Discussion on the Marian Doctrines with Dr. Gavin Ortlund

#gospelcoallition #theology #debate

Discussion on the Marian Doctrines with Dr. Gavin Ortlund

Dr. Gavin Ortlund, a protestant pastor, discusses the Marian doctrines of perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception with the Catholic hosts of Reason & Theology.

00:00 Introduction
4:34 perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and bodily assumption of Mary.
6:14 different kinds of doctrinal development
8:20 - dogma
9:41 Origen and perpetual virginity
11:32 typology and implication in scripture
18:08 Athanasius and perpetual virginity
28:54 Eric gives the definition of Magisterium, “teaching office, teaching authority”
40:03 4th council and perpetual virginity
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴

Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴SUPPORT

🔴VISIT

🔴LISTEN

🔴READ

[Daniel_Abraham]

If only my conversations with friends and family over religion could be just as cordial lol.

[GospelSimplicity]

Such a great episode. Looking forward to round 2!

[nathanielrichards]

This is probably the most insightful, charitable, and fruitful theology podcasts I’ve ever seen/heard. I wish I could be as charitable and calm as you guys are when discussing things.

[clayw]

Appreciate the civil discussion!

Concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. In Matthew 1:25 using the NABRE translation (an approved version by the Catholic church) it states: He (Joseph) had no relations (sex) with her (Mary) until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Is there any logical way to interpret this as though they did not have "relations" after Jesus was born? For example, if I say: I had no relations with my wife until we got married. Does that imply we eventually had relations or not? Or if I say: I didn't play football until I was 13 years old. Does that imply I eventually played football or not? To me, this is a very simple statement to understand. Matthew could have simply stated that Mary never had realtions with Joseph, but he didn't. Especially considering that this was written after the fact. If Mary had other children, Matthew would want to clarify that she remained a virgin up until Jesus' birth. Other people would have known about Jesus' half-brothers or half-sisters.

Also, I love studying church history, but formulating doctrine from the church fathers outside of the New Testament lacks logic to me for several reasons. (Of course, if you're Catholic, this is where papal supremacy comes in)

First, church fathers don't agree on numerous Catholic doctrines. Therefore, to make the case, some church fathers are selected and others rejected. Further, many times, only some of the writings from that church father are selected, and others rejected. In the end, it's simply cherry-picking who agrees with you to make the point. There is no way around that. Also, in some cases, for example, icon veneration is almost unanimously rejected by church fathers up until about the 6th century, but that is modern-day Catholic doctrine.

Second, going centuries out in many cases and calling them church fathers doesn't make sense. The church fathers are in the New Testament. If you want to know what they thought, simply read what they wrote. The argument for church fathers would be the equivalent of reading the modern-day Supreme Court writings and using it to interpret what the framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. In addition, we are much closer in time now to our founding than most of these church fathers.

Third, this lacks an exegetical approach to the Bible and incorporates an eisegetical one. The context of the New Testament is the Old Testament and the second Temple Jewish literature, not writings hundreds of years later. If one wants to understand the New Testament, spend time studying those sources. Searching the Scriptures to find a way to incorporate church doctrine will lead anyone astray, regardless of what denomination they are. Pull out from the text, not incorporate ideas into the text.

Lastly, if you have to go to papal supremacy or church fathers to make your case, then you're admitting that you can't back up the claim in the Bible. In that case, you might want to re-evaluate your doctrine, or at minimum, be less dogmatic about your doctrine.

[churchandfamily]

This was awesome! I’m a Protestant currently in RCIA on my way to the RCC. I just finished Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples, and I don’t think I could have wished for a more relevant and interesting discussion. Please bring Dr. Ortlund back for round 2!

[dennischanay]

William needs to yield more time. Seemed to be trying hard to make this more contentious or a debate... And it ate enough time so we didn't get to bodily assumption .. I know he doesn't mean to be difficult, and his tone tries hard to stay in boundaries.... I'm RCC so I definitely want to hear my guys but it beccame a little difficult ...and I KNOW he (William) isn't meaning malice but he jumps pretty hard (at one point saying "I KNOW you know who Scotus is" to Gavin) ... ..3 on 1 seemed a little skewed... Just a casual obverser comment.. I still love all these guys....learn alot from them...

[tjflash]

Bouncing in from "Truth Unites" thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the respectful conversations. Instead of seeking truth we are sometimes guilty of seeking spiritual superiority.

[ZIT]

I'm Catholic and I love that fair discussions among Christians of different confessions! Without never renouncing to my creed but praying for healing our common Christianity! God bless you!!

[MMAD-Rob]

I appreciate these discussions. Very helpful. I'm a Christian that leans towards calvinistic view points. However, I don't believe another Christian has to hold to all the same theology in order to be a Christian. I think that is where the Roman Catholic Church has gotten it wrong and has added to the gospel by demanding people believe certain dogma's that are very debateable. For at least the first 200 years of the church people did not have to believe these dogma's and they were saved Christians. Its as if the salvific goal post kept getting moved when a new Dogma was formed and if you dont believe it you're cut off from the church. There is a simplicity to the Gospel in Paul's eyes and that is no longer what we have especially due to the Roman Catholic dogma's. Baptism, repentance, Love, and Faith in Christ Jesus as savior should be all that is required. Those core beliefs should be the glue that holds the entire catholic church together in my eyes.

[Jere]

Is belief in Marian Dogma (as the Magesterium has it) required for everyone's eternal salvation?

[dreseat]

Catholic here. Can I just say that Dr. Ortlund represents himself with such class and grace. His views are, in my view, hard to hold but he explains them lucidly and plausibly. Good on him. Both sides could use more like him.

[PatrickSteil]

THIS IS THE MODEL FOR CHRISTIAN DIALOG WE NEED GOONG FORWARD!

No more debates! Pick a narrow topic and try to understand each others concerns and desires to be true to our LORD.

Amen!

[EloSportsTalk]

Props to the guy in the top right corner who ISN'T flexing his library 😂

[christianstephens]

Just aquiring here Im reading St. Ireanus book 3 of against Heresies, on the Immaculate conception he stated that Mary bore Christ for the Salvation of her own. Would this apply Ireanus believed mary sinned

[MontoyaBrandy]

I agree with the guy who said it takes maturity. I have had bad experiences trying to talk with Roman Catholics. It goes both ways but definitely a matter of maturity. Speaking to people takes the ability to actually listen to each other. Many can’t do that.

[Dash_]

This is great. I came back to Catholicism after 10 years as a Baptist after studying the early church fathers without a biased lens.

[StayFaithful]

If late doctrinal development is a litmus test for the invalidity of a Doctrine I'm not sure what a Protestant would do with their ecclesiology which doesn't show up anywhere in church history prior to the Reformation.

[marymorris]

The Holy Spirit was all over this conversation. Thank you for being so kind to one another. It was so gentle, that I kept rewinding it to watch it again.. so beautiful

[yeshuadvargas]

Just a few thoughts from a completely unscholarly, Catholic lay perspective.
It doesn't seem appropriate to me to say Mary received "additional graces" when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, given that she is "Full of Grace". How can she be full and not full, or lacking graces? Either she is Full, or she's not. There's something that sounds "off" or contradictory about that explanation. Rather, I propose that the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit is the consummation of that which Mary (being full of grace) was prepared for since the moment of her conception. I don't think she could have been "sanctified" or "set apart" any more than she was at her conception. It seems to me that her immaculate conception is precisely how she was saved, set apart, and prepared, for her role of Mother of God.
On the topic of typology as it relates to the immaculate conception.
I grant that it could be possible to quibble with typology if you are protestant and therefore have serious doubts or concerns about the authority of the magisterium, but even so, it seems to me, that there's (what I would call) a functional, practical or even logical problem with denying the immaculate conception if you take into account the meticulous care with which the Ark of the covenant was made, preserved and honored.
If such strict, and deadly demands were placed on an Ark that would carry mere symbols of Christ (the rod of Aaron, pieces of the manna and the ten commandment tablets), then it makes no sense that the woman who would carry ;not the symbols, but the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, would then not be prepared in any special way. That strikes me as an obvious practical problem, independent of the typology itself.

[angelvalentinmojica]

I was surprised hearing Dr ortlund saying he agrees to dogma 1 and coulnt confirm or deny dogma 2. A few protestant have a problem with dogma 1. Anyway love the cordial dialogue.