Truth Unites - Catholic vs. Protestant Dialogue (Gavin Ortlund + David Gordon)

Episode Date: October 2, 2023

In this video Gavin Ortlund and David Gordon dialogue about where Roman Catholics and Protestants agree, and where we disagree. See Brandon Crowe's The Lord Jesus Christ here: https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Jesus-Christ-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/1683597168 Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

What makes you want to scream to high heavens and say, what don't you guys get? Why do you think this? What is your basis for teaching this? It's sheer heresy. It's sheer error. Hey, everybody. This video is an interview slash dialogue that I had with David Gordon from the channel Church Militant.

I'll link to their channel. They invited me on to have a discussion about where Roman Catholics and Protestants agree and then where we disagree. So we spent about 20 minutes talking through where we agree and then 40 minutes talking through where we disagreed. We had a great discussion, covered a lot in a short amount of time. They were kind enough to give me permission to repost it on my channel, and I thought people might enjoy watching this. I'll get right into it, but before diving in, I do have a book recommendation. This is a great book. Hot off the press from Lexham Academic.

It's by Brandon Crow. It's called the Lord Jesus Christ, the biblical doctrine of the person and work of Christ. It's actually out a few weeks from me filming this. Very handsome book. They do a fantastic. job at just the physical nature of the book. It's very, it's aesthetically well done. And Lexham is a great publisher. They've just been putting out great stuff in the last few years. This is part of a series called We Believe, one of eight books. Keep your eyes peeled for other books in the series. But this is the kind of book that I thought people who watch my channel could be interested in. It's very clearly written. It's very prayerful, but it's just really good theology at both scripture and church history.

So he's just going through, you know, how was Christ predicted in the Old Testament, the sacrificial system, the servant songs in the book of Isaiah, how was that all pointing ahead to Christ? He talks through the New Testament. He talks through the early church, you know, Arianism and other heresies that came up,

early Christians like Justin Martyr. He talks about the quest for the historical Jesus and how we respond to that today. But I'll just put up this language from the Nicene Creed, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begot not made consubstantial with the Father. There is so much packed in to those few words, and all of us can probably grow in our understanding of them.

This is a great book that will take you deeper if you want to grow, basically to understand. By the time you finish this book, you'll understand those words a lot better. So I'll put a link to that in the description. Check it out. Without further ado, here's the interview. Welcome back to Mike Dup.

I'm your host, David Gordon. The Protestant Catholic divide has long marred the unity of Christ's mystical body, the church, and it seems now, at least to human eyes, that re-forging what was rent-asunder 500 years ago is an unworkable errand, a mere Christian pipe dream. The theological genie is out of the bottle, and by all appearances, it will take no less than an act of God to put him back in. However, this is a bleak resignation, as truth and justice demand that the people of God, those assimilated into Christ's mystical body through baptism, be in communion with one another,

as Christ's body is in fact one and integral. While the Catholic Church recognizes that those who are baptized in Protestant communities are, quote, by baptism incorporated in Christ, and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the church, end quote, this is less a source of comfort than it is a call to arms, a call to a true ecumenism that will heal through force of persuasion bolstered by grace the wounds that have for too long gashed Christendom. And the stakes couldn't be higher. Precious souls are on the line as our separated brothers are denied life-altering sacramental grace and the fullness of doctrinal understanding on pivotal issues of faith and morals.

Of course, Protestants believe that Catholics have fallen into pitfalls of superstition, idolatry, unsound worship. So ironically, one thing that unites faithful Catholics and Protestants is a certain urgency to evangelize their counterparts. To discuss all this, to have a true ecumenical dialogue, i.e. not the relativist, subjectivist, bilge of the 60s and 70s, we're honored to be joined today by Dr. Gavin Ortland. Dr. Ortland is a pastor, prolific author, speaker, an apologist for the Protestant Christian faith. as well as a husband and father. Thanks so much for being on with me today, Dr. Orland.

Hey, great to be with you, David. Thanks for having me. Sure. And, you know, it's our pleasure. But to give our audience a little bit more of a background on you, can you just give, you know, a rundown of, you know, your theological bona fides? I was looking over at your CV and your theological chops are quite deep.

Sure, yeah. Well, I serve as a Christian pastor, so I'm an ordained minister serving here in Southern Conference. California. And then my academic work, Theologically, is in historical theology. I wrote my dissertation on Anselm of Canterbury, wonderful theologian in his book, the proslogion, which is famous for its so-called ontological argument for God's existence. I love studying church history. I love St. Augustine. I love studying the Puritans. But I'm also interested in apologetics, you know, general apologetics, giving a witness for the existence of God, for the

resurrection of Christ to our culture as there's increasing secularization. I'm also interested in ecumenical engagements, as we'll be talking here. So yeah, that's a little bit. People could Google me and see my website and kind of look through various books and that kind of thing too. Sure. Great. Let me start here. Let's start with where we agree. You know, there's a lot of overlap between Catholic and Protestant theology. And obviously, although we're separated, brethren, You know, we're brothers in arms in a lot of the current cultural crises that are rocking the West. So where do you agree most with Catholics, theoretically? Yeah, I'm so grateful for the chance to talk about this question because it is so important.

And my understanding, my perspective is that we tend to slip into the extremes where we act as though we have no disagreements or we only talk about the disagreements. And it's hard to be balanced and just get the end. is right of here's where we do agree, here's where we disagree. Some of us can be tempted to overemphasize the disagreements, others to overemphasize the agreements. And so we've got to work at that. It takes balance. From my perspective, as you say, there is so much where we have in common. To start with something you mentioned, as our Western culture is growing more secular and also just more polarized, more divided, more outraged, there's such a sense of despair, you know, hanging in the air these days. I think that we can join together for a social witness on many

issues. And I am just from the depths of my heart proud of so many of my Roman Catholic friends, brothers and sisters who lead the charge on some of these social issues. I can think of several right now in my mind. We could even talk through some of them if you want. Also, beneath that, well, let me say one other thing right out of the gate as well, friendship. We can have wonderful friendship. You think of Lewis and Tolkien at the pub talking about their literature. We don't need to live in enmity against one another. But beneath that, there is also theological foundational beliefs. And these are sizable. We think of the doctrine of God. We believe in the same God, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity. We believe in the same basic mechanism for reconciliation

to that God, namely the incarnation of the Word of God, Jesus Christ, our Savior, fully God, fully man. We believe in the same basic outline of gospel narrative. Jesus is sinless life, vicarious death, triumphant resurrection, glorious return, and we can fill in some more dots there too. So there is a basic framework of theology we agree upon. And we could mention other things as well. That's not an exhaustive list. So, you know, those are significant and not to be overlooked. Sure. Salvation by grace, things of that nature also. How about this? How about what is the Christian mission. I think, I'm going to give you what the Catholic Church says the mission of Christianity is. And let me just see, because that's very broad and it's very foundational,

where you might agree or disagree, and I suspect, although I don't want to put words in your mouth, that you'd probably agree with this. So, Dominoos Jesus, the CDF, says that the mission of the church is to proclaim and establish among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and God, and she is on earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom. What do you believe that the mission of Christianity is? I like the bit you just read there. I'll step back and think at the most macro level possible and reference some language from the Westminster Confession of Faith,

a document within the Reformed Tradition of Protestantism that says the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. For its simplicity, I like that. the enjoyment of God and the glory of God, because all these other things that we use to describe the gospel message, we think of John 173, when Jesus says, this is eternal life that they may know you, the one true God and Jesus Christ. Or we think of a basic verse like John 316, that God has sent Jesus into the world so that whoever believes has eternal life. So this phrase, eternal life, so much is packed into that, but that's the final domino. so to speak. That's the ultimate end is for redeemed creation, pinnically redeemed human beings, to enjoy God, to glorify God. And I love the word glory, you know, that we will enjoy the

glory of God forever. This is the ultimate end of Christianity. Everything we do in this world is unto that, ultimately, the enjoyment of God, the beatific vision in which we behold God. And I like to use the metaphors when I'm preaching of the glory of God. Think of the way it, the electric feel when it's the bottom of the ninth inning and bases loaded, you know, that sense of energy, or at the end of the Fourth of July fireworks during the grand finale. The glory of God is that awesome reality in its ultimate form, God himself, to enjoy God himself. So I like to think at that ultimate level, the ultimate point of Christianity is to get to that. Sure, no, absolutely. And I think a lot of this is taken for granted by, you know, the author of the

Pentateuch, whom tradition, you know, identifies as Moses, that God designed us for friendship with him. You know, that's just something that the book of Genesis takes for granted. We had this Edenic reality where we were in friendship with God. But then, um, I would say, and I would just challenge you, and I think it's a challenge to a lot of Catholics, too, because I think people do think that, yes, we're here to know God, love God, and serve God so we can be with God forever in eternity. And certainly that's part and parcel of what we are called to. But doesn't it go beyond that for us as both Catholic and Protestant Christians that we are being raised up and restored back to friendship with God through grace so that we, in the new heavens and new earth,

that we're told are coming after the general resurrection and the general judgment can be with God for eternity and serve him because ultimately Adam and Eve were created to serve God. And, you know, God is immutable. His will does not change. So we're going to have a role going forward too. And that's why the church is but a seed of the kingdom of God and not it in its plenitude and consummation. Yes. If I'm following, then I think we're in total agreement. This is why I spoke of the final domino there. The glory of God is the ultimate end. But we've got our work to do, right? We've got to roll up our sleeves and get to work in this life.

And from my understanding, the basic way we come into friendship with God is through repentance and faith in the gospel. So we believe that Jesus died upon the cross for our sins. I'm going to say this very basically, because I like to summarize the gospel message very basically for people. Sometimes I assume people know more about the gospel who may be watching the video or something and they haven't. And then we repent of our sin.

Our sin is our estrangement from God. Repentance means we turn away into a 180 running the other direction and then we follow Christ. And so the way we come into friendship with God is through repentance and faith. And then as the church, we serve God, as you say, we seek to obey God and we seek to expand His kingdom in this world. So let's talk about that because you say, and rightly so, I believe, that Catholics and Protestants can really collaborate a lot in building the kingdom of God on earth, especially fighting the creeping secularism and the antagonistic anti-Christian secularism of the modern West. How do you feel like we can collaborate? What can we do together? How can we collaborate more? How do you see us collaborating already?

Well, the three categories I often think of, I'll just reiterate these, even though I've sort of already mentioned these, of friendship, social witness, and theological foundation. I find it helpful to think in those three categories and there's so much that could go into each bucket there. If we were to develop that just a little bit, one thing that I have learned myself and that I think is so important for all of us is to practice listening. You know, the differences that we inherit between our traditions are complicated. And the fact is that if they were really simple and if all good and sincere people could just immediately see it, they probably wouldn't have persisted this long. And so it takes a lot of listening and a lot of humility to,

to understand where those differences are. I've been guilty at times of caricaturing another point of view. I don't do that intentionally, but sometimes over time, it's like three years down the line. And then you start to say, oh, that's what they mean. Okay, it's a little more complicated. Even where you might disagree, you start to understand it better. So I really think that first step of listening and seeking to understand is a huge part

of how we can start to come together and collaborate. Sure. What specifically can we do to kind of fight the culture wars, you know, back to back, link arms? And obviously, we do a lot together in the pro-life movement. Obviously, a lot of times we are together in court cases that are filed in defense of true marriage, true matrimony. What else can we do? Yeah. Well, just to mention some of those issues, I mean, a moment ago I mentioned people I'm proud of for their social witness within the Catholic tradition.

I think of Lila Rose and the work she does standing up for the pro-life cause. I've appreciated Matt Frad and the work that he does fighting against pornography. I think that is a massive issue in our time. That is just absolutely just a toxic influence within our culture. So what we can do is come together to think, brainstorm, and pray about how we commend the truth, how we offer reasoned persuasion to people. some people can be persuaded to see how destructive something like pornography is within our society. And then beyond that, I think the way we talk to one another can be countercultural. Right now,

the trend, it seems to me, is that if we disagree, we will assume the other party is evil. So we're losing the ability to have good faith disagreement, increase, especially in politics, but in other spheres of life. We tend to assume if the other side is wrong, than they are evil. I think, then this is something I think about a great deal on my YouTube channel. Part of our witness is simply to try to resist that and to try to talk to each other with good faith. To try to assume the best, only conclude that there's bad motive if you must, because it's so clear. And the simple fact of how we interact with each other, I actually have known many non-Christians who watch dialogues between these different Christian traditions. And they do draw conclusions

on the basis of that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't disagree. And I know we'll talk through, you know, where do we disagree? I'm not a fan of a soft ecumenism that avoids our differences. But there's just a moderation that can come in and a charity in our hearts, to wish well upon the souls of others to understand that we both believe in a God who became a baby. And if the infinite son of God descended down into the womb of a woman, then we should talk to each other with a sense of restraint because that should humble us to the dust, that he would do that for us. And if people can just see that we're approaching our differences like that,

that actually is not an insignificant part of our witness, I think. Yeah, absolutely. And you mentioned, you know, you like to look at church history. That's one of your fortees. That's a place where you spend time in your scholarship. I think there's something very humbling about church history where when we do become too, I don't mean narrow dogmatically in the sense that, you know, you are attached to truth because, of course, we should, you know, be willing to die for truth. But sometimes we get too attached to answers that are formulaic and that we are taking for granted, you know, with regard to studying church history, it has a humbling effect to see, oh, these things, a lot of these questions that we just take for granted as easy answers got really hammered out by several

people of goodwill. Theologians of goodwill going back and forth with one another. And I think that in terms of studying church history is a good armor against a sort of theological pride, kind of an odium theologicum, this theological hatred that you see too much between kind of warring factions, even within a denomination for Pete's sake, let alone interdenominationally. So that said, I think we we've set the stage, you know, we're going to be candid during this discussion. And we both understand that each other has only good faith. You know, we have only goodwill towards one another. Let me ask, what do you think the greatest strength of the Catholic Church is?

Well, there are so many. But the sheer stature and size and richness within this tradition is, there is so much value in that. I could just think of many examples of areas where I as a Protestant can and must learn from, I would have to say, the superior body of wisdom that has developed within the Roman Catholic tradition on various topics. The Thomist tradition, Tomist philosophy. That is a rich tradition. And only a fool would be dismissive from learning from this this powerful tradition of how do you argue for the existence of God and then how do you understand the nature of God? An area of research for me is divine simplicity, that God is without

parts. And I've become convinced that that's a very important doctrine. Unfortunately, many Protestants do jettison that doctrine or they're just unaware of it. But historically, Protestants have affirmed that doctrine. But that's an area where, you know, within the Thomist tradition, you're going to get the finest thought about that. And there's great, there's a richness in the Eastern traditions like Eastern Orthodox. doxy, for example, in that area as well. But there's some differences as well. But that just, you know, that just leaps to my mind as an example of just the sheer stature that is there within the Roman Catholic tradition. I mentioned social witness earlier, but maybe even delving into that a little bit more, a theology of the human body, a theology of sexuality, even on some areas where I disagree with Roman Catholic teaching, I have to admit, it is much richer than what many evangelicals have entered into. Many, especially evangelical Protestants today, just have not thought about those areas nearly enough. Contraception, things like this, many evangelicals just haven't really given the attention it deserves.

Roman Catholics have. I'd also say one other thing. A theology of beauty that works itself out into how we approach the arts, for example. Think of how many great Catholic writers are. G.K. Chesterton, J.R. R. Tolkien, Blaze Pascal, Malcolm Mugridge. Why is it that so many great writers are Catholic? Well, I don't think that's just an accident. There's a wonderful theology of beauty that you see in the architecture,

in the approach to the arts, in so much of the liturgy of Roman Catholicism, and I would say the greatest theologian of beauty is probably Hans Erz van Balthasar, who thought so much about what you could call theological aesthetics or how beauty plays a role in theology. And so those kinds of areas are ones where I just find tremendous strength within the Roman Catholic tradition. Sure, and that's a really great answer. You know, it's too easy when, and I've been on panels before, you know, one panel in particular with an Orthodox representative and a Protestant representative and I was acting as Catholic representative

and, you know, we're all asked what we admire about each other. And it's all kind of backhanded compliments. Obviously what you just said is sincere and profound and, you know, I think I just essentially want to pat you on the back for that answer. It's clearly very thoughtful. And for my part, I would say, and this is, you know, not something I just throw out there as a nicety or a courtesy, but I really do admire the Protestant commitment to reading the Holy Scriptures and seeing them for what they are, a love letter from God to us, where he deigned to reveal himself to us out of an act of sheer free love. And that is something that I think a lot of people need to recapture, especially in an age when we have distilled doctrine down to such fine points

on so many things, you know, there's a temptation to just go read a church document on something as opposed to reading the actual verbiage of God. So the absolute and unfettered, uncompromising Protestant commitment to reading the Holy Scriptures and to doing so, you know, I know good Protestants. They're in it every day, every morning, and every evening. It's very, very admirable thing. And I think it's something that many Catholics could learn to do better, you know, right now in our current age. So that said, now I want you to lay it on me. Where do you think the Catholic Church is just flat wrong?

What makes you, you know, want to scream to high heavens and say, what don't you guys get? Why do you think this? What is your basis for teaching this? It's sheer heresy. It's sheer error. Okay. Well, and thanks for, you know, giving a space in this conversation to be candid. And, of course, you know that I welcome that back in return as well.

I would sort of put it into two categories or two buckets. One, I would use the word exclusivity for. the other the word accretions. So exclusivity, the concern here is that the Roman Catholic churches claim to be the one true church is a concern to me. And the word accretions gets at the fact that I think that there have been developments within Roman Catholicism that have sort of accrued, often very gradually throughout church history that I take to be errors, essentially innovations, deviations from what Christ and the apostles would want us to teach. And so there, you know, we could talk to some of the specific examples of that,

but it really gets into the issue of authority and sort of the authority structure we look to, and the relation of scripture to tradition and the church, and those just foundational methodological differences that we have. And essentially my perspective is that with the death of the last apostle, I think most Roman Catholics would agree to some extent that there is some significant change at that point. In the Catholic Catechism, it talks about how there's not an expectation for further public revelation until the second coming of Christ.

So the era of public revelation ceased. And as a Protestant, my basic conviction to put it sort of colloquially and basically is, we don't get to change Christianity after that point. We are accountable to the apostolic deposit of the first century. That doesn't mean we can't learn and grow and change and develop in various ways, but the ultimate North Star, the ultimate standard will be looking back to the deposit of Christianity, because Christianity is a revealed religion. The arrow comes down to earth from heaven. And so, well, we agree, of course, that it's a revealed religion in principle. The way this works out, we get into the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is a Protestant conviction that Scripture is the only in fact. unalible rule. And basically, you know, as we wrestle through these issues, I'm just really persuaded that a lot of these later developments in church history are things that wouldn't have been recognizable to the apostles. You know, some of the immediate things that we think of at the time of the Reformation would be things like indulgences and the treasury of merit. But the more basic ones that I think are most on my conscience today would be beliefs about Mary.

All honor to Mary. She is a wonderful woman of God. But I think the requirement for belief in her bodily assumption and her immaculate conception, I'd looked at the early church fathers on those doctrines. I'm just not persuaded that they have any authentic relation to apostolic teaching. Dr. Orland, let me jump in here because I want to get into and parse those out a little bit later if we have time. But I just want to say that Catholics would agree with you that public revelation did close with the death of the last apostle. So nothing new is going to be added to the department. faith after the death of the last apostle.

What the public modifier is doing there is to distinguish from private revelation, like our lady's appearance at Fatima, which isn't adding anything to the deposit of faith, but rather applying the deposit of faith to a specific circumstance. So it's like Senderis versus Sinaitacus, where it's, you know, here you have the law, and here you just have Mary kind of applying heaven's understanding of the law to particular scenarios that are playing out historically. So we're in a complete agreement that revelation is closed. You know, Catholics are not Mormons. Protestants are not Mormons where they believe that we have, you know, the Pope getting ongoing revelations from God as to what must be in the deposit of faith.

But where I think, and I'd like to get your response to this, I think we would disagree, although I'm not sure, we understand the deposit of faith is a single. where you have the essence of an oak tree is in the seed. It's essentially there. And yet, over time, it grows and develops. The seed grows and develops its telos is, you know, becoming an oak tree. Its end is to become an oak tree. But at the same time, you know, it's not, it might not necessarily appear this way as yet until it takes time, grows roots, grows a trunk, grows leaves. And although, you know, oakness is something that is in both seed and tree, you know, in greater measures of being and becoming act and potency, there hasn't been a change substantially.

It's just been things have taken time to develop. And that's how we would look at the deposit of faith as Catholics. Because, and I have a quote from you, I'm going to get into in a second. But, you know, as theologians work things out and, you know, kind of test the scriptures and see whose understanding of a scriptural truth is the correct one and should carry the day, which is closest to scripture, which is closest to the capital T tradition handed on by the apostles to their successors, you know, we get a better understanding of the truth of the matter, just like you saw with Aryanism, Nestorianism, being tested and shot.

down ultimately because they did not conform to what was at the heart of the deposit of faith. So what's say you to that? How do you understand the development of doctrine? And that's what we would call it the development of doctrine, not the change or addition of doctrine. Right. Thank you for the pushback. And just to clarify, that was my point that we agree.

I think I referenced the catechism, that we agree that public revelation has ceased. Sure. That is a common agreement between us. So the concern then is that despite that agreement, there is a disagreement about whether contemporary Roman Catholic theology is the organic growth out of that apostolic deposit, whether it is the tree out of the seed. And we all have to face this question of how do we distinguish an authentic development from an innovation or deviation?

And so that would be where we have the disagreements. the concern I have as a Protestant is that some of the required Roman Catholic beliefs, I mentioned some of the Marian dogmas, the papacy itself would be another, seemed to me to be deviations rather than authentic outgrowths. Sure. And I do want to reference what you've written on this matter. I took this from, I believe, is it your website? Is that officially run by you, Dr. Orland?

It is, yes. Okay. Sure. You write, quote, the product. Protestant position is that the mainstream must be measured by the ancient, not vice versa. In adopting this position, the early Protestants appealed to a principle widely articulated among the church fathers, namely that in the absence of biblical attestation, earlier traditions were more reliable than later traditions because they more plausibly represented faithfulness to apostolic teaching. And therefore, you reason that, quote, when you have muddy water in a stream, you have to go back, to see where it came in. The pure water will be found before the muddy water started. When you

hear Protestants speak of being deep in history, picture the deeper, earlier parts of the channel of water. Deep means early. Isn't this in, yeah, isn't it? So that's the quote, but isn't that absurd in the light of all of the heresies that gained a huge amount of ground in the early church? Most bishops were Aryan for a period of time. The reason we have, we have, especially the first seven ecumenical councils, and four of which most Protestants, you know, assent to and accept theologically, was because the church was in crisis mode wiping out heresies that had spread and gained significant traction in the early church. So isn't it the opposite that's the case? Is that water is muddy first and then things have to simmer down and be clarified because you get something in

its most raw form and only after time is it purified. You know, it's like grape juice into wine and eventually wine becomes kind of, you know, more tastier and tastier. The quality of the wine becomes higher as it's aged over time. So isn't it the opposite? It's interesting. Well, I need to listen more to hear your thoughts a little more on this, but just to try to extend the conversation at this point, that reference to the muddy water is a metaphor used by Cyprian. I was quoting Cyprian. The idea there is when you're evaluating any one particular tradition, the earlier you go back to the apostles with respect to witness to that tradition, the less likely it is that the telephone game has warped it or garbled it in some way, because transmission errors can come in along the

way. So that's just the basic principle there. I don't think I could agree that the earlier you go, then it's muddier because at the earliest, we'd say that's, then you're in the apostolic age. So that would be that era that I think we both look to as a unique era in church history. So I don't know if that helps at all, but feel free to steer this however you want. Well, I would say that the apostles, you know, they had, again, the deposit of faith in its fullness. Yet, because time is finite, you know, Peter, James, John didn't have time to explain to their followers each and every point and each and every sub-question and subcategory of what the implications of a certain immutable doctrine are.

So that's why, even in the early church, a lot of bishops could believe that Christ was somehow subordinate to the Father, that Christ was somehow created by the Father. the first and grandest of all creations. But if it's truly, as you said, and the doctrine had to have been handed down so clearly without any lacunae or gaps, then, you know, how could we have these significant Christological crises in the church where they're still working out, you know, what the hypostatic union is, where a lot of people are thinking that Christ is somehow an admixture of God and man, and that essentially his divine nature would want. wipe out his human nature or somehow engulf it like a drop of water into an endless ocean.

These are very basic Christological questions, and yet there was significant disagreement and dissent in the church, where even you have St. Nicholas punching Arias in the face for his point of view. Yeah, going back to how we have our disagreements, right? Yeah, I'm glad we're distant. Yeah, exactly. No. Yeah, okay. So, well, no, I don't think I ever said that there couldn't be lacuna or gaps in apostolic teaching. I wouldn't affirm that. But the basic point that I would make is I would make a distinction between the development of the understanding of the apostolic testimony, which could have come about on something like Christology. That's complicated. How do you understand? I think the New Testament teaches that Jesus is both God and man, but it doesn't flesh out how you exactly articulate that, especially when heretical alternatives come along. But I would make a distinction maybe something like that.

And what I have concerns with in Roman Catholic teaching, where there are not just the understanding of a doctrine developing, but there's claims for a historical event, like the bodily assumption of Mary, which has no testimony for 400 years within the Christian church after it allegedly happened and much testimony against it. So that, to me, is a very different case than just the sort of unfold. folding of understanding as we're working out doctrines because you'd have to wonder, well, if it happened, why didn't anybody seem to know about it for hundreds of years? Well, I would argue that the bodily assumption of Mary is in Scripture in Revelation 11 and 12, because, and I want to get in this in a second, because the Marian dogmas all have strong basis in the Old Testament, but Mary's the Ark of the New Covenant. and, you know, the writer of the apocalypse, St. John, John the Evangelist, sees the Ark of the Covenant

in heaven. So things like bodily assumption of Mary, I think, are very defensible also on the argument from silence that although Christian churches were claiming the mortal remains of all of the major saints, and we, you know, have Peter and Paul in the Vatican, their relics, no churches ever proclaimed the remains of Mary, which is very, very strange given her, you know, absolute uniqueness and prominence as a Christian saint, where we give her hyperdulia reverence. So that's a very strong argument from silence. And there, you know, we quibble about what's contained in some of the patristic testimony about it. But what about that? I mean, I think a lot of what we are going to have an issue with is authority is what it sounds like. We're talking about, okay, I would say

that a lot of this is contained within scriptures. You would say it's not contained in scriptures, and that's ultimately at the heart of all Protestant Catholic debates, because the next level up question is simply, what is the basis of authority in the Christian religion? So I would challenge you and say, you know, 1 Timothy 315, the church is. is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. But you had mentioned earlier, the scripture is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. You didn't say it like that. You said Soloscriptura, but that's what it means.

Isn't our basic issue truly authority? I think it is, and I appreciate the good, robust back and forth discussion here. Being candid back and forth, I'll respond and say, I don't think there, I think every single church father, without exception, interpreted the woman of Revelation 12, not as Mary but the church, until the late 4th century when it's first speculatively proposed by Epiphanius. Coincidentally, right at the time when people are starting to wonder about Mary's final end, even if the woman were Mary, she's not assumed to heaven. All of her activity occurs once she's already in heaven. And I've dealt with that more in my videos.

I think that's a very problematic view. I also think that there is the idea from no relics. We have no relics for Joseph either. I don't think that's a good basis for a doctrine like that. So we just have a disagreement there. That's okay. But on the issue of authority, I do agree that we have a difference there between how we understand authority church and scripture.

I happily affirm that the church is the verse in 1st Timothy that you mentioned. I don't think that means a particular hierarchy within Roman Catholicism can speak infallibly at the same level as scripture. And my basic belief for that is just what we, have portrayed in scripture about the offices of the church, the nature of the church, I think if there was the capacity for the church to speak at the same level of authority as the very words of God, namely at an infallible level of authority, I think we would need to see that laid out in the New Testament. I know we'll disagree here, but I'm just not persuaded that that is there. Sure. Okay. I just wanted to briefly respond. I'm not trying to, I wasn't trying

to get too into the weeds of the Marion questions because I want to actually cue those up later because I know that's a significant sticking point between us. But just since this has come up in more specific detail, I would say that, yes, the evangelist does see the Ark of the Covenant next to the throne of God in heaven. So there's this transition between Revelation 11 and 12, where he's talking about the woman being pursued by the dragon, who, by the way, gives birth to the king who is to rule with an iron rod.

That's Christ. That's a fulfillment of a Davidic prophecy. The church didn't birth Christ. Mary birthed Christ. But beyond that, once you transition between the chapters of the book of Revelation, it starts off right after describing the woman fleeing the dragon with now all of a sudden pivoting to talking about the Ark of the Covenant, which I think is Mary, and it's in heaven by the throne of God, in the temple of God. But okay, let me press you and just a bit on the authority issue. If you're saying that the church has authority, but not in the church,

the hierarchical, magisterial sense that we see in modern Catholicism, what kind of authority did the church have? What does that look like? It has authority to say what doctrine is. It has authority to settle doctrinal questions and to interpret scripture. What kind of authority do you mean the church would have if you would grant, if you would concede that the church did have, you know, some type of authority? Okay. On the question of Revelation 12, I'll just refer people to the video I've put out on that where I deal with that passage and make a case.

I'm very convinced that that's not a good proof for the bodily assumption of Mary, especially as a required dogma. On the question of authority, I'll note that we're pretty far off the question outlined here so we can talk this through a little bit and then perhaps we can steer it back to the question outline that we agreed upon. But I basically would say I would make a distinction between expressions of authority that are fallible, that is, they can err, and expressions of authority that are infallible, that is, they cannot err, and they are thus binding and irreformable. And I would say, again, if the church

had in herself, the post-apostolic church, had the capacity to bind the conscience with infallible teaching, I would think that we would need to see some indication of that in the New Testament. and I'm also persuaded we don't see that in the early church either. In my videos on Soliscriptura and in some of the debates I've done on that topic, I've just unpacked that argument a little bit further. That's, you know, there could be nothing more important for the New Testament to teach us or to be seen in the early church if, in fact, the church had the capacity to speak infallibly. And I think Soliscriptura to me is a very reasonable and modest doctrine because it's,

essentially a way to keep us focused upon the apostolic deposit. This, to me, is the safest way to make sure we're not falling into deviations from what the apostles themselves taught. Okay, then let me press you. Because you say you don't see any New Testament evidence for a church being able to bind authoritatively. But I see it. Insalibly. Well, I mean, what about Christ saying to Peter? Matthew 16, 18.

that what you bind will be bound and what you loose will be loosed. That seems to be giving in the stead of the king who is going to be seated at the right hand of the father, the prime minister, the keys to the kingdom to make authoritative binding decrees. And I think you see this playing out in the early church, don't you? Where do you think that you could disagree with the Council of Ephesus or Council of Constantinople on? a theological point and still call yourself a Christian? I mean, so doesn't the historical witness show that there is a church that could bind and loose authoritatively? And if it could do so authoritatively, and we have to assent to these authoritative decrees of some kind of a hierarchy,

don't you think that that would be unfair of God if that hierarchy could turn around an air and bind the individual conscience to error? Okay, well, let's start with Matthew 16. My understanding of this passage, which I've developed in a number of videos and other places, is that it is speaking about apostolic authority, not post-apostolic authority. The language of binding and loosing given to Peter there, who is in that passage speaking on behalf of the other apostles, as he often does, is reiterated two chapters later in Matthew 1818 to all of the apostles. And then if you just widen your gaze and look at the entirety of the New Testament, it seems to me that that

authority was something the apostles shared and is usually spoken of as general among them. I think of Ephesians 220, for example. So I would make a distinction between apostolic authority and post-apostolic authority. I think in my previous comments, I referenced the post-apostolic church speaking infallibly. And this, of course, does not mean that the church cannot speak with authority. what it means is that the church does not speak at the same level as Scripture that is infallibly, and thus her pronouncements are reformable in light of Scripture. And that seems to me to be necessary just because, you know, again, we can work through some of these things if you want, although, again, we're pretty far off the script, so we might want to kick it back.

But I just, you know, as a student of church history, I'm just not persuaded that all of these various beliefs that have developed over the centuries that are today, required in the Roman Catholic Church are in fact apostolic or something the apostles could recognize. The veneration of icons is another one. I think the witness of the first 300 years of the church is just resoundingly against the practice of bowing down to an image and praying through it as a window to heaven. And yet the Second Council of Nicaa offers an anathema upon anyone who rejects that practice. In fact, the anathemas are pretty specific and vivid. So those are the kinds of things where I would just want to say, we're not trying to say the church has no authority. What we're trying to say is the church is subordinate under Scripture and her pronouncements must be

revisable in light of Scripture. Well, okay, let's talk about the canon of Scripture then for a second. The canon of Scripture was something that was debated in flux until about the 4th century when regional councils, like the Synod of Hippo, started coming down and saying, you know, what is essentially the modern Catholic canon that incorporates what you call the apocrypha. But one of the ways that they tested what was actually in Scripture was, did it comport and adhere to or contradict the doctrine of the church? So that doctrine was set prior to Scripture. You know, doctrine was handed down orally for some time. And as a matter of fact, the books of Scripture,

or the books that were being kind of floated for scripture were tested by whether they adhered to that apostolic doctrine. So I hear guys like James White, Dr. James White, saying things like, well, Scripture's God breathed. Well, you know what else is God breathed? The apostles. God breathes on them. There's two times in the Bible when God breathes on people. You know, one, he breathes life into Adam. And two, before he gives the apostles the authority to remit sin through what I would say. is the Sacrament of Confession, he breathes on them. So the Apostles are God-breathed, and therefore

apostolic paradosis, apostolic tradition, isn't that God-breathed too, and therefore on equal standing with Scripture? Okay. Well, I'll probably have time for one more question after this, is reading toward the end, but I'll address the canon of Scripture here. Certainly, the Apostles, Jesus breathes on the Apostles. Again, the Apostles are unique. That would be a common agreement between us. To my mind, it does favor the Protestant position for various reasons. But on the canon, I would basically say, we as Protestants agree that the church discerns the Word of God. A classic Protestant doctrine is the necessity of the Church unto the Word of God. That necessity is in several respects. One of them is simply preserving the Scriptures during persecution. But one of them is canonization,

discerning which books are in the scripture. And my observation would be simply that the church does not need to herself be infallible in order to recognize that which is infallible. So we see the role of the church as rather like John the Baptist in pointing to Jesus. By recognizing Jesus, he is not equal with Jesus. He is subordinate under Jesus. So also the church recognizes the books of scripture, but is not equal to them in the sense of speaking with infallibility. And, you know, basically I would just say, I think historically, there's a lot of reasons for that in terms of how the Old Testament canon, what we call Old Testament, was received by the Jewish people. They did not have an infallible edict that taught them which books

were scripture, yet Jesus held them accountable to the law and the prophets. Similarly, the early church did not have an infallible counsel on the canon. That doesn't come about till the late Middle Ages. Sure. Okay. Why are the Marian doctrines so troubling to people? of a Protestant background. Of all things, you know, I think that's one of the, beyond the issue of authority, one of the most common objections that, you know, I hear, things that I just, again, take for granted. It was part and parcel of my upbringing. It's Catholics. You know, you grow up praying the Hail Mary. And it seems like, and I don't know if you would disagree, but you can ask for the intercession of saints in heaven, right? Aren't there in the

of Revelation, don't they have, you know, elders offering up the prayers of the faithful before the throne of God? I didn't actually think that that was something that divided us, is asking the blessed in heaven to necessarily pray for you. If Mary is in heaven, what would be wrong with asking her to pray for us? Why is that such a sticking point, I guess? For me, growing up cradle Catholic, it seems like small potatoes or something. Okay. Well, I appreciate hearing how you're approaching it as a cradle Catholic. I'm, of course, a cradle Protestant, if that's a term. So I've always tried to listen carefully to how others are approaching it from a different angle. I have the sort of opposite intuition of not understanding how the Roman Catholic Church's teaching about Mary isn't controversial for folks. Because as I study the early church, as I mentioned, the bodily assumption and immaculate conception to me are just very clear that they are unknown, not just to the apostles, but to several centuries. And in my video on the Immaculate Conception, I just walked through how many church fathers up until John Chrysostom are not only comfortable with attributing moral flaws to Mary,

but don't exhibit any awareness that this would even be controversial. So the question that that raises is simply, well, why should we think that this doctrine was even present? If you see that enough happening over and over again, and there's no positive testimonies for it, you'd say, well, why should we think this was something the apostles would recognize? Praying to the Saints is a point of division. I've just done a video on that recently. That might be too big a topic to cover here. Maybe we'll have to return to that another time.

Sure, yeah. And I, again, I don't mean to get too into the weeds on some of these points. I just want to ask appropriate follow-ups that would, you know, kind of guide the conversation. And as you mentioned, I want to be respectful of your time. and we are kind of up against the clock. But, you know, there are some common sticking points that I see. I hope you would indulge me on one more substantive thing and then just kind of taking us out with something more lighthearted,

if that's okay with you, Dr. Orlin. Sure, go ahead. Sure. So what about the Eucharist and the other sacraments? Aren't those things that you can see a basis for in Scripture in the early church? especially. And maybe you could let us know what is the early church? Because you talk about Mary not being present in the patristics, but you know, I see her in Ambrose, Augustine, a very

modern Catholic Marian theology. But I think it's even a more open and shut case for practices, at least of a proto-confession, you know, to bishops with public penance. And the Eucharist was always seemingly central, absolutely central, and the historical record seems to attest to that. Why the discrepancies over these things? Okay. First, I just want to clarify, I didn't say that Mary in general is not present in the early church. I referenced the bodily assumption. I don't think Ambrose or Augustine had any notion of a bodily assumption. I don't think anybody did till the fifth century, so I just want to clarify that. And Immaculate conception, at least for Augustine. Ambrose, I'm undecided on with respect to the Immaculate Conception. But on the question of the sacraments, yeah, so my position

is that there's not a single church father who teaches there are seven of them. I don't know of anyone who teaches seven sacraments. I think that's a later accretion. With respect to the Eucharist, I think that the concern for Protestants, I'll mention a Protestant weakness, okay? Many Protestants have way too low a view of the Eucharist. And that is something where we can learn from the early church and learned from the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. My view and that of most historic Protestants is that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, so that itself would not be a point of division between us. When it comes to the practice and administration of it, I do have concerns about how the Eucharist

was functioning in the late medieval West, and I do think the Protestant Reformation offered a helpful corrective in some respects, for example, receiving both bread and wine, which was one of the hallmark emphasis of all of the Protestant traditions, also partaking of it and not just spectating, also partaking frequently, not infrequently. So those would be some of the concerns that were present at that time. I think the Eucharist is one of those things we can come closer to each other today. I think Protestants have a lot of our own reforming to do in that area of our theology. The concern of exclusivity is a concern on my side that the Roman Catholic Church, has, sets the guardrail so that you have to be Roman Catholic in order to receive the Eucharist.

So that's also something on the table we need to talk through if we were to develop this further. But I'll just finish by saying, you know, the issue of the Eucharist specifically is something Protestants are often very weak on. So I think you're right to bring that up. Sure. Well, I appreciate you saying so. And, you know, a good concession often makes, you know, one's point even stronger. So, you know, absolutely. In your, you know, You know, it's funny you say about, you know, the sevenness of the sacraments. Absolutely, that's one place where people who are debating whether, you know, scripture is materially sufficient or whether there is a constitutive tradition

that is a font of revelation in its own right. The sevenness of sacraments is absolutely something that the constitutive tradition people say, you know, is not in scripture. So I'm right there with you. the fact that there seems to have been that settled, though, in the early church would, to my mind, show church authority. But let me say any other things that you want to get out there, any other things that just scream to high heaven for correction before I just ask you how Catholics and Protestants can work together and learn from one another going forward? No, I don't have anything else I want to press. We got into some of the main ones.

I mean, we've been up on 25 minutes. We just did a rapid fire on a lot of different issues there, so that's all good, and I've enjoyed the discussion. I don't have anything to press of a negative nature. I would say, yeah, no, we could finish on a constructive note however you want. I mean, as I said at the beginning, it's that difficult balance of trying to, as we've done. You know, I think we've modeled this well in this discussion. We've not, neither of us has held back in explaining our differences, but we're also, neither of us has punched each other in the face or the computer.

And we're also talking about where we can learn and agree with each other. So however you want to land the plane here, I'm happy for. Well, yeah, what can we continue to teach each other in the future? And I also wanted to point out, if you'll permit me, the notabena here, that absolutely, I think you're right to call out the tendency to just. either go to one of two extremes, either go at each other's throats where we're not even admitting that the other is Christian, like somebody who's baptized with the Trinitarian formula is in fact a real Christian, or just being like, well, we all believe pretty much the same thing. I think you strike

the right balance there, and I'm glad we were able to have this discussion and just be candid with each other and say, yeah, I mean, if you're baptized, I believe you're a Christian. If you were baptized with the Trinitarian formula, you are a Christian, you are a brother in Christ. And although we're in an imperfect communion, we do have some kind of communion, and we can work together to further the kingdom of God. But what can we learn from each other going forward, Dr. Orland? Thank you. And my position is anyone who trusts in Jesus and repents of sin and puts their faith in the gospel, responding to the gospel, following Christ, is a brother.

our sister in Christ. And I would say that in terms of learning, I mean, I'll just finish on this note that this gives us perspective, because at the beginning we talked a little bit about some of the material particulars of what we can learn. But maybe some more top-level looking down vision on it is we have to remember that there is a realm of angels and demons. There is spiritual warfare and the way we relate to each other affects the spirit realm, I believe. I believe the demons can feed off of our, when we have enmity or hatred in our hearts. And I believe that we actually undermine Satan when we practice charity and forgiveness. So that's a basic point, but something maybe that's just helpful to keep in the midst of things, not in any way to shut down our vigorous

argumentation, but we just have to remember ultimately we're not each other's enemies. In fact, even non-Christians are not our ultimate enemies. Our ultimate enemy is Satan and his demons. And that perspective, I for some reason, found that so helpful to come back to again and again. It just adds a layer of context to everything else that we're doing here in this world. Sure. I would add, though, that these theological divisions, aren't they a product of spiritual activity and the demonic warfare against the children of God? Because ultimately, we do want to have a body of Christ that is absolutely integrated and universal

and not fractious and divided, right? I mean, isn't the very fact that we are sitting here with Catholics, with Protestants, with Orthodox churches, isn't that testament to the fact that there is spiritual combat taking place and that there are powers and principalities that are leading us astray? Yes, I think that's consistent with what I said. Yes, Satan has special interest in dividing us, not only the enmity, but, yeah, the divisions themselves, and sometimes we will have concerns about each other as we look across. the space of disagreement about where we feel there are spiritual strongholds or where we feel that you know Satan's activity has influenced us in some way I think we have to be humble and admit

none of us are beyond that doesn't matter what tradition we're in we're all tempted we're all under the thumb under the under the foot of Satan he's trying to get it all of us but I'm just saying the more basic point of just the while we work through things we just have to remember that whole realm as we talk absolutely uh Dr. Gavin Nortland, you are most eloquent and gracious. Thank you for coming on. I realize the subject matter is inherently difficult. So thank you for bearing with me. I wasn't trying to probe any of this too hard or in any kind of a disagreeable way at all. It's almost difficult to avoid some of these profound theological differences, even when we're trying to work, you know, in a spirit of

carrying Christian ecumenism forward. Some of these matters. that divide us, you know, they are, they are, they're tough, they're tough questions. And, you know, they go right to the root of our worldviews. So thank you for bearing with me and for appearing on the show. We really appreciate you. It's my pleasure and privilege. Thank you, David. And I totally, just to add on to what you said, we have to be able to give each other enough

grace to not be easily offended because when we talk, it's going to be a little intense sometimes, even though this hasn't even been that intense. But it's just, you know, because as you say, these issues are so foundational. So that's one thing we can do as well. It's just, you know, just be okay with that and keep working on it. And I've enjoyed this conversation. Thank you very much. Guys, this has been another episode of Mic'd Up.

Thank you for joining us. Please do continue to support Church Militant with both your views. And if you have the means, your wallets and donations as well. I will see you next week. This is David Gordon, signing off. God bless.