My parents are missionaries in Sri Lanka. They love your country. I'll visit in the next years.

Hello! Question for you: do you worship the Holy Spirit? God bless, Enshala

That was how it struck me as well.

Yeah I didn't understand that move at all, Mr. Ybarra and Mr. Sonna (atleast in the clip) simply asserted that Vatican 1 is in the first millennium and everyone needs to just accept that as fact. I don't see how that's not a form of begging the question...i.e their fallacious argument would look something like this ...Vatican 1 is first millennium THEREFORE if anyone wants to deny or disagree with Roman Catholicism they must offer a different explanation to account for this fact.

I agree it was triumphalistic and quite common from Roman Catholics (it's almost like they can't help themselves from doing it). That being said, these two men are some of the most charitable Catholics within Catholic Apologetics thar I have seen. I doubt these two men intend to be or to come off that way...

@@Adam-ue2ig "I don't see how that's not a form of begging the question" The claim of Vatican I is a literal word for word quotation of Ephesus - which isn't 'begging the question' by definition.

@Tyson Guess you would have to quote and source it, i don't know which quote your referencing off the top of my head...it wasn't mentioned in this video by Dr. Ortlund.

@ErickYbarra2010 As someone who has been learning from Dr. Gavin for a while and just recently subscribed to your channel, it would mean a lot if you did respond to this video!

@@ponderwoodtimes Hi! It would probably be best to do a live dialogue.

@ErickYbarra2010 That actually sounds wonderful! Thank you for replying in the midst of your busy schedule!

I hope that you take seriously his concerns with your triumphalism.

@@townshendwhite9309 I believe that was a mistake. All I was insisting upon is that the content of Vatican 1 can be traced back to the 1st millennium. So can Arianism, Pelagianism, and Iconoclasm. The intention here was not to boast over Dr. Ortlund, but just to insist on this simple point.

I strongly believe Emperor Constantine was behind rewriting a lot of history, including modifications to the writings of some of the people who have been labeled as “church fathers”.

It is undeniable that the claims of Vatican I are found in the first millennia. Erick demonstrated that decisively in the presentation and the assertive statements by Suan and Erick in the beginning is therefore justified.

Completely agree. Whenever Ive seen debates/engagement on this the situation is the exact opposite and Roman apologists pull essentially a motte and bailey with statements like gavin showed but then when context is provided and cuts the legs out of the claim they fall back to Newman's development theory.

@@jakajakos He really didn’t, Gavin cut the arguments legs off.

@@internautaoriginal9951 yea he did

Thanks Jack, what a cool connection! Say hi to him from me!

​@@TruthUnites Gavin, I have an accretions question. WHY has the Vatican confirmed all kinds of highly questionable miracles to confirm their accretions, but still haven't confirmed the most scientifically scrutinized and PROVABLE miracle of the shroud of Turin? Because it might affirm faith alone in Christ alone? And of course you also know about the message in PI which even protestants suppress to maintain the religious balance of power. I realize the Christian Industrial Complex is controlled by the Military Industrial Complex, but who will you serve?

Wow that is cool.

YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.

@The Dude’s Catholic Because claiming that the pope has the authority to make decrees that are in alignment with the teachings of Peter and Christ does not mean that every decree the pope could make is intrinsically representative of Peter and Christ. The context of the quotes shown in the video was about the pope refuting new teaching that doesn't align with established doctrine, not creating new doctrine by infallible decree.

Dr Ortlund uncharitably took Erick’s conclusion out of context there, in fact he himself was being triumphalist and projecting his own behavior onto Erick

Reformed is a heresy, you need to give up this heresy

How is the Westminster confession found in the 1st millennium?

@@enniomojica7812 I feel like I clarified my meaning in the above comment already, but I'll reiterate, hope it helps. I'm pointing out a double standard, not trying to say this is more sure than the RC argument. Can you name a single doctrine taught in the Westminster that isn't found anywhere in the patristics? I'm not required to prove every point when I'm suggesting this is *not* how you do historiography. The point is anyone can cherrypick, but saying 'it's there in the first millennium' in a historic sense requires more than an abductive argument which can be made for all sorts of things. This comes back to the circular reasoning of the Roman church saying they better practice the historic Christian faith and then defining which sources that fit 'the great tradition' in the first place... If Papists want to do that then why would it be bad for Protestants to do the same? I don't think either group should play these games, but as Protestants we freely acknowledge tradition is flawed and can be reformed so we can say the Church fathers had mixed views, Christian history is complicated and take that which aligns with Scripture most consistently.

@@zacdredge3859 I think if i were to want to learn about Christian history and know what Christ and the apostles taught I would want to learn it from the entity that was there from the beginning. So that would disqualify Protestantism and lead to the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. Now between those two I would trust the Catholic Church since its centuries old reputation of staying true to the apostolic Tradition corroborates the words of Christ with regards to making Peter the leader of the apostles and entrusting him to strengthen his brethren and the three fold commission to feed and guide his sheep. And I figure yes it makes sense. 12 apostles 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus being king establishing his eternal kingdom his government with Peter whom he gives the Keys (being chief steward and leader of the apostles whom are governors of this kingdom). It just seems to fit like a glove.

Did you actually read my comments at all?

I recommend Holy Rebellion: Redefining Excellence in Pastoral Ministry by Kevin J. Moore. It should be in Roberts Library at SWBTS. Dr. Moore is a SWBTS grad and it’s a great book, all about loving God’s people well.

Your best bet for a biblical church would be baptising infants first.

Once again, different standards for catholics and different standards for prots :(

"BobtheBuildest" 😅 do you follow Bob the Builder (of Speaker's Corner?)

The need to say ‘obliterated’ suggests he didn’t actually

@Christian BISHOLF the need to say? So, if I used the word refuted, that would have satisfied your need to not dismiss an argument. Seems very ignorant.

@@sorenrousseau it’s a bit like when US officials always say ‘Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine’- the constant insistence on using the word unprovoked when it’s not called for by the context suggests the opposite, they realize it is open to question that it was provoked. It’s using exaggerated language to protect a position the person realizes is actually weak. A tell

The alternative is that the text means precisely what it says and doesn't necessarily imply the additional things that have been suggested. I thought Gavin did a decent job explaining what he thought the Anselm quote meant, but I'll chip in as a non-scholar referencing only the material in this video. Saying the pope is the best option to correct errors is not the same as saying he's infallible. Think about it rationally. You'd never assume that labeling something as the best option equates to its being perfect in any other circumstance. For example, choosing the best doctor or mechanic available to you does not guarantee, or even imply, that they are incapable of mistakes. It only means they are less likely to screw up than the alternatives. You logically would know that they could still make a mistake. But if they were helping you, you could truthfully say there was nowhere better you could have gone. You're still in the best available hands. Yes, it does say God selected him. But we have many examples of God choosing imperfect people in the Bible. Chosen people went on to make mistakes even after being chosen. All of them, in fact, but Jesus. Also, notice the Anselm quote specifically addresses the pope correcting mistakes in new doctrines arising in the church that contradict existing beliefs. The "such errors" statement talks about submitting documents written to refute flawed teachings to the pope. It says there is nobody better to whom you could submit said writings for examination. No safer choice. The quote specifically mentions his "prudence". As I mentioned before, there being nobody better doesn't inherently mean he's literally flawless. On its own, it just means there is no superior choice available. It does not say to submit them to him because he's incapable of making a mistake regarding doctrine, but because he will carefully examine the arguments and compare them with established teachings. He's stated to be the most qualified person for this task. And, because he is the most qualified, he can provide necessary correction to eliminate new teachings that contradict established ones. It also does not logically follow from that assertion that the pope can infallibly declare new beliefs. A modern analogy might be the President of the US. He can veto bills that come across his desk and enforce existing laws. However, that does not automatically also grant him the power to create new laws. Now, you can point to the second quote and say it seems more obvious there. But I can just as readily point out that the language used still does not by itself give the pope the right to infallibly declare NEW teachings. It says, "Let those who despise the Christian decrees of the Vicar of Peter, and in him the decrees of Peter and of Christ, seek for other gates". I can argue two important points from that. First, it mentions "Christian decrees" which ties in with my assessment of the first quote. It seems to be discussing using decrees to correct new, flawed teachings by eliminating them or revising them in line with existing Christian doctrines. It also explicitly links his decrees to Peter and Christ in that way. But does the reverse intrinsically follow from that? The quote, "and in him the decrees of Peter and Christ," clearly indicates that their decrees are in him (the Vicar of Peter). So, does that mean his decrees are also in them? You could read the quote that way. But can we really assume that because he has the authority to make decrees aligning with those of Peter and Christ, any decree he makes is automatically in line with Peter and Christ? The answer is no; that doesn't follow logically. Having the final authority to declare whether or not a new teaching is in keeping with established doctrine does not inherently give him the power to infallibly decree new ones himself. The quote COULD mean that. But even if it does, we can't just assume that assertion is true. I understand that none of this is PROOF that their claims about papal infallibility, or even these quotes in particular, are wrong. There's almost certainly context I don't know since, as I said, I'm not a scholar. Nothing I've said is intended to prove Anselm didn't believe exactly what they are claiming. It merely illustrates that these specific quotes might be less strongly supportive of papal infallibility than was suggested. One could easily read them differently if one doesn't begin with the idea that they explicitly support papal infallibility.

Look up * Did Rome Have Universal, Ordinary, and Immediate Jurisdiction at the Council of Ephesus? | Part I | Rebuttal to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra* This argument has already been answered, The papacy is clearly a lie and Gavin’s humility doesn’t allow him to destroy Ibarra.

Look up “Vatican 1 contradicts the councils” by Jay Dyer

@@internautaoriginal9951 Thank you sibling. I am sure it is a lie, but supposed humility in the long run will get people dead and in hell because of his stance is not thoroughly furnished in the truth I’ll look at that video explicitly, but recently, only last night it came to me that rc is worse than I could have ever imagined: the Kord even gave me a dream about it (though I don’t remember the specifics anymore) after I wanted to know how He felt about it and nothing about the dream was good. I and all have to be more firm against this wicked center-piece of a christian veneer of sin. God rest

@@internautaoriginal9951 did you watch Ybarras two hour presentation. It’s a slam dunk.

@@TheChristianNationalist8692 why does the papacy bother you so much? Jesus established it for your very protection against the works of Satan through heresy.

Because there isn’t any response besides conversion to Catholicism

Yep Agreed

This is a short video and like he said the conversation will continue. I’d encourage you to watch his other videos and debates on the issue

Do you know what I think the single most impressive document outside of your Bible that I suggest is? One Clement or the letter of the church in Rome to the Corinthians. 100 AD and you're already getting a wellspring of information about justification righteousness freedom from envy and church leadership.

@@dananussberger5675 cool. will it make my girlfriend not be a catholic anymore tho

​@@speedtofu2108 I think it will edify you no matter what. And you should not be pursuing this to win, but to discover the truth.

@@speedtofu2108 Welcome to our online community! Think of the “process” of sharing with your girlfriend as an open, truthful dialogue. She may never stop being Catholic…but…if she is ever to seriously consider Protestantism as an alternative…it will take time! Respect her and continue to be open with her. Others have mentioned that this isn’t about being “RIGHT”…rather…it’s about seeking “TRUTH” and having a relationship with God. I’m thrilled to hear you have begun you own path of seriously seeking Truth. May your heart become aligned with what our Lord desires for your life, and that of your girlfriend!🇨🇦☺🇨🇦

@@1984SheepDog right im not trying to win but she thinks I'm missing out on full salvation and grace because i don't believe that Jesus is in the cracker

Catholics usually seem to claim that Peter was handed the keys by Jesus, he could bind and loose. So therefore, he was a pope, there would always be a pope, all doctrine would be perfect and they have ultimate authority to do so for all Christians. Two scriptures make all that.

I kind of get the same feeling. It is one thing to critique the evidence presented, and saying that it doesn't necessarily entail papal infallibility (it still could though), but for me it seemingly steps over the evidence that IS found, how do we account for this?

As a Presbyterian Protestant I would say the Roman church at times was orthodox but was through the centuries getting more and more heretical by adding later superstitious traditions that are foreign to scripture. The Roman Catholic Church has no authority over me as an evangelical Presbyterian.

@@brexiesus8213 Your problem is not with the Roman Church. It is with Jesus Christ who established a visible, hierarchical and Apostolic Church with real authority (as the New Testament clearly affirms) and which would exist until the end of time. Take it up with Him. The Roman Church has no authority over you by its own right, but it does have authority over you through Christ. There is only one Body and one Church. They cannot be separated from its Head, yet your theology teaches just that.

Bruh you are just using strawmans. That’s why you can’t answer this question, now please tell us is Vatican 1 in the first thousand years of the church ? If not then you have no right to judge protestants, since if this is a a development of doctrine not an stablished apostolic doctrine. If you can’t answer this please help us to grow this conversation.

@@internautaoriginal9951 I’m not sure you understood my comment if you think I’m judging Protestants.

They were just people with sinful desires, biases, temptations and ignorance though. It worries me that they don't see this.

@@HearGodsWord Yes.

@@gardyloogubbins hopefully that means I understood your comment 😊

The great schism and The Reformation

Orthodoxy all the way☦️☦️

To touch on your point, someone certainly could argue against the Trinity saying it is not explicitly mentioned. If a claim is not explicitly mentioned within scripture we should be looking for strong evidence to show that it is true. Scripture never quite relates the Trinity it in a direct way such as "God exist in a 'Tri-unity' between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". This means we should be looking for strong evidence to back up that claim if we make it. The quote from 1 John 5: 8 "... testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." is clear but very likely a later addition. That being said, scripture does leave us with strong statements that are very hard to reconcile without the Trinitarian viewpoint. Examples would include: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being." John 1: 1-3 NASB "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," Titus 2: 13 NASB "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:" 2 Peter 1: 1 NASB "and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man... When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." Revelation 1: 13, 17-18 NASB “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. I, only I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me." Isaiah 44: 10-11 NASB "so that all will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5: 23 NASB "And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed." John 17: 5 NASB Claims such as in John 1: 1-3 are further highlighted when we consider: "This is what the Lord says, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker: “Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And you shall commit to Me the work of My hands. It is I who made the earth, and created mankind upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their lights." Isaiah 45: 11-12 NASB The claims of the "son of man" within Revelation 1: 17 are further highlighted with the Lord's claim: “This is what the Lord says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.” Isaiah 44: 6 NASB Claims such as in John 17: 5 are further highlighted by verses such as: "I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to idols." Isaiah 42:8 NASB "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another." Isaiah 48:11 NASB I could certainly keep going, but the point is that scripture provides an exceptionally strong basis for understanding the Trinitarian claim. We don't necessarily need explicit statements from church fathers or other sources to evidence the Trinity because the Bible highlights aspects of it time and time again. In contrast the papacy is very poorly evidenced through scripture, even calling it implied is somewhat generous. Infallibility of a pope is certainly never mentioned. Evidence for the papacy has very strong reliance on quotations from church fathers or other sources (which are fallible) to argue the points. The existence, power, reverence, and infallibility of the papacy are aspects we can see growing over a long period of time, which hurts it credibility.

That is a classic and failed argument...if you actually value and read scripture, you'll see the Godhead very clearly.

@@robertcampbell1343 Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think he was arguing against the Trinity, but rather he was trying to say (in some sense) that Gavin had flawed logic. He says infallibility does not need to be explicitly mentioned to be understood, and uses the Trinity as an example to show his point.

That’s different and the basis for the Trinity is clear in scripture. The basis for pope infallibility is not clear in scripture. There’s more pointing against it than for it. Gavin gets into that though so I encourage you to watch more of his videos.

I mentioned elsewhere the book Papalism by Edward Denny, if you want something going deep into the history. I can't say I agree with everything. He has a higher view of bishops than I would like, but he makes a pretty solid case. I'm sure there are more books out there. As to arguments, I think I tend to see three classes of arguments in favor of the papacy: 1. Arguments about the necessity of a papacy, because otherwise we'd be kind of lost on doctrine, and so on. I think there are a few things to be noted here. First, the pope's only made two statements that all the Catholics agree were infallible, and those were both about Mary. Second, there's pretty clearly division in the Roman Catholic Church (see liberals vs conservatives vs radical traditionalists) that hasn't gone away, so it doesn't necessarily even work. Third, just thinking about it, the arguments that an infallible interpreter is needed usually prove too much. Because what do we get after the pope says anything? More statements for you to interpret, before you can actually use them. They never manage to cut you out of the loop of interpreting. Also, the statement that protestants have 30000 denominations is arguably overcounting, and implicitly doesn't understand how protestant denominations view other protestant denominations. Its source lists hundreds of Catholic "denominations", which I'd imagine they aren't in favor of. 2.Arguments from scripture: There are three main places where they appeal to in scripture: Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21. Luke 22 and John 21 both don't seem terribly convincing to me, since the Roman Catholic interpretation feels like it's forcing it to say something the text isn't trying to say. The best is Matthew 16. But there, it's not clear that the rock, at least, refers to Peter instead of Peter's confession of Christ (indeed, the church fathers mostly take it as his confession-I don't know how much you care, but any Roman catholics you talk with might), and the reference to Peter binding and loosing is later said of all the apostles. The even bigger problem here is that there aren't really solid scriptural arguments for anything passing on from Peter, even if we supposed that they have everything about Peter right. Sometimes they'll point to Matthias being made an apostle in place of Judas, but that was kind of a one-off thing-we no longer have 12 apostles walking the earth. 3. Arguments from history: I can't really address all of these, since that would take forever. There are many quotes that will be pointed to, but they're often, like Gavin was saying, saying something less strong than what Roman Catholics want, since it developed over time. Many of the early quotes they'll point to will be something that the father speaking would say of all bishops-Cyprian, for example, uses "seat of Peter" to refer to what all bishops have, not just Rome. Sometimes fathers will be talking about the primacy of the bishop of Rome-the early councils decide to put Rome as the first Patriarchate (probably because it was the capital), but that doesn't mean that Rome can just decide whatever it wants, just that they were given the most honor. But if you actually look at the history, there is reason to think there might not have been bishops at the very beginning in Rome, there are popes who were heretics, and time and again you see people disregarding the pope and treating him like they would any other important bishop. This is kind of a problem for them, since Vatican I says that all the fathers believed in papal infallibility. It's also worth knowing that a bunch of forgeries were really influential in the development of papal infallibility. Aquinas used the forgeries (not knowing that they were forgeries, of course), and they were put into the church law when that was collected. I hope that's helpful?

"Our Lord did not leave us orphans in disunity.." Meanwhile the present "vicar" of Christ is one of the most divisive ever. And this is coming from Catholics themselves! So much for seeing things through rose-colored glasses.

I appreciate your passion in your beliefs you clearly lay out. I think it’s great you are a believer now! I would like to suggest that scripture states we are not left as orphans but, if we ask, are freely given the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth…not the church as you stated. According to scripture. In addition, one of the huge arguments against Roman Catholicism is how similar its structure is to Old Testament Judaism with a high priest, priests, passive laities, works based systems for atonement of sins, etc that reflect an “access based system” to God. Judaism and Roman Catholicism share a lot in terms of a structure believers must go through to have access to God and Christ. New Testament Christianity completely changes all of that. And that doesn’t eliminate order. Instead of Judaism’s high priest or Roman Catholicism’s high priest, the pope, Protestants have Christ himself as the head (Eph 5)Instead of Judaism’s and Roman Catholicism’s priests, Protestants believe we are all priests (1 Peter 2). Hope that helps you see part of our differences.

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I don't think that it is accurate to present the vicar to be the most divisive in context of the argument for unity. One uniting factor of the pope is his ability to "settle truth" when needed, not that a pope cannot lead people to scandal. This ability to definitively "settle truth" isn't available in Protestantism (semper reformanda). Yes you can always reform, but with it you lose the ability to also settle on things. And no matter what people say, there IS unity in teaching, what is dogma is pretty clear and also unchanging. Also the teachings are consistent throughout history (I understand that not everyone agrees on this). A problem I have with a lot of protestant denominations (not all), is the lack of consistency throughout history, sometimes even total neglect of history. The teaching of the Eucharist and baptism for me really narrows down the options a lot. Apostolic succession is also an important one I think

The problem with this is that Vatican I clearly talks about how it was "known to all ages," "all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error." It's pretty hard for that ("most fully"!) to be compatible with a notion of development, I would think. That means it should be pretty clear in the 1st millennium, something Newmanesque won't cut it.

People do not realize that the papacy and the church had a vital role in the creation and development of the university, hospital, art, science and the justice system of the western civilization. The papacy led the struggle and survival of Christianity against the barbarians (Vikings, Visigoths, etc.) and Islam. The granting of a master's degree is a sign of qualification of his/her own profession. University degrees were approved by the pope, the king, or monarch. The Pope has authority in all Christendom and degrees approved by the pope are respected in all Christendom, while the kings approval was only valid in the kingdom in which they were issued. Likewise in Art and science were supported by the popes. Cathedrals were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories. Even atheist Stephen Hawking was a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (academy of sciences of the Vatican city). The Jesuits have been the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century. Christian Art created by the greatest artist/composers in the world like Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Bach, Schumann, Vivaldi, Williams, etc. were all commissioned by the popes. What would western civilization be without the arts/music, science, universities and hospitals that were pioneered by the early church, led by the popes.

The difference is pretty simple: The first says: Rome will never fail to hand on x. The second says: this belief m is part of x.

@@georgwagner937 So there’s big difference between- “Our doctrine is Jesus is the Son of God”? and “Jesus is the Son of God and it’s actually divinely revealed by the Holy Spirit”? Is that a good example?

@@cmac369 a better example would be: As Peter confessed, and scripture points out, and the whole church always believed and will never fail to believe, Jesus is both God and man. And: The church cannot err when defining dogma, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, believe that or your outside the church.

@@georgwagner937 Ok, but when the church says it will not fail to pass the faith doesn't that mean a doctrine is true? I mean your pointing out an example of something that we all believe about Jesus. What about doctrines like baptism? How does the church insure it passes on the correct doctrine?

Pope is just a man. There is a huge difference between anything he says and the church handing on the faith.

That is a common catholic response given they accept all beliefs and can't justify them.

Nah Erick didn’t misrepresent anything. I don’t think you paid much attention

@@Christiancatholic7 “Let’s not revise history to the point that we’re denying the facts.” After having watched Gavin’s video, and the arguments that each of the Roman Catholic scholars made, saying that they all are simply denying the obvious facts is not an accurate portrayal of their argument or the honest heart behind it.

@@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be i didn’t fully understand your reply. Are you saying you believe Erick misrepresented Gavin, or that he didn’t ?

YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.

Right. They are arguing historical precedence to claim they have the most correct version of Christianity. Which is fine, but even as there is precedence in laws: there are also amendments, over rulings, appeals, etc. Correspondingly, correcting errors to be closer to Apostolic teachings (and Jesus) seems a worthy Christian goal! 😯

The EO schism is a good marker that something has gone terribly wrong.

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

@@kiwisaram9373 Between the Kingdom and the World, not divisions in His body.

YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.

@@kiwisaram9373 The devil sow confusion, he is also known as the accuser.

You better return to the Church or your soul is in danger. Apostasy and heresy is bad. Quit listening to the Devil and the flattering messages he spoke into your ear

@@Christiancatholic7 your pope thinks ex-Catholics are just fine

@@Christiancatholic7 the Roman church left the Catholic Church

@@Christiancatholic7 the Devil’s message is the gospel? - that’s quite confusing.

@@rach9466 the Devil goes about like a roaring Lion seeking who he may devour.

Its a barrier to unity between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants cannot accept it, especially because of all the extra Biblical dogmas that are attached to the Papacy. So thats what he meant.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I understand what he meant. I’m saying it’s perplexing that the main thing Protestants want to do away with is actually a thing that makes real unity, and even reform, possible.

Is top-down, institutional, coercion *really* the only (or best) way to achieve "real" unity? That's an assumption that could be contested before the papal claims are even considered.

​@@aeonsend We Reformed without the Pope. And the accretions are built on the false teachings concerning him especially. Remember when butchering Protestants, before and after the Reformation, was the way forward? If the Pope brings unity it is the unity of everyone who disagrees is killed.

I see your point, but it's not like that in real world discussion. What happened when Luther wanted to reform the Church? They said no sir... Even in Evangelical churches now, it's nearly impossible to reform back teaching or doctrine. This is why parting ways is healthy. I seem to remember a certain apostle parting ways with his close friend, which one is the schismatic?

Where you are wrong is that Prostestants and EO join together on this issue. Vast minority is ridiculous. There is more of us than you. Check your statistics.

So the biblical writers were not infallible. Ok.

@@cronmaker2 "So the biblical writers were not infallible. Ok." Were the Bible writers infallible? Peter was a Bible writer. Was he infallible? Uh, no. Didn't he lie when he disowned Jesus three times? Anyway, no, none of the Bible writers, including Peter, was infallible.

@@cbooth151 were the biblical writers infallible when writing scripture?

@@cronmaker2 "Were the biblical writers infallible when writing scripture?" What do you think? One of those Bible writers wrote: "All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." (Ro. 1:23) So, tell me, what Bible writer do you know of who was infallible? Oh, and another thing, where in your Bible does it say Peter was an infallible pope?

@@cbooth151 your biblical citation is self-refuting if you don't hold Scripture to be infallible. After all, according to you, that verse written by a biblical writer can be in error, as can all the verses you appeal to for Christs exclusive infallibility.

I would say it’s the opposite. Dr Ortlund is attacking hence un spiritual

The claim that Vatican 1 "was indeed accepted by east and west in the first millennium" is false. The Orthodox almost immediately reacted negatively to Pastor Aeternus. For example, Patriarch Anthimos VII of Constantinople wrote in his Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, that the Orthodox were: "fully persuaded that the *Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church,* and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop or Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. *Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church."* Patriarch Anthimos continues: "...to the astonishment of the Christian world, [the papists have claimed] that the Bishop of Rome is even infallible" even though all Christians know that "no one is infallible upon earth." So I'm not sure where you or Erick Ybarra have come to the conclusion that the East accepted Vatican 1.

The Ark will deliver all who are inside to heaven. Protestants will be battling the flood.

They aren't protestant either. 😃

@@calson814 More LIKE Protestant than Roman Catholic.

Great comment!! God bless you.

@@joycegreer9391 hmm The Early church believed in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession etc and don't sound like PROTESTant to me . More like Catholics and Orthodox.

@@calson814 No, the record of Acts does not show the beliefs you claim in the early churches.

There is a big difference between the first claim that the Rome will never fail to hand on the deposit x and the second claim that something is part of that deposit x, especially when that what is supposed to be part of x is an accretion with possibly heretical roots. To verify if the claim that Rome will never fail to hand on x is true we simply need to look at x at the time of the statement and compare to what Rome now hands on as x. I'm not historian, I'm not fit for that task.

@@georgwagner937 The claims of the Roman See/ the Roman Pontiff, and the echoes of these claims throughout the 1st millennium by the early Church fathers are a different question from whether they are true. Gavin isn't merely asserting that Papal infallibility is false, he is asserting that Roman See never made explicit claims to be inafllible, nor did anyone recognize this unique charism, until the 13th century. This is an untenable position (as Erick Ybarra demonstrates).

@@mattaristone105 I think Gavin's claim is that there was a steady growth towards the statement of infallibility of the Roman bishop, which is a historical claim. He contrasts that with the understanding of "a constant practice".

@@georgwagner937 He forthrightly stated that he saw no "explicit" claims of Papal infallibility in the first millennium (or until the 13th century). Furthermore, he goes so far as to say that Erick's positon that the claims of Vatican 1 are clearly found in the first millennium are triumphalist- even though he demonstrated as much in his presentation, and has written a 1000 page book on the topic. I would invite you to review either.

@@mattaristone105 I agree. I think Gavin would be better off arguing why he thinks papal infallibility itself is an accretion instead of trying to disprove it’s early existence. The latter is a pretty futile attempt at ignoring history.

Erick hasn’t demolished anything, this debate already happened a million times.

@@internautaoriginal9951 did you even watch that video interview that Suan did with Erick? The citations he mentioned there which are earlier than 13 century (the century being argued by Gavin) are too many to ignore. Well... Gavin ignored them.

@@Ternz_TV Yes dude I saw their debate with Jay Dyer and Ubi Petrus and he was demolished

@@internautaoriginal9951 not what i asked 😮‍💨. Read carefully before even responding.

Concrete evidence for the claims made by the catholic church would be a good start. Something we can see and understand and upon which we can agree what it means. Read for example St. Agatho's epistle and then ask youself: What does it say? What does it not say? I think it is not possible to deduce papal infallibility from that letter. Christ is king.

Christ is the King of the earth. Not the Pope!

@@georgwagner937 Look to scripture. They are clear on this issue.

@@georgwagner937 It isn't possible if your extra biblical set of presuppositions prevent you from seeing it. Just read the sources.

@@brexiesus8213 And Kingdom is defined by a hierarchy and a chief steward or prime minister.

Where do we see that Christ left an oral tradition to the apostles that were not made scripture?

Oh they definitely will go away when they have fulfilled their purpose in prophecy. The Apostles' authority sure is not what anyone else can do, only those select 12 men. "not all the conclusions people choose to draw from it are necessarily right.---That is VERY evident in Catholicism. Yes, Jesus taught His Apostles orally, and then they wrote what we needed to know. HIS Church is not accessible on earth. ALL necessary doctrine/canon is in scripture. We are not to be conformed and adapt to the world and society. God's Word is unchanging. Where do you see anything in those instructions from Christ to His Apostles about any church??

Are you saying that it’s not fair to analyze an argument’s premises? Or to peel back layers of an assertion to validate its truthfulness? Maybe I misunderstood your point. Help me understand. Let’s take the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacraments such as the Eucharist. If we were to time travel 500 years ahead and say “Catholics in 2023 believed in the Eucharist because the Cathedral Church says the Eucharist is a Catholic doctrine” then some brave soul retorted “Then why in 2023 did only 1/3 of US Catholics agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ while 69% believe the bread and wine are just symbols of Christ?”(August 2019 Pew Research poll). How else could someone argue doctrinal claims if not by closer examination? Help me understand what you’re saying please.

@@onepingonlyplease I am merely describing what I see as a pattern or method of _how_ Ortlund conducts argumentation. I of course agree that a proposition can be argued. The reason I used "X" above is to denote not a _particular_ proposition but any proposition with the shape that Ortlund is wanting to engage with (at least with Catholics). After watching Ortlund conduct argumentation against a set of X's across time, you can see his method or pattern of argumentation. Not everyone argues in the same way and not all forms of argumentation are equal. To that, Ortlund's mode of argumentation seems to presuppose a historiography that is different many of his Catholic interlocutors. I hope that helps to explain what I originally said.

@@scottsoneal when you say “the shape he wants to engage with”, what do you mean? I immediately think of the Areopagus sermon by Paul in Athens (ironically I’m an Athenian as well, though not the Greek kind). Paul very very very effectively reasons with the Athenians persuasively by quoting their philosophers, poets, even nameplates on statues. Of what they know, he selects particulars then reasons through to the points he wants to engage with. Maybe I don’t get your point at all…

@@scottsoneal your critic of Ortlund was more confusing than the video you commented on.

Hahaha what 😂

​@@platospaghetti you don't understand?

@@georgwagner937 I understand but that comparison was not very good 😅

@@platospaghetti doesn't have to be "very good". I'm just annoyed by the claim we protestants argue like atheists or that we're just sceptical. It's OK to demand evidence, even Thomas did it.

@@georgwagner937 oh my bad, I thought you were saying Protestants were arguing like atheists 😅

Nobody takes Ybarra serious after he was destroyed by Dyer, Ortlund is just repeating the arguments but his humility doesn’t allow him to go crazy on him.

@@internautaoriginal9951 Jay Dyer lost that debate and even most people agree lol.

@@MajorasTime Who are “Most People” ? Do we win by what most of the people agree on? Ybarras arguments are funny at this point, they only stop debating because Ybarra was playing like he couldn’t understand.

That comment literally ignores that this is a near 30 minute response to Erick's strongest argument(s).

@@HisLivingStone241 its a 30minutes of basically denying the evidences presented by Erick. Literally its a 30min video of Gavin basically saying to Erick's video "I don't see it that way".

1. “Protestant” is not an ecclesial term. No Protestant (i.e. historic Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and others) says “we are part of the same Church united under the Protestant name”. Under that definition of disunity, we see in the New Testament Church one Church with an undivided Apostolate / later Episcopate. Since Rome, the Orthodox, the Assyrian, the Coptics, and the Oriental Church are divided in doctrine and the purity of that doctrine being rightfully maintained in the true faithful episcopate; we see that the Episcopal Churches do not mirror the unified Church of the Apostles. 2. Jesus used the future tense in telling Peter that Peter would receive the keys, which is only repeated with all the disciples present in Matthew 18. Moreover, Luke 22 and John 21 only show Peter had an elderly brother role (i.e. “Strengthen your brothers” and “Feed My Sheep”); and the effectiveness (particularly John) of those arguments rely on Matthew 16. Otherwise, “Feed My Sheep” is a function that all the Apostles can be said to have. Also, the Great Commission is the commissioning of all the Apostles to go out as effectively equals (since to all are said “go”) and this is repeated with the Acts 15 Council. Thus, to point to Peter’s preaching on Pentecost is to point to an explanation removed from prior context and to an explanation far less consistent. Peter had authority and a role, but not in a solely supreme sense. 3. The argument from mirroring succession Biblically fails because the Sanhedrin (the ruling Jewish Court) and the Pharisees (the teachers of the law) were in legitimate authority but collaborated with the Pharisees (the successors to Aaron) to have the Lord Himself be executed. Thus, to argue for papal infallibility based on the modeling of the Pharisees’ infallibility is to endorse that the Pharisees were right in their judgement. If they were not infallible and could be in error (as they were), then you do not have precedent to say Christ build His Church “just as the Pharisees [structure]”.

@@HisLivingStone241 You said ¨“Protestant” is not an ecclesial term. No Protestant (i.e. historic Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and others) says “we are part of the same Church united under the Protestant name” That’s exactly what is the problem, the protestants NEVER had any unity since the very beginning… not in the doctrines, and of course not in the leadership! They are divided since Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli! Division and contradiction in the teaching is not the work of the holy spirit but the work of the flesh! Jesus prayed(John 17:20-26) very clearly for his church to be one just like he is one with his father. The protestants reformation completely fails to be the answer to his prayer. So whiles you protestants guys have now thousands of denominations full of contradictions, on the other side the Catholic church is united in the doctrine(in the catechism) and under the same authority in Rome for more than 2000 years, and this fulfills the prayer Jesus…. that’s the difference. To say that the “purity of the doctrine was not being rightfully maintained in the Roman Catholic church” is your personal subjective protestant opinion. Your protestants denominations cannot even agree with each other on the doctrine of salvation, so really, you have no authority and credibility to judge the integrity of the catholic dogmas and doctrines.

@@HisLivingStone241 You said : “John 21 only shows Peter had an elderly brother role (i.e. “Strengthen your brothers” and “Feed My Sheep” The problem is that the New Testament said a lot more than that about the authority and role of Peter… did you ever noticed that only Peter name was changed from Simon to “the rock” Cephas (not the other 11 apostles) showing that he was going to be the rock on which Jesus was going to build his church? Did you ever notice that it was Peter who perform most of the miracles in the first 15 chapters of the book of Acts and talked/preached most of the time? Did you ever notice that even though Cornelius family believe, the holy spirit could not initially descend on the Gentiles until Peter was sent to open the door for the holy spirit? (Because he was the only one with the key) Even your comment on John 21 point out to the catholic model! Even though Peter deny Christ 3 times, it is to Peter that Christ asks to strengthen his brother, not to the 11 other apostles to strengthen Peter! Showing that Peter's Role and authority are above the other apostles. Concerning the power of the key: it is not relevant if Christ talks in the future tense in Matthew 16. The time when Peter officially received the key is unknown, but it was most likely at the Pentecost. The key of the kingdom are related not only to bind and lose but to an office. In the second temple Judaism, when a King was giving the key of the kingdom to someone that make him second to the king, a sort of vizier if you want. This is not an office the 12 apostles could assume but only one person! And Jesus gave it to Peter. Isaiah 22:20-21 is giving the proper interpretation of Matthew 16.

@@HisLivingStone241 Finally, concerning the Pharisees, scribes, and the Sanhedrin. The term “bind and loose” was well-known in first-century Judaism. It was understood by the Jewish leadership for having the power to rule spiritually the community and teach with an authority that will be binding on the faithful, and the power to discipline and excommunicate unfaithful Jews from the synagogue. Jesus never question that, on the opposite, he clearly said that they legitimately sit on the chair of Moses and told his disciple to listen to them but to not imitate their behavior because they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:1-3). So, The problem here is not one of authority but one of hypocrisy. After the Jewish leadership became totally apostate by rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, God took away from them the power to bind and lose and this power was given to the church with Peter as Vizier with the power of the keys. It is very simple to understand for someone who is not indoctrinated with a protestants tradition full of Anti-Catholic prejudice.

@@thefaiththatendures 1. If Protestants fail, then Rome fails because all the Episcopal "ancient" churches separated. You selectively choose one definition of unity while excluding Rome from that same definition, ignoring that the entire East is opposed to you while saying Protestants fail because "we consciously are not united"; and yet none of the Eastern / Eastern Orthodox are united under the Pope. And I never was making a claim on which Episcopal church had purity of doctrine, but by your loose logic, neither do you have the right to judge the Protestants because you also are one man.

The Quotes of Saint Anselm demonstrates supremacy not infaillibility. All must submit, tha s supremacy. Very quick to overnuance things in defence of your views, very quick also to suppress every nuance when critiquing the opponent. Lamentable !

Actually, I don't. I have never said that. I'm fallible, not infallible. Why do you say that?

He hurt y’all huh

@@internautaoriginal9951 not at all! Again, Erick hurt Gavin by providing the complete writings of the Church Fathers and Popes that Gavin conveniently leaves out! 😄 peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

I really don‘t understand, why Catholics so often write in their comments, about the Eucharist😊. That it is the real body and the real blood of Christ. Many Protestants believe that. But we also believe it is real wine and real bread ☺️

@jacky b after a year of asking him. Dr. Ortlund finally admitted he can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ". Whose fallible Protestant interpretation do we listen to, as both Martin Luther and John Calvin disagreed with each other on what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 you don't understand Protestantism. We don't teach that our interpretation is infallible. We can make mistakes and correct our position with more understanding/learning. To put it simply, the 66 holy scriptures are infallible, our interpretations are not.