Truth Unites - One BIG argument for Protestantism

Episode Date: June 28, 2022

Protestantism is a renewal movement within the church, but does not  claim to be the "one true church." This claim better matches the  principles laid out in the New Testament for discerning the church than  the rival claims of traditions such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern  Orthodoxy, and others. Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. 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/

Lots of my videos, especially recently have been longer videos, lots of nuance and kind of several sections to them. There's going to be a briefer video, just making one basic point. And I want to make basically an argument. I don't think this is my main argument, but I would say this is one strong argument for being a Protestant Christian. Protestantism is a renewal effort within the one true church of Jesus Christ. We believe in one church, but we just do not restrict her to one institution. We believe Christ is at work in multiple institutions. sadly, tragically, there's been schisms. There's been splits, divisions within the church,

and we see ourselves as a renewal effort within the church. The argument basically is that this is a better way to think about the church than what you find in almost all the non-Protestant options like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox, etc. Because they all claim to be the one true church. There's this claim of exclusivity that is simply not tenable in light of what we see and how we see Christ working in the world today. I'll come to that simply not tenable argument in just a second. Let me first document this claim of exclusivity. Here's some of the quotes that I brought up prior to my debate with Father Patrick Ramsey. I did some research on the Eastern Orthodox

tradition in the medieval era and basically came to the conclusion, I can't find anybody from the 9th century to the 19th, that entire span of time. So where you're getting to where there starts to be more and more and more division between east and west. So there'd be the possibility of wondering, well, what's the spiritual status of those Western Christians? The people who accept the filiocque clause, like Roman Catholics, later Protestants, are they saved? You know, are they still? What's their status? And pretty consistently, the claim is they are damned to hell.

Filiocque clause, you affirm that, you're a heretic, you're outside the canonical boundaries of the church, you go to hell. you are not saved by Christ. I don't find any exceptions to that. And I find it affirmed pretty consistently. I'll just throw up a couple of these quotes real quick. You can go see my debate for further documentation. De Scyth-Septius, 17th century patriarch of Jerusalem, speaking of those who affirm the filiocque,

that's all Western Christians. When these forsake the church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit. There remaineth in them, neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness. I've got other quotes from Mark of Ephesus and a few other saints leading theologians in the tradition. I don't find anybody in orthodoxy. I mean, the whole way of thinking is the church is Noah's Ark.

You get outside the church, the one true church, you're off drowning in the water, and that seems pretty consistent. Now, in the West, in Catholicism, you have changed. There's more development in Catholicism on a question like this and many other things than in Orthodoxy. So post-Vatican 2, especially, a lot of Catholics are going to be more generous in their assessment of non-Catholic Christians, and they'll absolutely affirm that salvation. You'll still find some arch-traditionalists as well, but most Catholics are now more open to salvation happening outside the Catholic Church. But I'd say two things. First, that's not the historic idea. I see that as a change.

Now, I've not done as deep a dive on this in the West, so I can't speak quite a bit of the confidently. Maybe there's more exceptions, but in general, my awareness is that in the medieval era, the West are looking to the Eastern Christians and saying the same thing. They're off, they're off of Noah's Ark. They're outside the one-two church. And so you find language like in the Unum-Sankham, Papal Bull 14th century, I think it's Boniface the 8th. He's having a conflict with one of the French kings, and he's laying out his theology, this idea of the two swords, the temporal sword and the spiritual sword. It's another one of those things. things we just forget, this, another one of those things that's changed so much in Catholicism.

But anyway, on this point, he's very clear. He says, now, therefore, we declare, say, determine, and pronounce that for every human creature, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff. And I always think when people come after the fact and try to reinterpret that in some way and say, well, maybe what it means to be in submission to the Roman pontiff is this. Maybe you don't have to be consciously in submission to him and things like this because you hear the ways that people try to explain this. And it always feels like moving the goalposts, you know, like we were here and now you're saying it's over. Because I don't think at the time anybody was nuisanceing that statement like that. I think this was the general way of

thinking. In the Unum-Songdom, there's the same imagery of Noah's Ark. You get off the ark, you're drowning in the water. We are the one true church. Now, so that's one concern I have about the Catholic view today is I just think it's changed and not in a way that could be a valid development. This is a magisterial teaching here in the Unum Soctum. The other concern is there's still this massive exclusivity. So, you know, we're still saying we are the one true church outside of us. Take like, you know, me, for example, okay? Grow up Presbyterian, now I'm a Baptist minister. The Catholic Church would generally categorize me as not a part of the church. I'm a part of an ecclesial community, not the

church and I've never had the Eucharist once in my life. They would say you need valid holy orders for a valid Eucharist. Now, one of the things that's already so interesting is that there were more exceptions allowed for that before Protestantism came along. People often argue that the exclusivity reflected today is the exact same as it was like in the patristic era. That is not true. You can find Augustine very generous to those two heretics, saying they can be saved and so forth, you find deviations and relaxations from canonical requirements for ordination, like Ambrose, for example, and others prior earlier on. So these things were not so rigid and, pardon me, but pharisaical and these technical boundaries

that get developed, you know? And I just, I'll explain more why that's so concerning to me in a second, but just to say, So there's still this strong exclusivity, even against like the Anglicans. They had a chink in the armor in their Episcopal succession. So they don't have a valid Eucharist. That's their adjective valid. It's not a valid Eucharist. And you just say, okay, so what is happening in Anglican churches when they're partaking of the Eucharist?

You know, it's like to me they, I think they're thinking this is what unity means. And to me, it's the exact barrier needing to be removed to get back to unity. and the whole mindset is what is clogging up unity. Let me explain why. I would say that any reasonable, generous-hearted person who travels, reads, or gets to know people will just recognize Christ is at work outside of just one institution in such a way that manifestly evidences his church in word and sacrament.

Let me give a few principles for why I say. So the Protestant instinct, and this is why I think Protestantism, one reason why I think Protestantism is a better option, is to discern the true church based upon the principles of the New Testament. In Matthew 7, Jesus says, the good tree produces good fruit, the bad tree produces bad fruit. He expects us to use that criterion to discern the good tree. Because he says a good tree cannot produce bad fruit. A bad tree cannot produce. it's metaphysically impossible for Satan to produce joy and charity. He can do miracles.

He can do counterfeit miracles, but he can't do joy and charity. And I believe that. I believe that, you know, when Jesus said that, people say, oh, sir, you're just opening up the door. They accuse this as though it's just a sentimentalism and an emotionalism. It's not just being sentimental. We're trying to interpret the words of Christ. When he said fruit, so people say, oh, now you're saying that, you know, Buddhists have a positive experience that that's in? No, when Jesus uses the word fruit, he means something

definite. And you can trace this theme throughout his teaching. A few chapters later in Matthew 12, he talks about a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. He's basically saying Satan doesn't cast out demons. If it's a true exorcism, you should, and he holds people accountable to judge that this is the kingdom of God coming among you. We see spiritual fruit defined like that throughout multiple institutional expressions in the church today. We see demons being cast out in Pentecostalism as well as in Catholicism, because I'm not denying the spirits at work in the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. That's again why Protestantism has consistently with its history. This is the reformers, Luther, Calvin, all of them.

We're happy to say there are true Christians, true churches over there. They said the Catholic Church is not the one true church, but there are many true churches within her. That's Calvin. Luther said, much good has come to us from the papacy. They weren't denying the Spirit of God at work in ecclesial ways over there. But there was a renewal effort within the one true church. That's how I see myself today as a Baptist. This is a renewal effort within the one true church.

So you can tell I'm passionate about this topic, but I think it's right to be passionate. I mean, this would be the question I would have for every person. considering moving to one of these more exclusivistic ecclesial claims or in that position, don't you fear blaspheming the Holy Spirit? That's the warning he gives in Matthew 12. We see exorcisms. We see glory unto the Trinity, glory unto Jesus Christ, among people who can fully recite the Apostles' Creed and much more. We see the demons cast out and people healed and, and,

lives transformed. I was just reading this morning, I preached on John 3 giving an illustration of a pastor whose testimony was he was stuck in drugs. And he just talks about crying out to Jesus and something changing in his life that he couldn't explain and he became a Christian. And you know, it's like those kinds of testimonies happen in multiple institutional expressions of the church, not just in one. Now, so then you say, okay, here's another, or another principle would be 1 Corinthians 12, 3. where Paul says, no one speaking by the Spirit can say Jesus is a cursed, and no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit. Again, you infer from the fruit to the tree.

If you've got glory unto Jesus Christ, you should expect to say this is from the Holy Spirit. Now, there could be errors. The judgments we make about that are not infallible, but my gosh, are you going to look back through church history and say there's no, everything is counterfeit in one side or the other? All the saints in the east actually weren't saints throughout the medieval era. All the saints in the West actually weren't saints in the medieval era.

And I think today a lot of Catholic Christians in particular, but some Orthodox as well, are kind of, there's been a change and there's more openness to consider that. But there's still this claim, the one true church. I don't understand the logic behind that. Just because there's one true church doesn't mean she has to be restricted within one set of institutional parameters. That wasn't how it was with Israel. There was a split and they were both still the people of God, Judah and Israel. Think of the fifth century schisms.

Think of the schisms that go back into the apostolic era. So often this is kind of condescendingly leveraged against Protestants as though, you know, we're breaking off from the mothership. But we came along at a time when there's already been so many divisions, so many schisms. We're simply saying the church is not restricted to one institution. We believe in a visible church, but not a church that is restricted to one institution. Another passage that I think should caution us, just finishing up here is Mark 9. I preached on this last summer, and usually my sermons don't stick with me.

Usually it's like Tuesday or Wednesday, and I've already forgotten. I have to think, what did I preach on? Because the days go so fast and there's so much going on in my life. But this passage stuck with me so much. I think about it all the time. Even in these conversations, the disciples are unable to cast out a demon earlier. That's very relevant. You can understand how that influences the psychology behind this statement.

But John says that comes to Jesus, says, we found a man casting our demons. We told him to stop because he was not of us. He says he was casting out demons in your name, but we told him to stop because he was not of us. And Jesus, of course, says, don't stop him. Whoever is not against us is for us. I think all of us have to recognize the kingdom of God. God is not restricted to our own, even our own awareness. There's things that God is doing that we aren't even aware of all around us.

And I'm always amazed how much bigger his work is than we can fully understand. And I think we dare not restrict the church to our little group. So, and honestly, that way of thinking feels much more like the Pharisees. You know, an extension outward from good things God has done, but then making it over, technical, overly rigid, overly exclusivistic. And by the same criteria, and the Pharisees could sit in judgment on the apostles. They had their lines of succession back to Moses. What about when the Holy Spirit comes to a community?

A Pentecost... I mean, some of the most godly people I've ever met in my life were Pentecostals. That's why it's so hard for me to sympathize with this other way of thinking. so restrictive. The spirit comes down in the, in the village, it's night and day. Unto the glory of Jesus Christ, the demons are cast out, the sick are healed, the witch doctors lose their power, and people are baptized, and they're devouring the New Testament, and they're worshipping, and they're partaking of the Eucharist.

Is that not a valid Eucharist? That judgment feels a lot more like that. the apostles in Mark 9. I don't think we have any right to restrict the church in that way. Being a Protestant allows you to, with historical consistency, recognize church is huge. Church is way bigger than we can even recognize. And it seems to me to be at odds with this old or more exclusivistic way of thinking that's found in the imperial churches. So I just put it all out on the table. I'm sure lots of people won't like that, but I don't care. This is too important. And here's my final challenge.

If you're either excessively condescending to Protestantism or thinking about leaving Protestantism or arguing against Protestantism, are you willing to be consistent with your church's historical claims of exclusivity? If not, that might at least reduce a little bit of this sense of condescension that we often feel because the way of thinking is kind of like, well, our church is the early church. it's like you know if you're a roman catholic a lot of times the the appeal seems to be you know it was our church that was in direct continuity with what the early church is doing it's like how can you say that when there's been so much change and this would be one example of the change um if you're going to do that go the full route and stick with the 14th century way of thinking you're off of noah's ark you're richard wormbrand you're being tortured for your faith in christ converting the guards who are torturing you because of how much you pray for them and show charity to them,

doesn't matter, you're damned to hell. That's the older way of thinking, and I'm not aware of any exceptions in the Eastern tradition, and I think it's pretty consistent. Well, you heard the quote I gave from the Unum-Sunctom. He was a Lutheran, Warren Brand. So this is a real, to me it's one of the glories of Protestantism, is that we're coming along recognizing the church is already fragmented. It's already broken up into pieces, but we see ourselves as a renewal force within that One True Church.

So let me know what you think in the comments. We'd love to hear your thoughts. Here I am. Said it to be a brief video and here I go. And now I'm late to go play soccer, so I'm going to end it. Let me know what you think.