Is It Protestant VERSUS Catholic? | My Conversation with @TruthUnites

Is the current Catholic view of justification heretical? We personally did not create all of these disagreements.

We inherit traditions that have disagreed, and all sides have sinned against one another. As we engage, you know, again,

Protestant -Catholic, what are some things you wish that Protestants knew? Of course I would like people to embrace a

Protestant perspective. That would be a step towards Catholicity, actually. You debated

Trent on Sola Scriptura. What was that experience like for you, being on stage against Trent Horn?

I just want to kind of jump in and hear a little bit about your background. So I guess the first question that comes to mind for me, and I know some of my viewers too, is how did you get into, you know, the academic field?

You know, how did you come up and become a pastor? Tell us a little bit about your story. Yeah, it's kind of fun to share this because I haven't gotten into this in great detail.

I don't think, on YouTube before. But I originally felt a call to academia, or I don't know if I could say felt a call.

I think it was actually kind of an idol, is I wanted, I've always loved thinking.

I've always loved to study in late high school, early college. I began to enjoy studying.

I started reading C .S. Lewis. I started reading other things that kind of whet my appetite for the life of the mind, and all of that.

And then I was in seminary, and I was feeling a call to ministry, and didn't know what that would look like.

My dream was to go to Princeton and study Karl Barth. That was Princeton Seminary, not university. That was my dream.

That's what I hoped to do. And lots went into that. And the short version of this story is basically the

Lord kind of worked in me and helped me to just go back to the simple verse in Mark 10 .45.

Even the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve. And I began to think more about, okay, it's not just about what

I want to do or what I would find intellectually interesting. I need to spend my life for the kingdom of God.

I felt the Lord was calling me to pastoral ministry and to just let go of the PhD thing. So I've been in pastoral ministry pretty much consistently since around 2010.

But then I felt like God gave me that dream back. And while I was a pastor, he opened up a door to do a

PhD at Fuller Seminary. And I had a great experience there. And then since that time, God's been so good.

He's opened up doors for publishing and for academic things, conferences, things like that. We have considered teaching at points, but at this point,

I feel like the Lord's got me right where he wants me in terms of this kind of ministry.

Right now, there's more doors opening up for online apologetics type ministry. And that's interesting because that's kind of a third thing, different from both local church ministry and academic ministry.

So I'm finding my way in that world right now. I mean, could you maybe say a little bit more about online apologetics ministry?

I'm sure some of the ears of our viewers perked up there. What does that look like? AC Well, I never thought

I would get into apologetics because I sometimes have some hesitations about how apologetics can go.

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes it can be a bit triumphalist. Sometimes it can be about just scoring points.

And there's just certain things about that personality. The personality God has given me isn't necessarily what you would think of when you think of apologist.

I'm not someone who loves arguing. I probably fit better as kind of a pastor scholar in terms of my natural temperament.

And yet, I actually think the needs of the times right now do call for apologetics that is a little more human and has a little more of a compassionate touch to it.

So I do sense God calling me to just do everything I can to try to meet needs.

And there have been opportunities that have come up through my YouTube channel to try to meet needs, whether it be defending

Protestant beliefs, other beliefs, general Christian beliefs, trying to do things like theological triage, which means ranking different doctrines and just trying to speak any way that I can genuinely sense maybe this could meet some needs.

That's really what I try to come back to. I have my marching orders from a passage in Isaiah 58 that I feel like God's put in front of me that talks about giving food to the hungry.

So every video, I come back and say, is this going to meet needs? Is it going to help people? And that's what I want my whole life to be about.

That's so good. It's funny you say that. The way that my channel has sort of come up, so to speak, is through debates specifically.

So I was a former debate teacher, and I tried to think about providing some kind of value that wasn't out there.

But I've always noticed, I'm very wary of promoting debates because,

I agree with you, we are so adversarial right now in our culture, in our society, in the way that we talk to each other as people, believer and non -believer.

So whenever I put out another debate teacher reacts to the series, I'm always like, oh man,

I'm trying to be very careful because I don't think we should be debating, actually.

I think we should be loving each other. Our lead foot should be in love and caring concern and letting conversations flow that way.

So I appreciate what you said there. Maybe we could talk about your heart behind Truth Unites, behind your ministry efforts there, and you already have sort of said this a little bit, but especially when it comes to engaging

Roman Catholicism. What is your heart behind it? Is it merely to clarify false teaching behind Roman Catholicism, or is it to maybe one day unite the

Church again? Yeah. Well, this has come into greater clarity in my own heart and mind over time.

When I was in my first six months of my YouTube channel, I was still sort of feeling out what it would be like, and it's actually surprised me that I've gotten pulled into Protestant versus,

I'll just say, the non -Protestant traditions to encompass all of them out there as much as I have.

I've condensed my goal down to five words, and it's gospel reassurance through theological depth.

And so the idea there is that we're trying to go a little deeper into theology, and the purpose of that being that we want to create an assurance in the gospel, clarity about the gospel, an assurance in the gospel.

I just see that there's a huge amount of anxiety right now, and a lot of people are questioning things, and that's a feature of the culture and the times in which we live.

And so I've just resolved that I want my YouTube channel to be something that people can go to, kind of the imagery of food to hunger from earlier.

Another thing would be if you're walking up a steep staircase and there's the railing beside you, you can hold onto to help you as you go.

I hope the resources I'm putting out there are like that. I hope it's just a help and a stabilizing factor for people.

Our church prays for revival in our nation right now. We pray for the third great awakening right now.

We're just in a time of massive secularization and de -churching over the last 30 years.

The percentage of religiously unaffiliated people has gone from 5 % to 30 % or more from one out of 20 people to one out of three almost.

It's just crazy the time we live in. And so in that sea change of anxiety, I'm just trying to speak hope and speak the gospel and speak the love of Jesus as much as I can.

But I have gotten pulled into the Protestant stuff and that really is my goal there. So to your question of unity and that kind of thing,

I would say in some respects, yes, I do hope for as much unity as we can have, but of course not at the expense of truth.

So I also try to commend the truth and that does mean defending Protestant beliefs as well. But I think we can try to do that in a gracious way where we try to remain friends along the way as much as we can.

Yeah. I mean, was it something that you ended up reacting to that sort of caused you to start talking about that more, about sort of answering

Roman Catholicism, or was it always your plan to sort of go down this path in YouTube?

Totally caught me by surprise. Never thought I would get into Protestant apologetics, you know, never.

It was never a point of emphasis in my past. And the simple reason was trying to respond to needs.

I got onto YouTube and I started to look around and I realized we actually have a fair number of like general

Christian apologists on YouTube, many of whom are doing really fantastic work. You know, you think of people like William Lane Craig and his great ministry,

Reasonable Faith. He's out there, he's doing stuff and there's lots like that. But what I discovered is there's plenty of people who, there are apologists for the non

Protestant traditions on YouTube who really occupy a significant space and they're churning out a lot of material, you know, arguing against Protestantism.

And there really hasn't been very much at all response to that on YouTube. And so I just got sucked in, you know, you start addressing it a little bit and then you feel all these needs coming at you and you're getting emails every day from people saying, hey, what about this?

Could you do a video on that? And so you're just responding to the needs. And before I knew it, now

I'm a Protestant apologist, to my own surprise. Yeah. Well, I think that's also a testament to, you know, the giftings that God has given you and your obedience to develop those talents and skills.

To be able to sit back and go, how can I best fill in needs? I'll go this way.

And what you've done is tremendous work. I was saying this before we got started here, but I'm a huge fan of Truth Unites.

I try to catch all your videos. If I can just encourage you, and I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of your viewers as well, keep going.

It's a blessing. You really are doing the Lord's work. So thank you. Oh, thanks. Thanks.

That means a lot to me. Yeah. Well, so you mentioned non -Protestant apologists.

So let's talk about Trent Horne just for a split second. So you debated him.

You debated Trent on solo scriptura. So I'm just curious, you know, especially for somebody like me, a former debate teacher, stuff like that.

What was that experience like for you, being on stage against Trent Horne? Yeah. I'll be curious for your thoughts.

I mean, feel free to share your perspective as a former debate teacher. I'll actually be fascinated at what you have to say.

But I experienced it as a lot of fun. So Trent is one of the people within that tradition that I enjoy interacting with because he's professional and he's not, there's lots of people online who are just as provocative as possible, or they will try to tear you down in all kinds of ways.

I mean, I actually do meet a fair amount of just outright hostility, not from the vast majority of people in any

Christian tradition are not like that, but there is enough of that, that you meet that. So whenever I meet people that I'm able to interact with and it feels like it's professional, it's productive, it's above board, it's, it's done with class.

You know, you're always grateful for that. You try to maintain those relationships. Matt Fradd at Pines with Aquinas does a great job hosting debates.

They're always very fair. You know, you can just tell they're trying to be honorable and how they go about things. So I enjoyed the whole experience.

I enjoyed debating with Trent. It was fun being in a live audience. It was, the room didn't feel hostile.

You know, I share your sentiments about debates. I'm kind of ambivalent about them. I see some benefits, but I also see some ways they can become a little bit toxic, a little bit about human ego, you know, it's about trouncing the other side.

And I think my biggest frustration with debates is the way a lot of people view them. I finally figured out how to phrase this more in terms of the optics than the substance.

That's how I finally figured out how to phrase that. I used to use the word rhetoric, but I think rhetoric is a great thing.

You know, rhetoric is good. So I don't want to use that word, but I mean optics than substance. Some people view it in terms of just this very surface level appearance, you know, of how something might have appeared at one moment and less so the actual arguments, you know, and that's just a feature of debates that can happen, but a lot of people don't do that too, but that's just something you have to be aware of.

But yeah, but so the room, the mood of the room was very cordial. It was fun, you know, afterwards we all hung out a long time and just, you know, that was great just to get to know people.

And even the next day I was grateful we had a dialogue, some about Catholic versus Protestant relationships, but also about atheism and where we can come together.

And that felt really healthy to be able to not hold back in a debate, but also supplement it with a kind of dialogue about areas of common ground.

It just feels a little bit more human to not to be able to, you know, do both of those.

So that was a great experience too. So yeah, no, I enjoyed it. The only other thing I remember feeling is just how fast it flew by.

I mean, it was just like, you know, and that's not a criticism of the time slots we gave, because even if we'd had longer ones, it probably still would have felt like that.

But it just, they just, it absolutely flew, you know, flies by. And so you have to, what

I tried to do is a ton of preparation in advance so that I'd be ready to not have to think in the moment any more than is necessary and just kind of be prepared to anticipate whatever might come up.

So that's probably to me, one of the key things in a debate is being ready for what might come about. No, actually, that was the next question

I was going to ask you. So first of all, I'm so sorry. I actually have not seen the exchange yet.

I had always planned on doing it and I got caught up with work at the time and never circled back around.

So I actually plan on watching it. And yeah, I have excitement to see it because Trent, he's a formidable opponent, but also you are incredibly intelligent.

So I see that as a great match up there. Having said that, though, I was going to ask you about your prep because, and this is something

I try to relay in the debate videos, it is incredibly important that you anticipate what your opponent is going to say.

Not in the wrong way, you actually have to, and it's a skill, anticipate what they're actually going to say.

So I wanted to ask you, how did you do that? How did you, in your mind, what were you telling yourself?

This is what Trent is going to say when I see him. How did you figure all that stuff out?

Yeah, yeah. It was a fun process to prepare and just read a bunch, first of all.

But then as you say, it's such a different skill set than just what you might do for like writing an article on Sola Scriptura or something like that, or even giving a speech on Sola Scriptura.

I mean, that's like 5 % overlap, but then you move out and so much of it is anticipation.

And then you have to be mindful of rhetoric and soundbite as opposed to hyper nuanced chain of argumentation, because you have five minutes or you have seven minutes or whatever it is.

So yeah, I mean, nothing too complicated, basically just, you listen to Trent's treatment of Sola Scriptura a little bit.

I didn't do a super deep dive, but I watched a couple of videos where he's addressed that to try to learn his way of thinking about the topic.

And then I looked at his chapter in the case for Catholicism, a book he wrote just where he addresses.

I think he's probably got two chapters in there on Sola Scriptura. So you become really familiar with the arguments and then it just takes a lot of time to just basically think through and type out.

You know, I think I just came up with maybe 10 or 12 different possible arguments at different points where you can then basically just write out a paragraph response, kind of like a one paragraph soundbite response and as clear and cogent as possible.

And then you just have those typed out and ready to go. And so, yeah, so it's basically just a matter of study the topic really thoroughly and then anticipate responses and then try to think through in terms of the structure of the debate, when those might come up, how things might fall out.

And of course, it's always the case. You just don't have enough time to say everything you want to say. That's true.

Well, shoot. I mean, as you list the things that you did, it sounds like maybe you'd done this before. Did you have a background at all in debating in school or?

A little bit. I don't consider myself a huge debater. I did debate in high school.

So four years of debate in high school. I did Lincoln -Douglas debate. So when I went to high school in Georgia, it was policy debate.

But then I was the one person who really wanted to do Lincoln -Douglas debate, which for people watching this is just a different format of debate, which

I like because it's less reliance upon evidence that you're reading through really quickly as in policy debate.

It's more focused upon the arguments. And I just find that a little more profitable and more enjoyable myself.

So I did four years of debate in high school. It wasn't my main focus. I don't really consider myself an expert debater or something like that.

But I think I've learned enough to be able to do it. You know, each time I have an opportunity, I'll pray through it and think through it.

If I think it could be useful, I'll engage in that way. I've done maybe five or six since I started my

YouTube channel, formal debates. I think that's right. I think five or six. So yeah, it's a medium that I find limited, but not terrible.

And I think it has value. But I think just going into it, understanding that it's not going to be the answer to truth, that you're going to have to conjoin debate viewing with reading, dialogue, reflection, your spiritual life, your prayer life.

You know, this is just one tool among others by which we can discern truth. I think knowing that going into it helps.

But yeah, I did do... I do have a little bit of a background in debate, enough that gives me a little bit of a sensitivity for that world and that way of thinking.

Yeah, that's great. Well, I look forward to checking it out. I'm sure everybody in the audience is tisking me for not having seen it.

Well, so maybe we can shift a little bit, and instead of talking about debating, maybe the better way to say it is just engaging.

Again, one of the things that you're focused on at Truth Unites is engaging

Roman Catholicism. And so I guess maybe the question I could ask here is, like, what is the goal of engaging

Catholics? In your mind, as you think about Protestants doing this kind of a thing, are we merely just trying to make

Catholics Protestant, or is there something else going on? Well, I find it helps me to have modest goals and not think...

If I go into every interaction thinking the goal is to just get whoever

I'm talking to to agree with me, this is very unlikely to succeed.

And there will be more of a tendency for frustration. But what helps me is to try to keep the bigger picture in mind.

And so the main goal for me... Others might feel called differently. The main goal for me is to help viewers who might be struggling with anxiety or uncertainty about the topic and to help them understand what is a historic classical

Protestant perspective. Or if it's a different field, some other topic. It could be within Protestantism, a

Baptist perspective or something like that. So I'm trying to help the viewer. I'm trying to help. And that helps me to keep that in mind because then

I'm less tempted to go down into every time if somebody misrepresents you and you're tempted, should

I respond to this or not? And it helps me to remember a lot of times just let stuff go because the average viewer out there just doesn't care.

If Gavin Ortlund was misrepresented in this tiny little thing or something like that, you got to keep your audience in front of you and say,

I don't want to serve, meet those needs out there. And then another thing that actually has been surprising to me is

I think it is... Of course, I would like people to embrace a Protestant perspective because I believe that that would be a step towards truth and a step towards Catholicity actually.

But I also have respect for people. And I know sincere, intelligent people will disagree and be of a different perspective.

So in the meantime, we can remain respectful to one another. And just to have a civil dialogue is actually a witness to the gospel in our culture, in my opinion.

To be able to talk without hatred, without contempt, I actually think that is countercultural, sadly.

And I actually think... I actually know atheists and agnostics and skeptics do watch the

Protestant versus Catholic versus Orthodox discussions. And many of them, they're in dialogue with me and they'll talk about, well,

I think the Catholic side is better for this reason. And I'm kind of fascinated by that because I'm thinking

I'm surprised that you care at that point, which of these two sides is right.

But I respect their intellect and their intelligence. So I do think, in other words, to model the ability to talk civilly, because we share some foundational beliefs across these traditions.

One of those beliefs is that God became a baby. So if we all believe together that God became a baby, we should talk to each other with love and humility.

And that can be a testimony to the gospel to those watching along. No, you're so right.

I love that. What does that do to our conversations, Gavin? Does that... So again,

I mean, in thinking about engaging Catholics and trying to remove that little bug inside a lot of us where we just want to close the deal, you know?

What does that do to our conversations? Does it spread them out over a period of weeks, months, and years, talking to our

Catholic neighbors, co -workers, family members, and maybe just trying to provide one nugget here, one nugget there?

Is that what that looks like practically? What do you think? Well, I think that is a very wise approach to have patience like that, because the truth is that these differences that we inherit, you know, not...

That's actually kind of helpful for us to remember to depressurize things a little bit, is we personally did not create all of these disagreements.

We inherit traditions that have disagreed, and all sides have sinned against one another, and that comes to us today.

So we inherit these differences, and they're not simple. They're complicated. If they were simple, they probably would have been resolved or died out, but the fact that like, you know, hundreds of millions of people still disagree for centuries about these things probably means that it's complicated, and it is complicated, and each side has a different range of values and presuppositions, and so I think what you pointed out there in your question about patience and the need for, you know, little bits at a time, and even, yes, years, absolutely.

You know, we're going to have to, I think, get in, get used to the long haul and not expect a quick fix.

I think it's going to be years and years and years of talking to each other, sometimes before we fully understand, and probably most significant progress will be the result of a longer process, it seems to me.

Yeah, which has an interesting relationship to debate. You know, one of the fundamental first things that you do is define key terms, you know, so that, why?

So that you can have a conversation with the person that you disagree with, because if you don't and you don't share terminology, you end up just talking past each other and stuff, and in regular conversations,

I mean, that just takes a while to be able to listen actively and understand, you know, the person that you're talking to, their point of view, where they're coming from, how they define certain things.

That does take time. How can you help us, Gavin? We don't apparently want to do anything longer than it takes to microwave popcorn.

So, like, how do we instill this habit in us to just take our time and be patient?

Well, one value that might help us is cultivating curiosity for the differences, so that if you're thinking of Lewis and Tolkien at the pub, they're talking about their literature, and maybe

Catholic versus Protestant differences come up. Lewis and Tolkien are both pretty intelligent, pretty impressive thinkers, and it would be curious to think, if I could be a fly on the wall at a meeting of the

Inklings and just sit there and just, you know, soak it in, that would be absolutely fascinating.

Well, there's a lot of people like that today, where we can say, I'm curious. I really want to understand a different way of thinking, and I find a disposition of curiosity is so valuable to ask questions.

The ability to really say, you know, like Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, how does it make sense to them?

I want to see the world through their eyes. How does it make sense to them? How is it satisfying and compelling to them?

And, you know, the thing is, we live in these extremes, where some people, they don't have anything like that, and we need to encourage them to that.

Other times, though, people can think, oh, yeah, we just need to be curious and understand and listen and dialogue, and so there's no space for pushback or contending for what you believe is true.

And so that's where that balance, I think, is needed to, especially when it comes to the more important issues, also be okay in the patient process and along the way saying, you know, here is the conviction that God has led me to, and here's why that is important, and I would like to share that and commend that along the way, even while I keep listening as well.

And so that way, it steers it clear from being too squishy of an ecumenism, too, where we sacrifice really contending for the truth, which when we sacrifice that, we don't honor the importance of these issues.

Yeah, it's so good. Curiosity is such a wonderful quality to have.

You know, I was a high school teacher before I became a pastor myself, and that is the key to engagement with students, is creating an environment where we're all just trying to solve mysteries, you know, we're curious.

The Proverbs, Proverbs chapter 2, incline your heart towards understanding. I mean, this takes curiosity in order to do something like that.

It's wonderful, I think that's wonderful advice, thank you. As we engage, you know, again,

Protestant -Catholic, what are some things you wish that Protestants knew in order to better engage

Catholics, just from your vantage point? Yeah, well, I'll give two really basic ones that are so basic that, you know, some people might say, well, of course, we already know that.

But I have learned not to assume that, you know, something that might seem basic might not, you know, it's still worth saying.

So sometimes Protestants may be guilty of failing to appreciate the sincerity of the other side, but all sides can do this.

But it can be this mentality of, we wouldn't say this, but we can think, if they really care about the truth, and if they're really seeking the truth, eventually they're just going to see it just like I do.

And we fail to appreciate that someone might be sincere and disagree. Or sometimes we maybe have seen a lot of traditionalism in other traditions, maybe even some

Protestant traditions, but some of the non -Protestant traditions. And so we assume that people don't really value, you know, personal vital faith in Jesus day by day.

And that's just not true. And people just need to understand there are people, you know, I often say there are better Christians than I am in these other traditions.

And that's so obviously true. You just look around and you see there's some amazing people out there.

So just that's so simple, but you got to say it right up front is, don't assume people are not sincere when they disagree with you.

And don't assume they're disingenuous. They may be completely sincere. So that's thing. And then another thing would be on the issue of justification specifically.

I think a key problem I see is that because that issue has been so central to the

Catholic versus Protestant divide, I think that it is sometimes simplified. And just as the

Catholics will say against the Protestants that you guys are all, you all believe in easy believism, where because you believe in justification by faith alone, therefore you're saying works are not necessary.

You can just believe and you're good. And that's really a caricature. But similarly, many

Protestants still labor under the caricature that Catholics are just pure works righteousness, and they don't understand grace.

And that really is a caricature. And I think we just need to be open to learning more of the nuances of where that disagreement falls out on justification, because that gets right to the heart of the gospel.

And too often, I think there's been a mentality of they just completely deny the gospel, whereas I would say it's not that simple.

And at the very least, whatever conclusion someone comes to, they need to kind of wade into the nuances of that doctrine.

It's interesting. So I hope you don't mind

I put it out to some of the audience to ask questions, if they had any questions, to send them your way.

And this was one of the questions. It was related. Is the current Catholic view of justification heretical?

And I think you're already starting to talk about this a little bit, maybe if you wanted to say a few more words about it.

Paul in Galatians says, O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, having begun in the spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Or something to that effect. That's kind of the gist of the question that's coming at you.

What do you think about the Catholic view of justification? This might be a left turn.

No, that's fine. It's totally fine. It's a great question, and you're right. We've already kind of pushed into it a little bit.

So yeah, I mean, I'll be brief now, but I will say I have a video on justification where I unpack a longer response to this.

To briefly summarize, I would just say that I think we have to appreciate, first of all,

I don't want to dismiss the concern. It is possible for us to fall away from the gospel into legalism.

That does happen in all of our traditions at times where we just don't understand the gospel and we fall.

So this is a very live concern that I'm not wanting to dismiss. But in terms of the official

Catholic view and what is necessary to maintain, I just think we need to appreciate the differences between the

Judaizers' error that Paul is opposing and in Galatians and Romans and the current contemporary

Roman Catholic theology, which does have important differences, in my opinion. One of them will be that for initial, they make a distinction between initial justification and final justification.

So for initial justification to come into a state of friendship with God, Catholics don't believe you need to do a bunch of good works before God will accept you or something like that.

You can be a complete sinner running away from God, come to your senses like the prodigal son, run to Christ, have faith, repentance, get baptized.

And they really emphasize baptism more than some of our Protestant traditions would. But still, it's not the same as the

Judaizers because they think you're clean and in a state of friendship with God just at that point.

Now, where it gets really tough is then from there. What the necessity of confession, what happens after you commit a mortal sin.

So there's all kinds of important issues that I'm not trying to minimize, but I'm just saying, is this a scenario where it's like the

Judaizers where we have to give an anathema upon them and say they have a false gospel? I would say no.

And I would say a caution for us would just be looking at church history where Catholic terminology, the way they define the word justification as a process, that's common to the medieval tradition.

That's from St. Augustine. So if we don't wanna, if we're too quick to say something's a false gospel, we're gonna be in a position where we may be saying that about Anselm and Thomas Aquinas and Augustine himself.

And so I think that might induce caution here to really slow down and work through this. Well, I mean, that's very helpful because what

I'm thinking about as you talk about this is landmines. So again, I mean, the focus of this whole entire discussion, especially for somebody like me, is effective engagement.

How can we as Protestants engage our Catholic friends, our co -workers and our family members and do it in ways that are actually effective?

But now I'm starting to think about landmines and I think we're already getting there. How do we avoid stepping on things that would be a big mistake?

And so in terms of engagement, what are some things that we should say to Catholics and we should do, and what are some things that we should avoid doing and saying?

Yeah, well, one thing that I find very helpful is to get into, I'll say two things. One is to get into the nature of the

Church. I think a lot of times the talking past each other happens because they're thinking of the

Church more institutionally and we're thinking of the Church more organically. And even though that's not a complete antithesis, there's a difference of emphasis and that causes misunderstandings in both directions.

And I think they misunderstand us a lot because all the time we hear this mentality of, what are you saying that the

Baptist Church existed back in the seventh century and how can you think that and that kind of thing. And I think they're not understanding how we think of the

Church, that it is more institution, it is not restricted to one institution and there is greater flexibility in where the one true

Church of Jesus Christ can be instantiated from a Protestant perspective. So we believe that today when

Muslim communities have dreams of Jesus and convert to Christianity and start practicing the sacraments and worshiping the triune

God, there's the potential for a totally valid Church that is part of Jesus building his body, the one true

Church. Even if they don't have any kind of institutional connection whatsoever and not only do they not have laying hands from one

Bishop to another, they don't have any contact of any kind whatsoever, it's just in a remote area.

And so that's an example of where we have this kind of different framework of how we understand the unity of the

Church and the transmission of the Church from one time and one place to another. And without trying to solve all that right now,

I'm just trying to flag it. You know, this is one of those areas where we need to try to listen and understand one another.

The other thing to avoid doing and to do instead of this is I think if we just assume our own paradigm of how authority works and argue from that paradigm, we will often make an appeal that will be utterly unconvincing to the other side as opposed to engage at the roots of our different paradigms for how authority works.

So for us as Protestants, that would be sola scriptura, which doesn't mean the Bible is the only authority of any kind, but it's at the top.

It's the only infallible rule for the Church as such and it is the pinnacle authority.

And then for our Catholic friends, they believe in the scripture and tradition as interpreted by the magisterium and kind of a three -pronged approach.

And so I think going right to that sometimes is a great way to start discussions and try to make progress because otherwise we're talking up here at the surface and we haven't gone down to the roots.

And so we just won't be able to maybe make an appeal that will pull someone over towards our side in any way because we're not arguing within a paradigm that they recognize.

And I think that's another area where we just should be mindful and I've just found it helpful to try to go into those deeper methodological issues of authority.

Yeah, no, that's really great. I'm sure some in the audience are jotting this stuff down and then the next question naturally is, well, okay, maybe there's some kind of a book

I can look into or something. So I'm gonna set that on the table and I'm gonna come back to this. I might ask you about some resources, some things to go deeper just for that because I think that's helpful.

Thank you. Let's say again, engaging Catholics, let's say we actually have engaged someone and they decide over time that, yeah,

I think I should leave Catholicism. Well, we don't want to leave them hanging.

So what are some crucial next steps for us so that we can love and guide this person well?

What's your thoughts there? I think a lot of love and a lot of reassurance is gonna be necessary along that journey.

Whenever we make a significant change, sometimes there will be a part of us that might look over our shoulder and wonder, did

I do the right thing? Did I not do the right thing? For that particular change, because to leave the

Roman Catholic Church is considered a mortal sin, they may have a part in their heart that's wondering, oh my goodness, if I'm wrong about this, then that has eternal consequence for my soul.

And so we will want to do what I mentioned at the beginning as the goal of my channel, and that's gospel assurance.

We wanna just communicate the love of Christ, communicate the promises of scripture to this person over and over and just kind of inundate them with the promise of the gospel.

To me, one of the basic imports from the New Testament is, if the gospel does anything in our hearts, it gives us a sense of our secure status within the love of God.

You think of Romans 5 .1, we have peace with God. We're not in an uncertain relation to him.

We're now his friends, not his enemies through the blood of Christ. Romans 8 .1, there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

Now, yes, we must follow Christ and respond to him with obedience, taking up our cross, but we're doing that not from a position of uncertainty in our relation to God.

And so I just wanna give, I think, unfortunately, I do think Roman Catholic theology can put some anxiety upon people, and I wanna give them lots of love and assurance and just basic communication of the gospel.

Again, in the point of kind of not making any assumptions, I find that many people, well,

I'll use myself as an example. We can always be reminded of the gospel.

We need that reminder continually of what Christ has accomplished for us and how that applies to our lives in different seasons.

And so I wanna, I think the main thing, there's lots of things we could consider in terms of helping them understand how much there is to Protestantism, the different traditions, helping them think through their own convictions.

But I think the main thing is just a lot of assurance about their spiritual status and a lot of just gospel infusion of gospel understanding, gospel promises, so that that is really real to their hearts.

Yeah, that's good. You never outgrow the gospel, you just grow more and more into the gospel.

That's great. It's already almost done, Gavin. I don't know if you, it's been going really fast, and I really appreciate you taking the time.

A couple more questions here, one from YouTube. So this is, I'm just gonna read it as it was asked, okay?

Sure. What should a Baptist do if they find that they're not satisfied by the low sacramentology of Baptist theology and feel drawn toward more real interpretations of the

Lord's Supper? Yeah, I mean, maybe you can also add to that, they wanna experience more of what's called high church, liturgy, things like that.

What do you think? Yeah, a question like this is when

I hear a great deal, there's lots of people who are thirsty for higher liturgy and higher view of the sacraments.

And I would say that's true for myself as well. I really resonate with when liturgy is done well, and also just a high view of the sacraments, of the

Lord's Supper. I mean, Charles Spurgeon said the Lord's Supper, he was a Baptist, the great

Baptist preacher in London. He said, the Lord's Supper is the closest we get to heaven in this life.

And I appreciate that quote. I kind of resonate with it. We're doing a study on the Lord's Supper right now, reading through Thomas Watson's book at our church, a great

Puritan author on the Lord's Supper and learning about that, trying to grow in that. I think my basic appeal would be that it is actually a historic

Baptist teaching that the Lord's Supper, to have a kind of a view of real presence in the

Lord's Supper, and just to have a high view of the Lord's Supper. So just to encourage someone that they don't need to assume that that would mean leaving being a

Baptist. But I also appreciate the sociological reality that that's not going to be very common descriptive of many

Baptist churches today. So this is where we need renewal in our Baptist churches to the extent that lower views are kind of even a deviation from our own

Baptist roots. We need renewal and just education about the sacraments and what worship should look like.

So in the meantime, if the person is committed to Baptist theological distinctives like credo baptism and the autonomy of the local church and separation of church and state and so forth, but they want to have a richer view of the sacraments and liturgy, all

I know that they can do is pray for the right place that God can direct them and then join the rest of us in trying to seek reform and renewal in Baptist churches.

Because a lot of us share that passion and there's a great group called the Center for Baptist Renewal that they might want to check out their website.

And there's a church directory there, there's great resources there that might be helpful to them. Oh, that's excellent.

Well, so I mean, that is sort of the last question that I had were resources. As listeners, viewers get through this interview,

I'm sure they're getting excited writing stuff down, like where should they go? What other books should they read?

What other websites should they go to? Theological Retrieval is a great book. I read that over the summer, loved it.

I thought it was excellent. So I guess I would propose Theological Retrieval, a book by Gavin Ortland available on Amazon.

But what are some other resources that you would suggest for viewers? Yeah, when it comes to the

Protestant issues, I have a book coming out next summer. So I'll just say

August of 2024. I don't know when people will be watching this. But so that's called

What It Means to be Protestant. It comes out from Zondervan Reflective next August, 2024.

That might be useful. I love to encourage people to read classical texts from church history.

And so when it comes to diving into church history, learning more about theology, the

Puritan paperbacks and the Popular Patristics book series are cheap, short, little paperback books.

One giving you books by church fathers or other early Christians, the others from Puritans.

Those are just fantastic ways to get in. I mean, if somebody really wants a devotional read, reading through a book like Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Read.

He was a Puritan who talked, the Puritans would give these lengthy books on one tiny little verse.

And this is from the verse in Isaiah that speaking of the Messiah says, a bruised read, he will not break.

It's all about the gentleness of Christ. That when we are broken, Christ is gentle to us, basically.

And just wonderfully devotionally rich and not that hard to read. So I love to encourage people to get back into church history and read classics.

And then if there's any other specific genres you want me to speak to, I can. People often ask about Protestant stuff and there's not as much in that space.

One book I could mention is Jerry Walls and Ken Collins, Roman but not Catholic.

That's a more recent book that does a great job kind of responding to arguments against Protestantism.

So that might be of use as well. So those are a couple of things that come to mind. Yeah, that's great. Thank you.

Yeah, any, like in the area of apologetics as well, but with that sort of, and you say this well, like ironic tone, what would be something that comes to mind?

Usually the one that always is thrown around is Tactics by Greg Koukl. But any books along those lines or website or resources along those lines, or maybe they just don't exist.

No, well, I mean, Greg Koukl's stuff is great. He's got a newer book out too. What I find so helpful about his stuff is it helps you be prepared for everyday conversation.

Those are very practical books. They're like, if they're, you know, when you get that question and you feel like a deer in headlights, what do you do in that moment?

His books are really helpful for those kinds of conversations. I do have my own book on apologetics called

Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn't. That might be of interest to people. I've mentioned William Lane Craig before.

I think he's a very gifted apologist. It's a book of his like reasonable faith. You know, it works through some standard arguments that are really great.

I like David Baggett's work. He's done great work on the moral argument, for example. He's a great philosopher.

He teaches, I think, at Houston Christian University, it's now called. He's got some fantastic books on moral argument, on other things.

So yeah, in general apologetics, there are a lot of good resources out there and even on YouTube too.

So I don't know. Those might be some good starting points, at least. Pastor, author, speaker,

Gavin Ortland. Definitely check out his channel Truth Unites. Gavin, thank you so much for joining me today.