases, but in practice they do believe that.

@@dman7668 How do you define justification? I understand justification as “right standing before God” or “just as you had never sinned”. You are either in “right standing” or your are not; it is binary. So if you are in a right standing before God, you cannot increase in your standing.

@@robertdelisle7309 I realize you affirm that justification cannot increase as I affirm that it absolutely does as the Catholic Church states. Justification is in simplest terms being in right standing with God. It is not true to say one cannot become "more Holy" or more just then others. For example, we all are able to love one another, but some are doing this to a degree higher then others. This is the part the reformers missed and why the Catholic Church had to say no that idea. I hope that clarifies. You can indeed have two just men, but one man being more just then another.

@@dman7668 So you have clarified what you mean by justification. You and I are using the same word but mean different things by it. I agree with you that not everyone is equally righteous and people can increase in their righteousness through life. Protestants make a distinction between justification, which is essentially salvation through the imputed righteousness of Christ and sanctification which is a growth in holiness. The Protestant believes you can be Justified before God prior to being completely sanctified because you are saved by grace apart from works. The righteousness that justifies you is imputed to you by faith in a Christ. The Roman Catholic doesn’t make such a distinction because they don’t believe in imputed righteousness and view justification as a process, while Protestants view it as a moment in time. So when the Roman Catholic says they increase in justification, the Protestant would say they increase in sanctification. With that said, if you believe you are justified (saved) by grace (Ephesians 2:8) then how can works increase your salvation? “1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? “ (Gal. 3:1-3). ” It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. “2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law,” (Gal. 5:1-3).

@@robertdelisle7309 You wrote: _"Protestants make a distinction between justification, which is essentially salvation through the imputed righteousness of Christ and sanctification which is a growth in holiness."_ There is actually allot I need to unpack here so bare with me a moment while I explain something. The protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, by an imputation of the righteousness of Christ is actually a contradiction to sanctification. You cannot hold to both. You must choose either one is true, or the other. I will explain that more in a minute. You wrote: _"The Protestant believes you can be Justified before God prior to being completely sanctified because you are saved by grace apart from works."_ The Catholic Church also believes that we are justified by God through faith apart from works. This is called initial justification. However, once justified our good works can now add to that, and complete our justification (see James 2:24 for details). You wrote: _” It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. _ ☝ Yes, this passage here is mirroring what the Catholic Church says. We were set free, but we need to continue on maintaining our justification or be subject again to slavery of sin. We must maintain our saved status or risk losing it. You wrote: _"With that said, if you believe you are justified (saved) by grace (Ephesians 2:8) then how can works increase your salvation?" _ We are not saying our works "Increase salvation" all Christian's whom are born again are saved. We are saying that through our good works we increase in our Holiness, and are being sanctified through them, thus increasing our justification. You wrote: _"the Protestant would say they increase in sanctification."_ And now we enter the problem. Saying one increases in sanctification means increasing in justification. This is just semantics Robert. One cannot say they are becoming MORE like Christ (That is what we both agree sanctification is) without saying they are NOT growing in righteousness. Allow me to break this down if you are patient and want to do some light reading today. This is something of a Public Service Announcement to help avoid further confusion regarding Sola Fide as it relates to the concept of Sanctification. Many of you will be surprised to learn that these are actually MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE concepts, yet hold to both and don’t even think twice about it. To illustrate this, let’s contrast the Catholic and Protestant views of justification: In the Protestant view-AFTER a person receives justification by faith(inclusive of baptism for some sects and exclusive of baptism for others), they begin the process of Sanctification, whereby through acts of obedience(to the Spirit), the individual is becoming “more holy” in the eyes of God. In the Catholic view-AFTER a person receives justification by faith(inclusive of baptism), they begin a process whereby through acts of obedience(to the Spirit)-the individual is becoming “more righteous” in the eyes of God. Now, did those two explanations sound…kind of similar? Can anyone explain to me the FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between the Protestant concept of "Sanctification", whereby obedient acts lead to someone becoming "more holy" in the eyes of God...and the Catholic concept of ‘justification through works’? No. I don’t believe anyone can-because they ARE the same. This is a major issue for those of you who are holding to Sola Fide. But WHY is it a major issue? Well…you see…Sola Fide-as Luther envisioned it, does NOT actually allow for your righteousness to increase through acts of obedience 👇: “Luther’s central claim is that faith alone justifies (that is, makes a person righteous in the eyes of God) the one who believes in Christ as a result of hearing the gospel.” Source: oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-336 What this means is that it can NEVER be the case that a process of Sanctification could make you “more righteous” the more you imitate Christ. You are justified by Faith Alone, have reached peak holiness, and no “cooperative works” that you do can EVER increase your holiness. However, we can see from scripture that this is objectively FALSE 👇: (2 Corinthians 3:18) “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ⭐EVER-INCREASING GLORY⭐, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” There is no such thing as “ever-increasing glory”, according to Sola Fide. Really digest that. Sola Fide does not permit someone to “increase” in “justness”. A person is saved “by faith alone” and not by some process of Sanctification. Except that position directly contradicts the following statement Paul makes in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which says: “But we should always thank God for you, brothers who are loved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning to be saved by the sanctification of the Spirit ⭐AND⭐ by faith in the truth.” Note here how Paul does NOT say that we are saved “by faith alone” but rather by “sanctification AND faith”. That is highly indicative of Sola Fide being false. Obedience can NEVER lead to ‘righteousness’-that is the heart of Sola Fide, to quote Martin Luther: “Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works.” ― Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty In Luther’s view, only FAITH can lead to righteousness. Not obedience. Not a “process of Sanctification”. Now let’s take a look at what Paul says in Romans 6:16: “16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to ⭐OBEDIENCE, WHICH LEADS TO RIGHTEOUSNESS?⭐”. Martin Luther: Obedience does not lead to righteousness. Only faith leads to righteousness. Paul: Obedience leads to righteousness. 😳🤯🤯🤯 IN CONCLUSION It is crystal clear that the Protestant concept of “sanctification” is in all actuality, the Catholic concept of “justification by works” re-packaged in such a way so as to make it APPEAR as if Sola Fide is correct. However, once one scrutinizes this idea that we can “grow in holiness” through Sanctification then it is no longer “Faith Alone” that makes us holy and righteous before God-but ALSO the process of Sanctification itself(refer back to 2 Thessalonians 2:13). If anything OTHER than faith can make us “righteous” in the eyes of God-and yes, that is what it means to grow in holinesses through this separate process of ‘Sanctification’….then YES, Sola Fide ⭐IS FALSE⭐. You may hold to Sola Fide OR to the process of Sanctification(as we Catholics do) but you may NOT hold to both and remain logically consistent. These are mutually exclusive concepts. You must choose.

He tries!!!

I was actually just thinking the same thing, what is an accretion can actually be subjective. Much like interpretting the Bible.

Do you believe that we are saved by our own works? Or is God’s grace sufficient to promise us salvation?

@@Celtickaven I believe what the gospel teaches, we are saved by grace, through faith. We are justified initially by our faith through the sacrament of baptism (having our sins washed away as the Bible teaches). Then we are a new creation having been born again through baptism. Our good works are now able to add to our justification already established through grace by faith. We then will have a final justification our good works (that are not filthy rags because God is giving us these good works to do). Where God will reward us with eternal life, based on if we did those good works God prepared for us to do. He rewards us based on that, as well as our faith.

@@dman7668 based on your above answer, then why did Christ need to die, if we just need what you said to be saved? Based on the words you said above that theology does not need Jesus to die, then why did He?

@@Celtickaven I do not know how you gathered from what I said above that implies I am saying we do not need Christ to be saved. It's almost as if you do not know what the Christian belief is on baptism and that Jesus instituted it. You must be what is known as a "Low information" evangelical Christian. Do some research on baptism and how Christ told people to be baptized in order be enter heaven then come back when you have working knowledge. My time is valuable with 3 kids so I cannot waste it on someone who has not done baseline research.

I think Candice Owen's conversion has rattled Protestants, just reading the comments section here. She is such a mainstream conservative voice so to see her do this is evidently unsettling for many of you. We need to be careful attacking one thing she said (your moon landing criticism) and then trying to draw some equivocation. These are apples and oranges but you are trying to pass them off as apples to apples. Just saying. We need to not treat people like that.

Candice is a new catholic and as such deserves some grace trying to understand this. She knew opening up was going to make her life very hard, which it obviously has. It would be okay to tell people she became a Luther, or a Baptist, or a Presbyterian. But saying she is a Catholic was not acceptable. Because the world hates Catholicism, because it is Christ in the world. If she had accepted being a baptist their would be no controversy. Since the world loves it's own.

@@dman7668 I guess I fail to detect a good argument here. Celebrities converting to Catholicism has definitely become the "cool" thing to do these days, not the other way around. If she had a good argument, it would be different, but the argument about reformers inventing a new religion, rather than returning to the original ideas expressed by the Apostles in the first century, and swallowing novel 7th century ideas as decidedly "Apostolic" are both illogical positions. If one intends to defend the original faith as delivered by the Apostles, one would think to look much, much earlier than the 7th century, or even the 3rd century. 200 years is a looooong time.

If these "accretions" were not true, wouldn't someone from the true church have called them heresies?

@@davidbur2790 People from the true church have called them heresies, and they are calling them heresies. The true church is comprised of all spiritually regenerated, heaven-bound disciples of Jesus, whatever denomination they attend. If the church of Rome were Jesus' "true church," then definitionally every RC member would necessarily be saved and none would go to hell. The church is the body of Christ on earth. Do you suppose that some parts of Christ's true body on earth could ever wind up in hell? 🙃

Please share what accretions in Protestant doctrine you are referring to.

@@DPK5201 An example could be how some Protestants oppose the baptism of infant children of Christian families, so-called "believers baptism".

The 5 solas are accretions

@@knightrider585 can you name one Protestant reformer that didn’t teach infant baptism?

@@jacobemmanuel4772 So you would agree that Believers Baptism is a Protestant accretion that the founders of Protestantism would oppose?

Orthodox too, I presume?

catholics belive protestants are not saved.

What do you mean by that?

You are obligated to view all non-roman Catholics as anathema.

When Jesus said, "I am the vine and you are the branches," there were only individual disciples (followers) of Christ, not denominations. So the "branches" represent individuals, not denominations. Protestant churches can't be "detached branches." To be attached to Jesus Christ through faith is to be a living branch, a human being, that bears fruit by the power of the Holy Spirit (as He guides us personally and enables us to do the works He wants us to do). Are you listening to the indwelling Spirit and following His lead? Or are you trying to 'grunt out' works in your own strength? Are you attached to Christ the life-giving vine, or are you attached to the massive tree of the Roman Catholic denomination? Those are important questions every Catholic should ask of himself. I know. I was a cradle Catholic.

To follow up, ironically he just mentioned "people come in the comments and offer one sentence comments," so I naturally feel triggered. Haha. In all seriousness, I left a short comment because the reality is that people don't actually read long comments, or if they do, they only respond to one portion, which means the longer comment is wasted effort. Regarding the above, I'm happy to go into more detail because, now that I'm 16 minutes in, starting at about 15:35, he actually starts addressing one of my biggest complaints about his argument, but completely sidesteps it and manages to make my point stronger. He says that people critique for talking about "Protestantism wholesale" but then acts as though this isn't a big deal by saying, "I never did quite understand that" and says you can break it down into "Layers of identity" and point out, "look, here's areas where we all agree." This is untenable, both philosophically and theologically. This is a case of Dr. Ortlund moving the goal posts. Or would he like to make an argument for why Luther and Zwingli were "basically the same," and somehow step around the fact that they wanted to kill each other, or that Luther said he'd rather have wine with the Pope than have grape juice with Zwingli? Or would Dr. Ortlund like to explain how, if these are just "layers of identity," some Protestant groups were appealing to Rome to help them wipe out other Protestant groups? Or how about how the definition of "basically agree" has shifted post-Enlightenment? Would Dr. Ortlund like to outline the ways in which American-inspired freedom deeply impacted how these concepts are viewed, thus distorting it substantially from historical Christianity, thus negating his argument? The whole first half of the video involves Dr. Ortlund saying "Protestants" as if this is somehow a single group; as if there is enough agreement amongst said "Protestants" that we can just lump them all together. But this is nonsense, and the reality is that even most Protestants, when given a few questions, will prove this to you. I can point out debates here on KZfaq where so-called heavyweights of a single Protestant tradition _can't agree on fundamentals of the Faith_. If you want to make the case that there is a tiered _understanding_ of Christianity, and that we are constantly growing closer to Christ, great -- that's a valid discussion, and helps frame it in a sense that we can then unpack how _maybe_ certain branches of Christianity are pointing in the right direction, but just don't have the full understanding. That has merit. But at some point, you have to come to grips with the notion that something is moving in the right direction or it's not, and if A is substantially different than B, which one of those is the right direction (and why), and you can't just explain it away with relativistic post-Enlightenment wishful thinking. For example, if I say, "Baptism is real and it matters a great deal," and another person says, "meh, it's not a big deal, it just gets you wet and shows you care," then those are substantially different positions. How much do they matter? In the ancient Church, it mattered a great deal; in the modern West, not so much. Does this distinction matter? If not, why not? These questions, or at least questions like them, appear to be missing from this construct.

saying this reveals a lack of understanding of the definition of the word "accretion." A return to roots is somewhat the opposition of an accretion.

Accretion isn't reformation. Accretion means an addition. It was added as time went. Reformation means to go back to restore.

Accretion - the process of growth or increase, typically by the gradual accumulation of additional layers or matter. Your comments makes no sense from an RC apologetics perspective. You are probably thinking “accretion” means the same thing as “innovation”.

​@@TruthUnites You can't return by demand. "Running your own race" is what Paul would accuse you of. You move with the magisterium or you don't move an inch.

​@@raphaelfeneje486 Reform to where? The church is always safe as Jesus said it would be.

Is it true that Francis is the anti-pope as the Sedavacantists claim?

That's right as the scriptures even say that we "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Peter himself being the chief cornerstone"

Would also like to hear Gavin’s take on this as a Baptist . Although I don’t know that he is a member of the SBC.

The reformers kind of went back to Augustine. They picked certain doctrines from Augustine what they liked and left behind what they didn’t. Augustine was a staunch defender of the visible Church and episcopal ecclesiology after all…

Good list of accretions that were there by the 4th century. We could add Augustinian soteriology which is affirmed in different forms by Roman Catholics, Calvinists & Lutherans though denied by Eastern Orthodox. The first three centuries of Christians knew nothing of this. See Ken Wilson's 'Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism.'

I'm still trying to figure out which type of Anabaptism is the Biblical one. Is it the militant apocalyptic version like the one represented by Jan Matthys and Melchior Hoffman or is it the non-Trinitarians represented by Adam Pastor or the 'Sword' Anabaptists advocated by Balthazar Hubmaier or Communial Anabaptists as advocated by Jacob Hutter? Most modern Anabaptists seem to be pacifists like Menno Simons but he was a nut because he denied the incarnation by claiming Jesus had 'Heavenly Flesh.' Just like the Reformers, the Anabaptists couldn't figure out exactly what the NT church was.