I'm Catholic convert but I dare say this man is the strongest voice of Protestantism and ecumenicalism out there today. I love this man! Great videos!

As a devout orthodoxy i had a deep encounter of the Holy spirit in an evangelical church recently which i never had in an orthodox church i thought protestant churches are led by false doctrine and false spirit but now i am deeply confused about orthodoxy....i don't think i can ever go back into orthodox church because i have new convictions which i never had before and your videos are so helping me to learn about protestantism Thank you And pray for me!!! Edit:I converted!!

I'm a Lutheran and I studied under Prof. Peter Kreeft at Boston College for a semester. He is devout catholic and apologist for the catholic faith, however he definitely appreciates protestant devotion and love for Jesus. He is a good example of one who is willing to see what we can learn from each other.

I so appreciate your heart expressed in this video. As a lifelong "Protestant" (I don't really like to define myself by what I'm against), I've been learning a lot from the Catholic and Orthodox traditions over the past 7 years. And I've been rethinking Sola Scriptura in favor of Prima Scriptura. But your explanation helped bring me back to that Sola's true meaning and intent.

I am both encouraged and excited with this rendition of a Protestant identity. For the longest time, I struggled to respond to Catholic arguments against the legitimacy of Protestantism, but this is helping my understanding of what a great, organic tradition has in its potential. Also, great metaphor!

Gavin, I've gotta say: this is my favorite video you've ever made. If I could imagine a video that focuses the best of what God has called you to study and advocate for, this is it. I hope my contribution to the Body of Christ can be a fraction as sweet as what you're bringing to the table here.

Great vid. And I appreciate that you emphasised at the end that no, you do not want to compromise truth for unity. Unity if possible, truth at all costs. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t to strive for unity at all.

The core Protestant doctrines of Solo Fide and Sola Scritura require Protestants to stay on a very straight, narrow, and very well marked road. God is simple. His plan is simple. His Son is perfect.

Another great video. Thanks Gavin. Some time ago I thought of an analogy similar to your divorce analogy. Imagine a group of children who are neglected and abused by their mother, so they run away from home. They were justified in doing so. But their broken upbringing is going to cause them problems. They will have wounds and hitches in their personalities that at times keep them from healthy interaction with the world. They may fight and bicker with one another and be unable to live together. But it would be sin upon sin for the Mom to then say, “look at how unruly and divided they are! This is proof they never should’ve left home.” Some-not all!-Catholics are dangerously close to being that mother when they accuse the reformers and those who came after them as being unruly dividers of the church. They did have sin and trouble agreeing. But that’s in large part because of their poor upbringing and absent parent.

I learned in school that every 7 years all of our cells in the body died and have been replaced with new cells. So every 7 years, we are a new human being? Not really, but this came to my mind when you said "how can something change and remain the same?"

This video was so helpful. Thanks for making Gavin!

Thank you for the well researched clarity you bring ❤️🙏

Great presentation Dr. Ortlund. Thanks for clarifying these things for many folks who may not know. Glad you brought up the overreactions in the church. I enjoy reading Schaff and happily remain a Protestant catholic.

Okay, this was good. Thanks. Ill add Shaff to my infinite list of books to read.

Thank you brother. Your insights help to keep me grounded in truth, and to not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men.

Catholic here. This really is another impressive video done by Gavin. I have a lot of research and praying to do. I’ve listened to this 3x (I’m a slow learner and this is dense material). This and the various other videos that Gavin has done, has given me a real chance to look at the best protestantism has to offer. His resources have allowed me to look into other Protestants too. I have some real soul searching to do with the lord to see what the future holds, because I’m increasingly drawn to protestantism (my original upbringing was non denominational, converted to Catholicism 5 years ago). I don’t say this simply or lightly, as I would be considered by most to be a traditional catholic. I don’t say all of this to cause agitation for my fellow Catholics. I’m simply writing this because I find the evidence and arguments of protestantism to be more persuasive, and I’ve been genuinely surprised by this. All Christians will be in my prayers today and tonight. May God lead us where we need to be. God bless.

Thank you, Pastor Ortlund. Your videos just keep getting better. I pray your walk with God will keep getting closer to Him. Similarly, how can we reject the appeal for catholicity in light of our own dear Lord's prayer in John 17, that we would be one just as He and the Father are one? It is not the way we would choose, but I increasingly believe that God allows increased persecution in order to bring His people together as He has called us to be.

THIS IS EVERYTHING!!!!!! (I apologize for my inability to express my assessment of this content in more intelligent terms)

Dear Gavin, I really appreciate you bringing up the subject of Mercersburg theology. I think the vision of Schaff, Nevin and their associates is one of the most convincing visions of Protestant Catholicity. I would love to see more references to the theologians of Mercersburg in your videos.

Phenomenal presentation Gavin. God bless

Great video Gavin!

I am doing a YT series through Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" on my own channel. Schaff was living through one of the most interesting times in Church history during the heady days of post-Vatican I Catholicism, early ecumenism, and the rise of Liberalism.

This is an OUTSTANDING presentation and largely mirrors the mission of our own organization, which is to be an expression of continuity with the practices and beliefs of the early Christians (I am a priest in the Old Catholic Communion of North America). We know that we are not perfect, and we try to look for what is good and true in any Christian expression, while looking to Scripture and the early Church as our primary references, trusting and hoping in God to guide our steps and words.

Great video, very deep subject. As a catholic i appreciate the honesty of this protestant apologist.

Very helpful! Thank you!

Great video!

Could you do a video on “Mere Christianity” and your thoughts on it as a Protestant? (Not the CS Lewis book but the idea)

"... Works flow out of a true faith (in Christ Jesus)... " Exactly. And this has been abundantly borne out by 20 centuries of true Christian Faith.

Good stuff! RC has been ruled out for a long time for me, but Orthodoxy is still pretty new, oxymoron not intended. Would love to see you engage more with that. Loved your debate with the father, that's how I heard of you. God bless

It’s very discouraging to see the divisions among Protestants. But you have given me a better understanding and love for Protestantism.

I like the new title!

Gavin has met my socially awkward husband who buys me repetitive gifts because he thought I liked them the first time he got them 😆, but he does climb on the roof to clean the air conditioner.

Loved your quotes from Schaff what an inspired and insightful man he was. When these things are brought to our attention they are mind blowing for me because they are so true. Schaff knew exactly what the Catholic Church was up to in denying Sola Scriptura so they could ultimately maintain the power to inform everyone else.

Diggin the new tattoo!

@12:45 that's a great mind bender, but there's another and important subsequent question; if you take all those removed parts and build a new ship, ship #2, is that the original ship? Or is the ship #1 the original? Thanks for your videos, brother. God bless you!

The Apostle's Creed unites us in doctrine. Repentance and trust in Christ unites us by the Holy Spirit given at that moment of surrender to the Lord.

This book could be helpful for my husband and I to read right now. I couldn't find the link in the description, and I'm not sure which of Schaff's books to order. Could you please note the name of the book for us so that I can order it? Is it Creeds or Christendom? Hopefully not the 8 volume history!

I'm a former long-time Protestant (and a former long-time Catholic), but I enjoy your videos because you present some intelligent and reasonable arguments -- even if I disagree. I respect your knowledge and your sincerity. The Protestant movement started as a reaction against Roman Catholicism, and I believe that in a general sense, Protestants are correct in asserting that the RCC is in error; that quote from CS Lewis is very insightful (he remains a hero of mine). Becoming a Roman Catholic means you have to officially accept things that are heterodox. But Protestantism is also deeply problematic. I would agree with you that there are certain basic things that Protestants share in common, but beyond these things there are so many differences that make Protestant Christianity a realm of chaos (with regard to both doctrine and practice). I have spent decades in Western Christian churches. When it comes to issues of authority and unity of faith and worship, I am convinced that Protestants lean too far to one side, while Roman Catholics lean too far to the other. In my experience, the only path to balance is the way of Orthodoxy.

pro tip: check your mic levels, because currently its way too loud and its even clipping in some parts. ( clipping is a form of waveform distortion that occurs when an amplifier is overdriven and attempts to deliver an output voltage or current beyond its maximum capability. )

One thing I loathe about Catholics and Orthodox apologists is they usually have two contradictory views on Protestantism: It is both over 45K sects (it's at most 12) and yet we are also all mini-John MacArthurs. Especially as a Lutheran, Catholics seem to dismiss Luther as this which is at best incredibly ignorant and at worst an outright 9th Commandment violation and yes, they should repent and go to confession for. I love you all, and if you want to debate/talk to Protestants, do not strawman or assume you know what believe. EDIT: I do think that Protestant can be very vague to people and in a way that's *why* the two views on us have stuck, the biggest issue I have is when both views are simultaneously held.

@Truth Unites - Gavin, I loved the spirit of this video and have been thinking hard about it. I very much appreciate the warnings against sectarianism and the desire for unity, but I also wonder if these terms need to be carefully defined. What exactly do we mean by "sectarian?" What does the end goal of "catholicity" look like? I'm in EFCA and if I remember right, you're in a Baptist denomination. While we might differ individually over the particulars, the fact that we're in these camps means that we have rejected the conclusions/authority of many canons and creeds throughout history on the basis that they disagree with Scripture. Of course, the groups that hold to those views could look at us and go, "See, you're being sectarian!" And we, in turn, could easily look at others who disagree with us while following a similar thought process and form their own denominations and say "Look, we were fine, but you... YOU'RE going too far... you're being sectarian." It seems common in these discussions to throw massive numbers of Protestants under the bus and say "we're not like them." But is this fair? You're right to be wary of sectarianism because we need to regard it as a genuine possibility that we need to earnestly guard agains. Any time we create a division of the body of Christ over a trifling manner we would be guilty of being sectarian, regardless of how well-intended the division was. And sectarianism could also be an attitude in which we prize animosity and seek to disregard the genuineness of other believers. But what about when an individual congregation (or denomination) of believers separates out from a larger group out of conscience and conviction? Is that ultimately being sectarian in every case? I hope not! That's why our end goal of unity needs to be defined as well. If we manage to have a number of congregations/denominations that are worshipping God according to conscience and conviction WHILE STILL valuing those in other groups as valid Christians and family members (within doctrinal reason, especially regarding primary issues), I believe we are on track for the best that denominations have to offer. And as a continually reforming Church, I agree with you that it would be wonderful to seek recovery of unity as much as we can. I know that when such "mergers" are done, they usually result in even more denominations - the two original groups and the third group that is the result of both groups coming together. But maybe we could gradually move in the direction of having fewer large denominations that could encompass the majority of Protestants? Continuing this thought, maybe one way to head in the right direction would be to encourage existing independent churches to at least seek out an existing denomination to join? We have enough options on the table now that I would hope that a given a congregation could find a group to join without having to resort to flying solo or making a brand new denomination from scratch. Sorry for the long message. I am eager to read your book when it is done and hope that these kinds of discussions can provide stuff to chew on.

Great video Dr. Ortlund! Schaff’s vision seems to tie in well with 1689 federalist ecclesiology, with putting the church in the body of Christ and his new covenant, instead of physical institutions

I greatly appreciate the love for Christ's church you are demonstrating and calling for, but i am truly struggling to see how reconciliation can ever be possible. Rome has historically doubled down and anathematized any dissenters, and has never reformed or rescinded any anathemas or repented of errors or "infallible canon" that makes reformation impossible.

Which Philip Schaff book were you referencing?

“Protestants are only against something.” As you have shown, this isn't the case. Yet, isn't this the means by which doctrine was developed from the earliest Church? Being "against" was often the motive force behind clarifying, correcting, and developing doctrine. Second, regarding Luther: have you done anything on the 97 theses? Written a month or two before the famous 95, it didn't create the same stir. One big difference: in the 97 theses, while he questioned the foundations of scholastic development in the Church, he did not question indulgences. In other words, Luther didn't go after the money in the 97, but did in the 95. Go after the money, and the rest is history, as they say.

As a Byzantine Catholic who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition I find Gavin Ortlund to be an honest man with integrity. I was shocked by how spiteful the responses he get in comments section. While Catholics and Orthodox may disagree with his thesis the disagreement could be framed in spiritually engaging way rather than ad hominem attack. This is actually analogous to Beau Brenson and Joshua Sijuwade discussion on Trinity. Patristic consensus profess Nicene faith that the One God is the Father alone. The Logos and the Pneuma are consubstantial with God because they're eternally caused by the uncaused God the sole monarch. Notice similarity between "is of identity" and "is of predication." Trinity as a whole can't be the identity of God because it's a label to group three members of Godhead. Similarly the question now is who is the one Church by identity. Is it Rome for Catholics or major patriarchy for Orthodox or Christianity as a whole for Protestants? By addressing the topic irenically we all can discuss this more civilly and in Christ pleasing manner. In the Last Judgement we all will be judged by our words. Let's proclaim our living faith with love for without love faith is dead.

What’s your perspective on someone like NT Wright or someone that agrees with the NPP and doesn’t hold to the Lutheran view of justification such as Sola Fide? I agree that almost all Protestants would hold to Sola Scriptura. I’m not sure if Sola Fide has the same level of agreement.

I would say liturgical churches are more accessible since you can go in and follow the service on the service sheet without someone immediately getting in your personal space.

Hi Gavin, thanks for this video. I'm no techy but it sounds like your audio is clipping ie too high.

Protestantism is beautiful, each tradition have something to contribute the other, and the best is that we have a mutual recognition as brethren, even when we disagree on several points, but that's the same for other branches (even when they try to say they're homogeneous)

I was considering your protestant distinctives. You mentioned Church discipline. I don't understand why. Don't other Christian groups have that? Can Protestants do Church discipline if the person being disciplined can just go to the church up the road if they get "disciplined"? I noticed you didn't mention the Trinity. It seems you could believe what you mentioned and deny the Trinity. Who would have the authority to tell the person they are wrong?

Great video. After watching so much of your videos and Bishop Barron's videos, I think I am coming to reject the idea of Sola Fide. The doctrine from the Protestant side seems to allow to much for the "come as you are" attitude and not the "take up your cross and follow me" attitude. And, at least for the churches I go to and have access to, the idea of ascetism and striving after Christ is actually denigrated, very odd stuff. If you get the chance, I would love for you to do a video on Sola Fide and make a defense for it like you did for Sola Scriptura.

The ship analogy I think completely depends on your worldview. I'm sure to a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox person, the ship was being replaced with similar parts throughout the ages certainly, but Protestantism then invites wheels onto the ship, then maybe some tearing down of the deck and removing the sails for other reasons, then others start building their own ships because they disagree with the other ships being built a certain way. To them it probably doesnt look like a renewal effort, rather it's a perversion and drastic change to what made the ship a ship.

This is why I admire the IL-PCPCU so much. From their final report: Their "ecumenical task would first be to determine (more) precisely the intersection between a Concordia-Lutheran and a Reform-Catholic catholicity" (11). There's an interesting goal here to return to history, to see things as they were at the time they were presented e.g. the Augsburg Confession was exactly that: a set of confessions under Catholicism, not as it's seen today: a body of doctrine. This dialogue is very important for future developments, "For the first time in a Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue, the sola gratia is supplemented by the sola fide and supported by Rom. 3:28 in a joint declaration. This is a statement of consensus that carries substantial ecumenical significance" (31). Vatican II was uniquely helpful in this dialogue between Confessional Lutherans and the Pontifical Council because it helped bring a different "orientation" or perspective to Trent that helped clarify previously divisive topics. There is also a section that is very helpful in discerning the language used between Confessional Lutherans and Roman Catholics - how we use words like justification vs sanctification, for example. Sorting through the language differences is very helpful. There was one obstacle created in the discussion (on the LCMS side - my side lol) and it had to do with Holy Orders. Admittedly, I think it may have been a nonissue... but I'm still looking into it. Anyways, I'm always trying to shine light on this discussion between the International Lutheran Church and the Pontifical Council Promoting Church Unity because some significant headway is being made there.

4:27 This is where I want to push back a bit. To some extent things can come up out of Church teaching and even natural law and be consistent with the 'yardstick' of the Bible, but if they are not in fact validated in this way then they are not, by a Protestant definition, 'doctrines.' So if the natural lawyer who opposes euthanasia can then show you reliably in Scripture that God taught against euthanasia then it might become elevated to the status of a doctrine but not all true statements of belief are necessarily doctrinal even if they are logically consistent.

What are the essentials of protestantism?

1. Sola Fide - justification by faith alone 2. Sola Scriptura - only infallible source of doctrine 3. Belief in 2 sacraments - Baptism & Communion (?) 4. Priesthood of all believers - interpretation & ministry (?) 5. Shorter OT canon - no apocryphal books 6. Emphasis on preaching & worship - de-emphasize what (?) 7. Church discipline - correction in love (?)

I believe the church body, rather than leadership, will be responsible for 'uniting' Christianity. I was led to a non-denominational evangelical church, but I have tolerance for Rroman Catholic and other denominations. Matt Whitman (Ten Minute Bible Hour) had an awesome response when Matt Fradd (Pints with Aquinas) said he would like to convert Whitman to catholicism. Whitman responded, (paraphrased) "I would be disappointed if you didn't feel that way. But I am Catholic, just not Roman Catholic".

Thanks for a thoughtful video as always Gavin. I have one question that I'd be interested in your thoughts on (Apologies in advance for the long explanation). I'm currently in a Reformed evangelical tradition and have been wrestling with Catholicism for a while now. While I have not yet been convinced by the ecclesiological claims of Rome, I find the basic contours of their soteriology in regards to the relationship with faith and justification to be quite compelling, based on scriptural and patristic tradition (particularly evidenced by Augustinian tradition but also earlier writers). Based on this thinking I would not refute Sola Fide as a concept altogether though my understanding of it (similar to faith formed by charity) would be inconsistent I imagine with the common Protestant understanding (e.g. mere imputed righteousness). To cut to the chase, I'd be interested to know whether this means from your perspective I'd be outside the bounds of Protestantism, and if so, what is my identity (if any!)? Hope this makes sense and don't feel the need to respond to my assertions about soteriology - that's too complicated for a youtube comment box :)

Very thought provoking thankyou, I never heard of this thinker before. Please at the start of your videos could you give a working definition of your terms? By the end I could guess what you mean by 'catholicity', but it's still not clear. Thankyou for your work and dedication to God.

At the tower of Babel, they had one language, think Latin, and God divided them into many languages. Acts 2:8“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”

The thing that you read describes my thoughts on what happened to the Roman Catholic Church. Many Catholics tell me we strayed etc. etc. But as what you read is that they strayed from catholicity and the protestant reformation corrected her. So many words have been changed and re-defined or "claimed" by the RCC that when we have dialog we have no idea what each other is talking about. For example, words like catholic or catholicity. Phrases like " The Church" I am more incline to thinking that "The Church" is a universal body of believers who believe in the things we share or the "catholicity" of the faith. Which are the absolute non negotiable truths of the faith. 1. Jesus identity as deity 2. Trinity (whish is part of his identity), 3. Virgin Birth 4. Perfect sinless life 5. Sacrifice of himself burial and resurrection from the dead 3 days later and what that does for you if you believe in his work. The salvation of our souls. We ALL agree on this and it is what makes us have this catholicity. Its the side issues being tuned into HUGE problems and obstacles that has separated us. That is Rome's doing. Those side issues make it an absolute impossibility for me to even consider any type of high "orthodoxy" etc.

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” ― John Henry Newman

Rather “interimistic”, I would say Protestantism is “Bringing God’s Word and The Truth to an every changing world.”

Good video Dr. Ortlund, could you respond to a video of Trent Horn? The name of the video is "One question Protestants can't answer".

But why think these two principles are core to who the church was when Christ founded it?

Apart from the confusion regarding what protestants mean when they rhetorically slander Catholicism with this phrase "Faith + Works". How is it that as someone who is sola scriptura feels comfortable to say that core of his faith is on this idea that "it's not faith + works that gets you justification"" right after saying "faith alone" is your core, all while the scriptures EXPLICITLY say "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"?!?!?!?!?!?????????? It's astonishing...

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

Truth and authority go hand in hand in catholicism. You have this office that has authority and under that authority everybody unites. I wonder if "Truth unites" is an offensive name to catholics, as they claim we can't know truth without the authority of the church, and truth and teaching the truth go hand in hand. There really should be a KZfaq channel called "magisterium unites".

Interesting video. I still struggle immensely in understanding how much of this is held on my Catholic bias. Like I genuinely don’t get how a lot of this can be said. Whenever you claim something about “Protestant beliefs” I also go back to “what is that? What’s Protestant belief, and who says?” I guess that sectarianism you’re talking about is the Protestantism I’ve encountered most often… the “well I just read my Bible” crowd. I am trying, and I’ve come a long way personally in acknowledging the truth that Protestants are my separated brothers and sisters. I’ll be honest though, I get the impression from many Protestants that they entirely bracket non-Protestant traditions as either wholly bad or effectively non-existent. As though modern non-denominational Christianity is the only thing that exists. It’s annoying bordering on hurtful to see so many Catholics aren’t Christians videos, as wrongheaded as I know they are. What, in your view is a way in which Protestants can take practical steps toward a better catholicity? Is it a turning away from non-denominationalism, placing themselves under some actual authority structure apart from their reading of scripture, etc? Thanks Gavin, as always I appreciate your channel very much, as frustrating as it may be sometimes.

GLORY BE TO GOD THE FATHER THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT AMEN he is never wrong and this testimony its true as true can be protestantism is full of f pride self indulgence and arrogance nothing good will ever come from this

Philip Schaff Mercersburg Theology

Perhaps some of the problems are the modern thoughts in the evangelical churches that assert directly and indirectly that doctrine doesn’t really matter and not referencing church history. There is also a modern disdain for mainline denominations and their worth in evangelical non denominational thought. Unfortunately it’s very popular and damaging overall.

First of all, american evangelicalismo IS NOT PROTESTANTISM...evangelicalism is a colonial american phenomenon of the 19 th century. True protestantism could be found in traditional Lutherans and some Presbyterians. Anabaptists, which includes sect baptists of all versions are not so-called protestants. So, we have american sects independent one from another from an anabaptist tradition and historical denomination like Lutherans, Presbyterians Anglicans. But each one of these denominations is super divided and is not protestants anymore. So, in America we have a lot of sects and not protestants. Not at all.

Infallibility of Scripture must be further explained when Verbal (!) Inspiration is no longer tenable.

The essential beliefs listed by Matthew Poole in the 1600s were the Apostles Creed, which is similar to the rule of faith of Ireanus/Tertullian. The Creed does not require the unique distinctive beliefs that Rome requires at the threat of damnation to it's followers. Thankfully only the Lord Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, has the key of death and hell, not the 'bishop of Rome.'. Mr. Ortland, it seems the biggest error and sin among Protestant nations - following the error of Portugal and Spain, was the slave trade and New World slavery. Professor Alec Rylie discussed this in his new book Protestantism. There were minority voices of Protestant biblical voices against slavery, but if you are convinced that slavery is sin then someone like George Bourne or Samuel Seward are lonely voices.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father?

I have to admit that I just don’t get Protestantism. I have read Schaff’s history of the Christian Church and even he says that the early church was “Catholic.” I grew up as an atheist because when you look at the New Testament is demands unity and I did not know that there was one unified church that could be traced back to the New Testament period. And it was not until I actually looked at church history and saw that there was one church that worked together as whole to define doctrine and could actually be seen as a unified church. And even Protestant scholars point to the unity and growth of the early Catholic church as proof of the resurrection. Christ said that he was going to build a church and the gates of hades would not prevail against it. And for 1000 years of Christianity; every Christian believed that such a promise meant that there would be one church that taught the truth. No one argued that Jesus’ words that the gates of hell would not prevail against meant anything else than that there will be one church that has the truth. No one in history looked at that verse and said: “That does not guarantee that Christ’s church will not make doctrine errors.” For 1500 years it was interpreted to mean that there would be one church that a person can trust to tell me the truth. For the first 400 years of Christianity the average person on the ground would have zero chance of being a Christian who could use Scripture to find Christ. No one but the elite were even aware that there were discussions under way about developing a New Testament Canon. The only way that people could have come to Christ was to trust “the church.” The average person did not know what were the documents that were considered “God breathed.” If they learned about Christ and the Trinity and Doctrine of the Incarnation they absolutely had no choice and no other options but to trust the Catholic Church because that was the only church that existed. The Catholic Church was the only Church that existed for the first 500 years. The reason that I became a Christian out of atheism in the first place was the unity and growth of the early Catholic Church. Look at what the predictions are that Christ made in the New Testament about the church: FIRST - Christ predicted that his church would face persecution (John 15:20) and its members would be killed. (Luke 21:12). This struck me as odd because the Roman empire was religiously tolerant. SECOND - Christ said that his church would “be one.” Christ says that the way you will recognize his church is that it will “be one.” In John 17 he says it FOUR times. And Christ said that his church would be one so “that the world would know.” He is giving evidence for you to look for. While all other religions are endlessly dividing, he says that his church will be one and that is how you will recognize it. And the apostle Paul states over and over that the church has to be unified to an almost ridiculous degree. He stated the church has to “agree on everything.” And there can be “no dissensions.” Eph. 4 says that Christians should have one doctrine and not be tossed back and forth by every wind of doctrine. THIRD - Jesus predicted that his church would grow to go to all nations. He tells the apostles in Matthew 28 to go to all nations and he says he will be with the church to the end of time. To bolster his claims in John 14:16 Christ states that he is going to send the Holy Spirit to guide the church “forever.” In John 16:13 Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will guide the church in “all truth.” So here the Bible claims that there is a church guided by the Holy Spirit which is supposed to be God according to the Christian view of the Trinity. In Acts 15 we see the church hold the Council of Jerusalem where there is a debate and it is the whole church together that makes a decision and they write a letter saying: It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us … So, we see right there that the New Testament claims that there is one church guided by the Holy Spirit. So if that is true then Jesus' predictions should come true. There should be one unified church. And when I read Schaff, and Jaroslav Pelikan’s book the Development of Catholic Tradition 100 AD to 600 AD.” These books admit that the early church was the Catholic Church. Among this list of early Fathers: Clement 95 AD - - Ignatius 107 AD - - Polycarp from Smyrna in 150 AD - - Justin Martyr of Rome (150 AD) - - Hegesippus 170 AD - - Dionysius of Corinth 171 AD - Irenaeus of Lyon (France) in 180 AD - - Origen (215 AD), - - Cyprian (250 AD) - Dionysius of Rome 269 AD -- Hilary 315 to 367 AD - - Athanasius 298 to 374 AD - - Eusebius 260 to 339 AD - - Gregory of Nyssa 335 to 395 AD - - Gregory of Nazianzus 329 to 390 AD - - Ambrose 339 to 397 AD - - Jerome 347 to 407 AD - - Augustine 354 to 430 AD These men all saw themselves as part of only one church. There were not multiple churches forming in Acts 15 and there were not multiple churches in the first 500 years. There really was one church that did go through persecution, but it did stay unified and grow to all nations just like Christ promised. The Catholic Church meets the marks and predictions made by Christ and it is the only church that existed for the first 500 years. There is no group back then that argued for “sole fide” and “sola scriptura” and 2 sacraments instead of 7 and the priesthood of all believers with no ministerial priesthood. If there were such a group, I would have expected Schaff to point them out and he doesn’t. This Catholic Church was the only church that existed with the Bishop of Rome in place and seen as the successor to Peter that held the Council of Nicaea (325), the Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Through these Councils the church took 150 years to carefully define the highly nuanced doctrine of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. None of us as Christians can pick up Bible and use the ‘Bible alone” to show all the nuances of why we believe there are 3 co-eternal “persons” who all have the “same essence” and how the 2nd person of the Trinity is both fully God and fully man who shares the “divine will” which is combined with his “human will” in "one person." And that Christ’s human will and the divine will are combined by a “hypostatic union” and that both exist in one person. No one person could ever use the Bible alone to decipher these complex doctrines. We absolutely have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided these Catholic Fathers to properly interpret and define these crucial doctrines. And they did it together as one church. No one man ever picked up a Bible and started how own church until Luther did it. We also have to trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding this same Catholic church when it selected the 27 books of the New Testament. It is a fact of history that it was these Fathers that made up lists of documents to consider and examined them and discussed them. They threw some out and they left some in. And the only way we know that they got it right is because Jesus said that he would build his church and be with it to the end of time. We have to trust the Holy Spirit was guiding the church to choose the right documents. So how can it make any sense whatsoever to get to the year 1,000 if someone is “orthodox” or the year 1500 if you are Protestant and look back on that church that had been in existence for 1000 and 1500 years and say that the Holy Spirit was guiding the process of developing the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the 27 book New Testament canon but then was letting it error in the Papacy and in its ecclesiology (church structure) and its other doctrines? How can that make any sense? Furthermore, if Luther’s new vision of Faith Alone is true then the Christian Church that existed for 1500 years completely missed it. Schaff in his volumes wrote: "If anyone expects to find in any of the church fathers, including Augustine himself, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone as the “article on which the church stands or falls” will be greatly disappointed. And the church history scholar Alister MacGrath states that the Luther’s view was a “theological novum.” No one had ever believed this doctrine before! What was the Holy Spirit doing? Were those people for the first 1500 years saved? Some Protestants say “yes” and some say “no.” Those are the kind of things that drove me to atheism. The Bible says Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God and they will guide the church in all truth. But Protestantism says that the whole truth was not even in the church for 1500 years and much of what was in the church was terrible error. How could Protestantism be a “renewal” or a “recovery” of things that did not even exist? Can someone explain that to me? Do Protestant just think the church was wrong for 1500 years and then the Protestants were able to glean the truth finally after 1500 years? Is that it? And if that is it; which of the 100 different Protestant groups with directly contradicting doctrines is the one that figured out the truth. I am struggling to understand. Thank you.

Thanks for this video. I noticed you defined Sola Scriptura as the Bible alone is the infallible rule for faith and practice of the Church. You said you protest unfair representations of Sola Scriptura even amoung Protestants. I don't see Sola Scriptura clearly defined as you say in Scripture. Why should someone take your understanding of it as opposed to some other protestant? You then go on to acknowledge other authorities that are not infallible. What are the consequences of someone submitting to this authority if it is wrong about doctrine or practice.

2:17

Paul expresses that faith requires works of obedience to God to prove faith, and 'works' in Paul are sin. I have a Ytube video 'Myths in so-called Christianity' to show grace is merited.

In my experience, evangelicals generally do not identify so much as "Protestants" but more simply as "Christians" or "followers of Christ." Most do not use the term Protestant to describe themselves unless they need to distinguish between themselves and Catholics. Most that I know do not strongly identify with a particular denomination or denominational tradition such as Reformed or Baptist but simply consider themselves as followers of Christ as He has been revealed in the Scriptures.

This video is uncomfortable & very enlightening. Much food for thought. You & your videos & ideas & instruction & background info & wisdom & humility are astounding actually. MY PROBLEM: the word "catholicity" has such a negative connotation not only because of the historical atrocities & problems with Roman Catholicism but also because of current & recent teachings & terrible harm perpetuated by priests, bishops, cardinals, & the pope ( like throughout history). Is there another WORD that could be used? Because of such heinous sins done by the Catholic church, any use of the word connotes a huge negative & is troubling that anyone would see it in a positive light. I think we can learn from & embrace biblical history & individuals BUT I think that the CATHOLIC CHURCH should be at the bottom of the sea with a millstone around its neck. Jesus said it. I would think THEY would want to humbly change their name if they understood the gravity & depravity of their actions & beliefs ( like venerating Mary to subvert & challenge Jesus' preeminence & power). Another word rather than catholicity? Your insights are compelling.👍

After reading the book Pope Peter by Joe Heshmeyer I find it hard not be Catholic. I feel like the arguments presented in that book are very strong. I'm not even Catholic but after reading that book I'm considering it.

Thank you Gavin for your thoughtful videos. As a former Catholic, the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is that Catholics never have assurance of salvation. It's a very sad situation.

teh more you keep deleting my posts the more ill be putting it back up

True protestantism has never been tried!

Well, the bad news is Philip Schaff has had very little impact on American Evangelicalism. Schaff was opposed to both the fundamentalism and ahistoricism of Charles Hodge and the rampant American revivalism. He didn't get much traction, especially his views on the Church's sacraments or liturgy. Schaff, like alot of German Reformed types, just didn't fit with the ethos of American Evangelicalism (which is why most of them eventually merged with the Congregationalists to form the UCC).

I would like to receive a kiss on the forehead from Gavin Ortlund please

Despite the efforts you put into this, which I respect. I find your arguments utterly unconvincing in 4 areas. 1) By claiming scripture as the only "infallible authority", Protestants are in fact inclined to use their interpretation of scripture to make void the authorities which you consider secondary and "fallible" such as church tradition, councils, liturgy etc. Therefore you endow yourself with the power to pick and choose while paying only lip service to respecting secondary authorities. Even if you claim many early Protestants did not do this extensively, you have to concede that by laying down this principle, they imbedded within the Protestant movement the motion that will be fully unleashed in the coming centuries. Which is exactly where most Protestant/ Evangelical churches are at today. Whereas in Orthodoxy, Scripture, tradition and councils are not set against each other but are in harmony. 2) By speaking of the church as a train and not as a house, you reinforce a modernist ethos of constant change and evolution into the Protestant movement, which will be a ticking time bomb leading to the rise of Liberalism. Which Protestantism is disproportionally responsible for when you look at the big historical picture. Just look at the institutions Schaff served, Mercerburg Seminary (Now Lancaster Seminary), Union Seminary are both hotbeds of Liberalism and even Wokeism nonsense today. You shall know a tree by its fruits. This is not proof Schaff is wrong per se, but taken in conjunction with his evolutionary and Hegelian dialectic view of the church( Protestantism cannot be consummated without Catholicism etc) you can see where this is all going. For all the words he heaps on not compromising the truth, there is no immovable center in his conception of church, it is open to the next person in line to move the goal post even more, so it will ultimately lead toward Liberalism and ecumenism in the worst possible sense. The house metaphor was in fact what Jesus, the apostles, and the early church used. It is a living body also, so it is not static and ossified, and properly reacts to the challenges presented in every age according to the pillar of truth, but the Biblical metaphor of a house is more loyal to the unchangingness of the church, the once for all deposit of faith. The ethos of semper Reformanda of Protestantism introduces a constant sense of strife, agitation and struggle into the church that virtually guarantees sectarianism, having in reality but not in name demolished all "secondary authorities". Of course the church needs to struggle against persecution and heresy throughout history, but that is not the same revolutionary ethos of Protestantism. As mentioned in point 1, Protestantism's struggle is often not the true struggle churches have with heresies, but a struggle with its own faulty premise that started the movement, ie, Sola Scriptura which in practice means sola my interpretation of scripture. You can call it "renewal not revolution" ad nauseam, but imbedded with self-contradictory principles in point 1, it is always bound to lead to leave things behind, I'm-more-thoroughly-reformed-than-you sectarianism, which in reality is revolution. By over emphasizing the organic and dynamic aspect of the church and being overly cozy with the evolutionary Hegelian dialectic, Schaff perhaps unknowingly becomes part of the ever-changing, ever-Liberalizing modernist edifice that is leading to disaster both spiritually and societally, as we can see in the West today. 3) I would like to echo the point made by Joshua Charles as well, If what was founded by God-man can degenerate to the point of requiring a legit divorce, which you recognize, and you also recognize that the Protestant divorce was flawed in many ways as well, how are we to have any confidence in the initiatives thereafter? Hence the ever diminishing tail-spin of Protestantism splitting into 30000 denominations and counting. I certainly think it is no coincidence that of all 3 major traditions, Protestants grants divorce the most easily compared to Catholic and Orthodox, the spiritual divorce-prone ethos does make it downstream to teachings on family and divorce. 4) It is fascinating how his discussion of ecclesiology is primarily a Latin issue as in Protestantism VS Catholicism. Orthodoxy do not have the problems he accuses of Rome. It shows that many Protestants are unaware that the problem may lie further than 1500s, perhaps the Roman church from which the Protestant broke off was already not the trunk of the tree but a strayed branch, and perhaps the right path was to go backwards in history to Orthodoxy and not go forwards to set up something actually novel when all things considered, and reactionary. Schaff saying :"Protestantism cannot be consummated without Catholicism" again betrays Protestantism's lack of positive identity, Jesus gave the Church a positive identity, not a Protest identity. In other words, when faced with Roman corruption, Protestants should have went back to the original House built on the Rock, not have hopped onto a train to no-man's land. We can certainly argue that the reformers didn't have a viable option to join Orthodoxy due to the lack of the modern marvels like easy travel and instant communications, they also didn't have the letters of Clement and the Didache(see: kzfaq.infox_YPE3nLzFA), which is very Orthodoxy and not Protestant, so they may have some mitigating circumstances, ultimately God knows. But the problem is for Protestants today, who DO have all these blessing, what will they do with that knowledge? What will you do Dr Ortlund? All in all, I conclude that Philip Schaff's thought could be considered chaff, pun intended, I know you like him Gavin , so no offense, just the irony couldn't escape me. Hope this raises some points worth of consideration.

Hello Dr. Ortllund, One often reads that the Good Thief was saved by his faith in the Lord's divinity. This is a view that both Catholic and Protestant theologians usually share. The question is: Did the Good Thief actually believe that Christ was the savior when he asked Him to be remembered when He came into His kingdom? Dorothy Sayers was asked by the BBC during WWII to prepare a series of plays on the life of Christ, to be presented once a month. Sayers, a devout Anglican, was a very fine writer of fiction with a superb education in the classics, even wearing out several copies of the Greek New Testament in preparing her plays. In the section on the crucifixion, she paints Dismas as a man who recognized his own faults but looked upon Jesus as innocent. When he speaks to Jesus, he views him as deluded, we would call it a Napoleonic complex. It was after Jesus told Dismas that he would indeed be with Him in heaven that the Good Thief found his view challenged and confusing. He was acting out of Charity or love at first and not out of Faith. Sometimes artists or mystics see things that ordinary folk or theologians don't see as clearly. The plays were published under The Man born to be King. A very interesting take on the well-known passage. What do you think and why? Thanks

You just refuted your own position when you said works are necessary. That's exactly why Catholics teach faith and works because if you teach faith alone you get people sitting on their butt thinking they are already saved.

The problem of overreaction is one reason I am prayerfully, carefully finding my way into the Anglican tradition. The desire to avoid throwing the Catholic baby out with the Roman bathwater has been a guiding force in their tradition since the Reformation era.

We certainly must repent but I wonder how much our pastors and elders are to blame. Think of all the selfish, prideful pastors and elders who do nothing to unite with local churches. No wonder we are divided and have a divisive mentality.

Christianity is a religion established by Jesus Christ which defines our relationship with God and how this impacts our eternal salvation. In evangelization we must be honest, serious and truthful. Unfortunately in our time, religion has became a source of power both social and political as well as economical. In view of this therefore, we must be sure we have the appropriate facts when we advocate christianity as this affects the lives and eternal salvation of many souls. Jesus Christ established a church and gave it power to bind and unbind and safeguard this church to ensure the gates of hell will not overcome it: Mathew 16: 13-18. Jesus also promised he would be with this church until the end of times, Mathew 28: 20. This implies that the history of his church is the history of christ working with his church. After his death and resurrection Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach his gospel all over the world. The apostles did this in Jerusalem and later moved to Antiok and beyond when prosecution became intolerable. The apostles in due course appointed bishops and deacons to oversea churches and Christian communities they converted to christianity. By year 70 all the apostles had been murdered except for John who lived to the 90's. The apostles had properly and adequately instructed and transferred the understanding of these gospels to the Bishops and the faithfull at large. Some of the notable Bishops were: Ignatius of Antiok, Policarp of Smyrna and Clement of Rome. It was at Antiok that the Church established by Jesus was named, Catholic or universal church and converts called Christians. By the end of the first century the Bishops or early church fathers had published a book known as ' the teaching of the apostles the Didache, ' defining the major topics of the gospels and administration of services. Such topics included baptism as regeneration of souls and the eaucharist as the body and blood of Jesus christ. The early church fathers or Bishops wrote and preached extensily on the gospels and letters of apostles as amplified in the Didache. Their interpretation became the basis of interpreting the Bible. The Catholic Church spread all the way to Europe, Middle East and North Africa after Emperor Constantine allowed christianity to operate freely within the Roman empire in the early part of 300 AD. Worthy noting is that even under savior prosecutions and after securing freedom to operate, the church started to compile the Bible a task finalised in the final years of the fourth century under the Church Councils of Carthage, Rome and Hippo. It is historically obvious, the Catholic Church compiled the bible you are now reading and adopted the interpretations of the Early church fathers who for a long time worked in tandem with the apostles and heard What Jesus meant by his gospel. This is called sacred tradition as mentioned by Paul in 1CORITHIANS 11:2 and 2Tetholonian 2:15. This in brief is the history of the early church which was vibrant and alive and gave us the bible and spread christianity to the entire Europe North Africa and Middle East. The church never faulted or died as wrongly aserted by protestant historians. In the advent of the so called reformers, Martin Luther, Calvin and later King Henry in the early part of the 16th century with their preaching of sola fide and sola scriptura, teachings hereto unheard before and not preached by Jesus apostles and the Church before. Luther and Calvin had been excommunicated from the Catholic church for their intransigence on church reforms and went on to call the Catholic Church, the hore of Babilon and anti Christ In preaching bible and faith alone and completely ingoring existence of the Catholic Church, created a vacuum in the history of the church and actually most of protestant churches regard the history of the church as beginning in the early sixteenth century with the assendance of Luther. The latter asserted that everybody could easily interpret the bible and it became free to do so for most protestants although he later came back on this due to the confusion and rebellion it caused . Luther also undertook by himself to removed some books of the old testament so as to be at parity with the chapters of the Jewish bible. He also underplayed the authenticity 4 books in the new testament namely; James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation which very effectively challenged his views on sola fide and negation of existence of the Catholic Church. He also added the word alone on Roman 3.28 to read faith alone. However his successors retained the books of the new testament he removed as well as the word alone in Roman 3.28. Sola fide Saved by faith alone as asserted by Luther is a phrase note found in the bible but he could fool his congregations as only a few could read and there were very few copies of the bible then. Actually the bible mentions several requirements for salvation including observation the ten commands, Mathew 19:16-17, Mathew 22: 37-40 regarding fiinal judgement, Jesus will judge us on the what we do or works, Mathew 24:31-45 and Revelation 20: 7-14. Also 1Corithians 13:1-13. Sola Scriptura There is no phrase or sentence in the bible supporting this view. Even the word bible is not mentioned in the bible. The bible is a collection of books from the old testament and new testament identified by the Catholic Church and which form the bible as approved by the Councils of Carthage Rome and Hipp comprised of all the Bishops of the then Catholic Church Note Jesus or the Apostkes did not define the books of the bible. It was the Bishops of the three councils who defined the books of the bible guided by the Holy spirit. What Luther did was to dismantle the bible to suite his theology of sola fide regardless of the truth. Calvin preached the doctrine of predestination and total deprivation, a doctine not tought any where before. King Henry established the Church of Englanwith and him as Head and severed links with Rome because the Pope forbed him to mary a second wife which is unbiblical. In 1529 Luther, Zwingli and Calvin met in order to establish a United and common doctrine for the emerging protestant church but completely failed and each went on his own. The main problem of the protestant churches has been and will continue to be 1. History Gap where by history is confined to years beyond year 1517 leaving behind a gap 1500 of rich and informative history. 2 The early fathers are hardly mentioned in protestant history despite of the fact that they are a very important link between the apostles Jesus and the Catholic Church. 3 Due to lack of the correct church history and magisterium the doctines of the protestant churches are always changi depending on changing social and economic environment, resulting in frequent church separations and break ups. 4. Protestant leaders are arrogant and avoid church ecumenism. The following examples will illustate: Lutheran Church The church was started by Martin Luther and has since been closely assassinate with the Germany governments. Non theless the following denominations have splintered from this church including Ana Baptist, Menonites which moved to USA and have since separated to other protestant churches.The Evangelical Lutheran church which eventually moved to USA has developed into a number of separate churches including Mizzori synod, Wisconsin church and many independent churches as well as national churches. Anglican Church is a state church but many churches have develop from this church including, Anglican Lower church, Methodist Church, and Baptist Church, Quakers and Puritans who have moved to USA and separated into separate evangelical and pentecostal churches Calvanism This church was started by Calvin and other reformers and has moved to UK and USA where different and many denominations including evangelical and pentecostal churches have been formed To date there are over 45,000 denominations world wide each claiming to be the church established by Jesus Christ and non is willing to compromise. I would wish to highlight that every institution has history and accumulation of historical facts. The protestant churches reject this or pick and choose. Christianity is the work of God who is also historical and factual and it will be wise to listen to him and the people to whom his has continually entrusted with his faith. The deposit of the Christian faith include: the bible and the sacred tradition as tought and written by the early fathers of the church which is rightly used to interpret the Bible and church councils which decide on important doctrines and matters affecting the church. The Catholic Church makes use of the three items mentioned above and has had stable dictine, unity and growth The Orthodox churches have adopted the same and have mentained a stable doctine but have remained separate as punishment from God foreboding the Catholic Church. The protestant churches have only adopted the bible and even so every one mentained its own interpretation despite of 2Peter1:19-20 where it is stated the bible is the word of God and his message should not be interpreted differently As l have said the church belongs to God and we should follow his will and wishes. His wii matters most otherwise we will continue to quarrel among ourselves. We should do the following; 1. We should pray for God to show us the trueth. 2. We should look for the truth by carefully studying the true history of the church instead of going for short history. 3. This is our salvation and so we should be serious to look for the church Jesus established. It is there, fight for your salvation. May God bless us all and may he grant us eternal salivation

I still don’t know why I should take Schaff’s word over Newman’s.

Blessed Maria Serafina Saw Martin Luther in Hell

I very much appreciate Dr. Ortlund’s irenic spirit. But unfortunately, none of this solves any of the fundamental issues. How does the whole world know where the Church of Christ is? How can unity of Faith be maintained, in principle, if all are free to judge for themselves? Where is the City on a Hill when the inhabitants preach such different doctrines? St. Augustine consistently spoke of the Church as the one field in which there are wheat and tares; the one net in which there are good and bad fish; the one pasture in which there are sheep and goats; and that it was Christ’s responsibility ALONE to separate them upon His return. He used this argument against the Donatists to preclude any and all arguments in favor of schism. This one Church, he consistently stated, was the Catholic Church, consisting of a succession of priests beginning with the chair of St. Peter in Rome (St. Augustine’s own words). Either this one Church with the SAME Faith, sacraments, and government did and continues to exist, or it doesn’t. The Fathers everywhere assume it does, because the Church founded by the God-man is not like a “church” founded by mere men. If what was founded by the God-man can degenerate to the point of requiring separation (which the Fathers, including St. Augustine, say is incompatible with the Church He actually founded), then how can we have ANY confidence in the projects of mere men who break the unity of Faith and separate? Perhaps this is why protestantism supports divorce as well. Implicit in Dr. Ortlund’s argument is that divorce, among Christians, can be accepted. There is no notion of “what God has joined together let no man tear asunder.” And if marriage is indeed a picture of Christ’s church, then how can this same statement not apply with equal, even greater force, to the Church? All the Fathers believed as much. Dr. Ortlund does not. Nor does Dr. Schaff-who, as much as I respect him, clearly still believes in “Christian divorce.” I offer the words of Eugenio “Israel” Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome from 1940-1945, on why he became Catholic, and not protestant: “The Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the true Church of God for fifteen consecutive centuries. No one can halt at the end of those 1500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which was preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve Apostles, who, like me, issued from the Synagogue.”

you can keep erasing my post on your judgment day this post you keep erasing GOD will show you the truth / the truth you keep denaying anathema

All this proved, was that in fact Protestantism only has anti-Catholicism in common as a grounding principle lol