Theological Retrieval IS Arbitrary (A Response to Gavin Ortlund)

In this brief video, I respond to some of the thinking of Baptist Pastor, writer, and apologist Dr. Gavin Ortlund at @TruthUnites to explain why I think that a system of theological retrieval as a Protestant is, ultimately, an arbitrary process even with the best of intentions.

Special Thanks for Dr. Richard DeClue from @word-on-fire and Dr. Douglas Beaumont of @DouglasBeaumont for their input.

From more from this channel please subscribe for weekly interviews geared towards non-Catholics and new Catholics with Catholic thinkers from the heart of the Catholic Church. (That's a mouthful.)

To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our YouTube channel.

Please consider financially supporting this show!

Thank you to those already supporting the show!

[tbojai]

Dr. Ortlund’s work in “Theological Retrieval” helped directly lead me to the Catholic Church. For that, I am grateful.

[NIA-]

I'm a Lutheran, and have been through various denominations in search of the truth. This video is so true! It explains why I have been through so many views, based on Scripture alone, and how it is entirely subjective, Scriptura simply doesn't work. I am currently looking at EO & Catholicism, leaning toward the latter. Please pray for me as I look at RC, knowing that the irony is I cannot filter it through my knowledge of what Scripture says. Very eye-opening indeed.

[stevenwall]

I am a new convert from atheism and Protestantism is confusing me with all of their contradictory claims about the original church that Christ established. Christ is supposed to be God right? He said he anted one church right? He said the gates of hades would not prevail against it right? How can that possibly allow that he would let his one church teach errors. He is God and he said he was sending the Holy Spirit to guide the church in "all truth" and "forever." He said that he would be with the church until the end of time.

When I look at the church that Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeaus, Justin Martyr, Cyril, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine were a part of it was the Catholic Church. They all believed in one church. They all believed that when Christ said the gates of hades would not prevail against the church that it meant the church would not teach errant doctrines. They were all bishops in the Catholic church. And at the very least by the time of Irenaeus the church accepted the papacy. That is why I became Catholic. When I looked at history there was only one church for 1, 000 years. If that church taught official errant doctrines, then how could anyone claim that Christ was with the church until the end of time like he promised? How could anyone believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the church in "all truth" just like Christ said?

Furthermore if Christ established one church and then let it immediately fall into error; then how can it make sense that he let it go 1500 years before anyone claimed to fix it? And if he did let it go 1500 years before someone "fixed it" which one of those "fixers" should I believe? Should it be Luther? or Calvin? Or Zwingli? Or Cranmer? Or Thomas Muntzer? Or John Smyth? John Smyth thought everyone was wrong but him, so he baptized himself! That is the fellow who started the Baptist church. Which one of those guys am I supposed to believe? Does it make any sense that Christ let his original church fall into error, and then when people come along to fix it, they start 50 different contradicting groups that no one could possibly pick from? Is that how Jesus operated? How does it make any sense that those 50 different groups don't even claim to be the church that Christ started? That is why I was an atheist because it didn't make sense. But then I found that there was one church that claimed to be the one Christ started. And there is evidence for it in history. Christ certainly did not start 50 different groups that all have contradicting beliefs. That is not in the Bible anywhere.

Why do Protestants believe the church's decision on the Trinity and not Arius and not Joseph Smith? It is only because Jesus told us to trust the church that he said the gates of hades would not prevail against and that the Holy Spirit was guiding it in all truth. Paul backs that up. He says the pillar and foundation of the truth is the church. He also said that the people in the church must "agree on everything." That is why we trust the church and not Arius and not Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith claimed that the early church failed. Why don't you believe him? It can only be because Jesus said he wanted one church and that he would be with that church. If you are Protestant and you don't believe that Christ set up one church that would not fail, then how can you defend against Joseph Smith's claim? Charles Russell made the same claim. He said Christ's church failed immediately and that the doctrine of the Trinity was wrong, and he (Russell) was bringing the new true church to the earth. Why can you reject him? It is only because Jesus said that he would build his church and the gates of hades would not prevail against it and he said he would be with it until the end of time. That is why I don't believe Smith or Russell. So why should I believe Luther or Zwingli or Calvin or Cranmer, or Menno Simons or John Smyth? They make a similar claim that the church taught wrong doctrines almost from start. Why should I believe them? And why should I believe them when they cannot even agree on what exactly was wrong and they certainly cannot agree on what is the right doctrine.


Why do Protestants believe that we have the right 27 books for the New Testament as the correct and final texts of inspired scripture? Why do we think that we have the right books? It is because we think that Jesus was guiding the process and that the Holy Spirit was guiding the men who sorted through all the different works and held a Council in Rome (382) and Carthage (397) and declared in writing the 27 books of the NT canon. No matter how you look at it you have to think that Christ was behind that process. of picking the canon. How does it make any sense that Jesus would guide those men to select the right 27 books but then he would let those very same men create false (allegedly) doctrines like the Papacy and the Marian doctrines? I just can't possibly believe that the Holy Spirit guided a set of men when they worked out the doctrine of the Trinity against Arius and guided a set of men to select the right 27 books for the canon but, then that same Holy Spirit would let them completely fail on other doctrines. I invite everyone to come home to the Catholic Church and pray that we can all be one as Christ said he wanted to be one.

Beaumont was right you cannot convert to Protestantism. If Protestants could get together and agree on what they thought the Catholic Church got wrong and if they could give strong enough evidence for the truth so that there was just one Protestant Church to choose from, I would consider the evidence. But when 50 different groups come along and claim that the one church that Christ established fell into error but then they cannot even agree on what the errors were, then tell me why I should take them serious. Catholicism made sense to me because Christ said he wanted one unified church and by golly that is what happened for 1000 years. When I was an atheist if I saw Christ say he wanted one church and he promised to be with the church but then I looked out 100 years or so and there were 50 different churches that all believed contradicting things; then I would never have believed that Jesus really was their guiding his church.


I don’t want to be hard on Protestants but I don’t understand how they can read the Bible and say that Jesus and Paul basically demand that the church be one and see that Christ promised to guide the church in all truth but then he turns right around and lets that one church fall into error right away and then stay that way for 1500 years (not including the Orthodox) and then in 1500 years he wants 50 different groups to come along which are so contradicting in their beliefs that I could never know which one is Christ's church. How could that make any sense? I am sorry I just thought I had it all figured out and the Protestant claim is very confusing. So I apologize if I came across poorly. It just frustrates me. Clearly the Bible says the church has to be one. So that is what I pray for. God bless you all.

[actsapologist]

I think the challenge should be: "Name a time when your theological retrieval forced you to change your mind about a doctrine or force you to conclude you were reading the Bible wrong."
If the answer is "never" or something trivial - then your critique is correct.

[jacobwoods]

It's question begging, it goes back to that old question, "by what authority?"

[wjtruax]

Unfortunately, more and more Protestants DO retrieve arbitrary concepts and practices, conclude that they know better than anyone else, and DO NOT attend worship anywhere on Sunday morning. The “Just me and Jesus” idea is growing.

[williamrobertson]

Excellent explanation. It takes a lot of humility and self sacrifice to allow Truth to guide you. Every time I watch these protestant apologists it's like looking at my former self in the mirror. I came into the fullness Easter 2018 after many decades in the protestant wilderness.

[matthewoburke]

Im a former protestant turned Catholic. In my process of theological retrieval as a evangelical protestant, my entire world was flipped upside down. I think this is because I allowed myself to consider the possibility that my framework could be wrong and in so doing discovered that the early Church differed completely from my own theological opinions.

[benburleson]

Great video. I know these Protestant apologist guys mean well in appealing to the fathers and “classical Protestantism”. I was like that myself a few years back. However, it’s gotten so tiresome. They build these ad hoc mental structures and act like that’s an excuse not to be Catholic when in fact it’s great evidence of the truth of Catholicism. God bless you Keith!

[gk]

Well done Keith!! Keep on contending for the faith!!

[matthewcauthorn]

Continue on Cordial Catholic, the Truth is a roaring lion, release it and see where it goes, all roads lead to Rome.

[zachdavenport]

Something that is important in protestant theology (although it is often ignored at the popular level) is that theology happens in community with other believers. I am not the arbiter of theology nor is any one person. We all study scripture, some more than others, and then discuss over a period of time. Some things remain in disagreement while others settle into agreement. The things necessary for salvation and godliness tend to be agreed upon among protestants while secondary issues (those that keep us from attending the same church but not from recognizing each other as brothers) persist. But these conversations keep happening and more and more agreement may potentially be reached. Retrieval, done rightly, is not about bolstering one's existing beliefs, but inviting older voices with different perspectives into the conversation to point out things that moderns are blind to.

So, on the individual level I am the arbiter of my beliefs on tertiary issues (those I can disagree with brothers on while still attending the same church) and secondary ones in the sense that I decide what church I am a part of. But even the lowest protestant churches have statements of faith members must agree to. This is not terribly different than someone deciding to be a Catholic while disagreeing with other Catholics on issues the magisterium has not authoritatively spoken on.

[TheThreatenedSwan]

I find a similarity to the right vs left, or more conservative vs left wing people where Catholics can understand protestants but not vice versa. And similarly protestants seem to be much more loose with their language and will employ semantic shift to own the Catholic Church. Like with this, they just import their pre-existing tradition and assert that is proper exegesis, it's perspicuous, but they then deny it's a tradition to draw an arbitrary distinction between Catholics and them. Now, if they were being reasonable, they would hold and objective definition beforehand and then observe where it also applies to them. For more historic protestant groups, maybe "tradition" isn't their bugbear, but they use semantics in a comparable way

[halleylujah]

The title should have been:A Canadian says sorry. Then says a bunch of things he is not sorry for. 😁 JK this is a great point. I had never heard of retrieval before.

[davidkehrer]

So pope ortlund in essence has anathematized the Orthodox Church through his own, independent patriarchal council

[pigetstuck]

Is it Cordial to make a response video where you claim from the outset that someone's view IS arbitrary? Would you consider videos to be cordial that claimed your long considered positions were arbitrary?

[alphaIV]

Sorry, I think you are very wrong here. I’m Catholic too, but at the end you are still choosing to accept a ruling. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. I made a very uncharitable responds to mike winger saying as much, much of what you said here only more belligerently. I regret that whole responds now. If I would have never heard Gavin or Cooper with my own ears I might still be convinced that your point here was correct. But not all protestants are James White or Joel Olsten just to pick two randomly.

[TheOtherPaul]

Keith, you once again give extremely simplistic, uneven responses to an issue without a consideration for key nuances. Let me explain:

First, that Theological Retrieval for a Protestant is arbitrary, since the individual is the ultimate judge of what to retrieve. Epistemologically speaking, this is true... for everyone. I, an Anglican, have deeply studied certain periods of church history, weighed it against my existing principles, and came to certain conclusions thereof (including but not limited to what I ought to retrieve for my own theology). In the very same way, you, a Romanist, read accounts of church history, weigh it against your existing principles, and come to certain conclusions thereof. Now, between us stand very different principles; I fundamentally submit to Christ, the Apostles, and the Prophets' teachings. You fundamentally submit to them plus later Bishops of Rome and Councils. What *isn't* different between us is the fact that you and I are individually taking these principles, plugging in historical data, and personally drawing out conclusions by taking what is good according to those principles and spitting out what is bad. Even in citing magisterial documents for an interpretation of scripture, you are likewise interpreting that magisterial document, and had likewise interpreted the historical data that led you to personally conclude the magisterium behind that document had ultimate authority. Thus, we are absolutely alike in ultimately relying on our own judgment; the only real difference is the data we utilise and the standards for judging it.

You then point to how a Baptist and a Lutheran can debate a topic like Baptismal Regeneration despite looking at the same historical data, showing the truly arbitrary nature of Theological Retrieval unpegged to a Magisterium. First, as shown above, your own worldview has the exact same "problem" (which I do not consider it to be anyway, as I'll soon explain). But second, you once again give your audience a critically partial account by ignoring the very frequent and very public disputes between various factions within the Roman tradition. Rat-trads, moderates, liberals, and everyone in between constantly dispute many key issues within Romanism, some of which only arisen *because* of "infallible" magisterial statements (thus demonstrating that the magisterium may as well be an instrument of confusion as it is of clarity), such as Vatican II's developments on the question of salvation beyond the canonical bounds of the Church; few intra-denominational debates compare to the scale and ferocity of that one, which even I have personally witnessed amongst Romanist friends. And that's without even pointing to the disagreements of Sedevacantists. "But they aren't Catholic so they don't count, " you may say, to which I'd say "But they say they are, " to which you'd respond "But they don't submit to the Pope, " to which I'd say "Why does that make them non-Catholic? How do you know this Pope is legitimate, " to which you'd respond with any number of arguments for the legitimacy of Francis from historic magisterial documents, your interpretation of which Sedevacantists would likewise challenge, so on and so forth. And it would once again be demonstrated that you are not on some magical epistemic high point above the Protestants that is truly "objective" in a way theirs is not; you are still personally interpreting things to come to your conclusions on *anything*, and people of all stripes disagree with you, and appealing to a Magisterium won't suddenly zap that absolute certainty into everybody. You, like the Protestant, are fundamentally reliant upon your comprehension of the world and your rational faculties to acquire and justify your beliefs.
All of this to say, even with a "living" Magisterium, questions arise, confusion emerges, and people disagree even on very important issues

On your counter-example with the Ressourcement and its allegedly more objective basis for Theological Retrieval (being a project of Bishops with the power to bind and loose), this does not even touch on the alleged problem of *individual comprehension* of the data, which is what you were criticising with Protestant Theological Retrieval. That is, this doesn't change the above demonstrated fact that your individual comprehension of this data is fundamentally the same as the Protestant's. How do you know the Bishops of the Ressourcement were authoritative? How do you know you rightly interpreted their conclusions? How do you know *they* rightly interpreted the sources? This and countless other possible questions must be answered with rational argumentation, and as soon as you do so you accept the liceity of such, and thus allow the Protestant in theory to have an objective and certain basis for his views without a Magisterium.

Finally, you perpetuate a colossal category error in your contrasting of private Protestant interpretation with the Roman Magisterium. In fairness, this error is ubiquitous among Roman apologetics, and I've yet to see a good Protestant point this out as clearly as I will, but here it is. Not only do you also fundamentally rely on individual interpretation as shown above, but us Protestants *do* have an infallible magisterial authority that forms the objective basis of everything we believe and retrieve. That Magisterium is Christ and His Apostles. How do we know what they commanded? By reading their teachings. Likewise how do you know what your Magisterium commands? For of Romanists, by reading its documents. We *both* have a Magisterium that objectively establishes what to accept and what to reject, and we *both* comprehend such teachings by secondary means, chiefly documents, but perhaps on the *extremely* rare occasion of speaking with the Pope himself (which in this issue is not fundamentally different to reading his writings, since they are both processed by our individual faculties). So even in your core claim on the Magisterium, you are not on a fundamentally higher level than the Protestant; all that is different between us is the concrete reality of whose Magisterium is true.

So, you did not do this topic justice, and I respectfully advise that you reconsider everything you have argued here. Your fundamental reliance on sceptical epistemology rubbishes your own ability to know anything. While it's understandable why you and other Roman apologists adopt it (since it was "retrieved" from Sextus Empiricus by the Counter-Reformers, helping ferment the Enlightenment), it's an utterly destructive and untrue account of the world. I have a solution for both of us; acknowledge our faculties are fallible, yet are capable of acquiring truth, even with moral certainty, and that we can detect and avoid error both on our part and in others through our rationality. You take this for granted in every other area of life; why not this one?

[AungusMacgyver]

Saying Catholic retrieval is better because they believe in the infallibility of the magisterium doesn't make it less arbitrary, it just changes the arbiter from one fallible human to a different fallible human or humans. Catholics are also doing retrieval from a predefined lens, i.e., Roman Catholism.

[romasliv]

Even Mormons do appeal to patristic to defend their argument