Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Is Protestantism the Default?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 02. 2024
- One of the most common responses I get when I talk about why I'm not Catholic or Orthodox is, "well, is Protestantism just the default then?" It's a fair question. But, I don't think people have always thought the objection through all the way. So, in this video, I explore whether Protestantism is the default, whether people should be Protestant until proven otherwise, and whether Protestantism can handle the same criticisms I apply to Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/...
Merch: shop.gospelsim...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a CZcams channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
I guess the default is whatever horse you a riding when you get to the party whether it is justified or not. I was born into the Catholic church and all my family is in the church. I don't plan on leaving so I can relate to staying with the church you are raised in. On the other hand I have listened to a lot of the data and I am comfortable with the case for Catholicism enough to the point where I am happy where I ended up.
That’s where I am with Protestantism, all my family with a few exceptions are Protestants (though I also have Catholic in-laws). I agree with my church’s stances and teachings and think they align with core Christian values without adding any extras.
I am still Catholic curious but I would be completely fine with staying where I am as long as I am still seeking Jesus daily and denying myself
@@Kaleb.R protestantism doesn't have a case sadly, unlike the catholic church which is ancient.
@@HesusEleison Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox have claims to the ancient church. And when we look back to the early days of the church, it was Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch who led the early Christians. In the present day, Rome now stands by itself, while the other patriarchates remain together as the Orthodox church. And if we're talking about ancient, it is Rome who has changed/developed/modernized over the last 2,000 years (and would be considered unrecognizable by Pre-Trent Rome), while the Orthodox Church remains faithful to the ancient teachings of first seven ecumenical councils of the early church.
So if we're making a case for the most ancient church, the Orthodox Church certainly has a stronger claim than Rome does, although both can certainly trace their roots back to the early church.
Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are apostolic with valid sacraments and are closer to the practices and traditions of the early church than modern Protestantism. And to the premise of this video, the challenge with the “until proven otherwise” mindset is the problem of overcoming one’s own bias. In other words, it’s not a fair comparison.
@@IdlePeasant ancient does not equal true. The assumption Catholics always make , which is a straw man is that protestanism is a new church, which is completely wrong, and that is not what the reformers stood for. It’s right there is the name which was to “reform” . This is the definition of reform -> “Reform refers to the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory”. It is obvious that there were a lot of corrupt practices in the church at that time( even catholics would agree). The Catholic Church was good at murdering people who attempted to advance the gospel or criticize their corrupt practices, so they left most reformers no choice but to break away because they were too stubborn to listen.
Haha, I'm one of the people who left just such a comment as you described. I went from atheist to Orthodox despite growing up in the Bible Belt and being wheedled by family into going to various churches. It's a mystical thing, don't know how else to put it, being exposed to Orthodoxy triggered a change in me that Protestantism & Roman Catholicism failed to do for 30 years.
It would be nice to see some in-depth videos where you tackle the assertions of Protestantism, would watch.
There are a few converts at my Orthodox Church, including myself, who came from nonChristian backgrounds. I was raised Messianic Jewish and then became neopagan for 9 years. I also have a friend who was raised Sikh and is now Orthodox, her family is very supportive.
It was really the Orthodox Church that made me a Christian and not Christianity that brought me to Orthodoxy. Because I wasn’t even identifying as a Christian when I started visiting the church.
I love studying different religions and cultures. I deeply contemplated Islam for about 2 years but it just didn’t seem right, I felt a lacking. I studied Hinduism and Buddhism, and many more.
Eventually I studied the bible on my own and looked into Protestant and Catholic traditions. My husband is cradle Catholic so I went to mass with him a few times to understand his upbringing, even went to a Latin mass on my own. But nothing “did it” for me, it all felt even more foreign than Islam originally did and I was *really* trying to understand these traditions. Eventually I learned about the Orthodox Church and thought “oh cool another one” and so I went to a liturgy and that was that. I arrived home. I felt an instant connection to the worship, the presence of the Elohim. I cried. But I spent 18 months in catechism cause I also wanted my “rational mind” to be sure of the choice, and tbh Fr. Stephen de Young has been a priceless aid for me in my journey to becoming Christian. His podcast Whole Council of God has been life changing, anytime I tried to read the bible it didn’t make any sense to me, but it does now, and I’m being transformed by it.
So I guess all of that to say is sometimes in America, people don’t go from nonChristian to “saved” in the majority Protestant culture first and then migrate to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Occasionally we just go from nonChristain to Orthodox 🤷♀️
And I’m sure many have gone from nonChristian to Catholic too
God can definitely work that way, but historically that's not how salvation history worked. First people encountered Jesus, witnessed His ministry, saw His death, and then witnessed Him resurrected, and believed in Him. After that, they learned and worked out what the Church was and meant. And that's what normally happens to people today. First someone comes to realize God exists, and then they encounter our Lord Jesus, and then they have a desire to worship Jesus with others and gather and fellowship with the people of God.
taylorbarrett
Well you need to reread Acts. A lot of people like the Ethiopian Eunuch very rapidly believed before going to any church meetings and were baptized right on the spot.
There’s more information about how people helped each other and the poor than church meetings in the very early days right after the Resurrection.
The belief that you become a Christian by making a decision intellectually and that’s it, wouldn’t make sense.
It was understood that your Christianity could possibly be a death sentence by torture.
After Christianity became ‘legal’ so many pagans were wanting to convert who had been involved in evil things that it was common practice for them to be catechized for several years (or more) and baptized-at Easter (Pascha).
Most Orthodox Churches still have people wait and study to make sure they understand the faith, for a year.
We can’t forget that for over 300 years letters were passed around written by Apostles and disciples (copied and recopied).
Not all the letters passed around were included finally in the Bible like the Letters of Polycarp (although edifying and interesting)
The structure of Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops administered order, truth and continuity …debunking heresies which allowed these letters and practices to survive long enough to be ratified by Patriarchs, Bishops and Clergy from the Christian World called to Constantinople.
(Emperor Constantine called for the council to define Christianity and put down numerous heresies but he wasn’t allowed by law to vote or declare anything to do with the council)
Im sorry this sounds like an old lady’s history lesson, but I can’t emphasize enough how much damage the Reformation did by making salvation a thought in your head and that’s it.
So much of Christianity looks evermore like Gnosticism.
All the physical elements Christ has given us to do and keep doing are being thrown aside.
Communion (Eucharist), Baptism (confirmation some places), prayer and anoint the sick, caring for the poor.
But really I can ask so many Protestants (I was one when it wasn’t so limp) will say “Yes I believe in Jesus” but to define that you’ll get a hundred different answers.
“A good man.” “Someone who existed but I don’t believe in heaven or the Resurrection.” “No I don’t believe in a virgin birth! Jesus was a Holy Man.” “The Eucharist a no d Baptism are empty rituals.” “I am a Christian because I’m American.” I’m a Christian because my family is Christian.” “I’m a Christian like my friends or there activities for my family.”
I can go on and on.
You will find people more like the ones here. Like Austin.
People that aren’t moving from their tradition but are trying to steal it back to where it went off track and why people are leaving.
That’s honest.
@@bonniejohnstone Your response is hard to make sense of. It doesn't seem to be related to what I wrote. It's also filled with some misrepresentations and misunderstandings of Protestantism.
@bonniejohnstone Nice wall of text on how you don't understand Protestantism so you resort to strawmans
Hi Austin,
Catholic convert from evangelical Protestantism here, and a fan of the show.
My push back, for what it’s worth, is that your point only stands if one adopts a Protestat(ish) epistemology.
The case you seem to make is, one can look over the various Christian claims and doctrines, and ad hoc, simply decide which ones make the most sense, then proceed to the “church” that seems to fit your view the best.
The Catholic approach is to outsource your epistemology to a SOURCE of the various claims and doctrines on tap, and decide what is the most trustworthy SOURCE of religious revelation.
Once you come to an epistemology resembling something like G.K. Chesterton’s “I don’t need a church to tell me I’m wrong, when I already know I’m wrong - I need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I think I’m right”, the Protestant epistemology starts to seem highly untenable.
This point then, of course, becomes a debate on Sola Scriptura, apostolic succession, the magisterium, etc.
You make a good point, but the point Catholics are trying to make, I think, is to question the very nature of why and how you believe in the first place.
God bless you!
Protestants go to the source of Scripture. Of course it's nice to have an infallible Church correct you when your wrong. But having an infallible Church isn't necessary to know what is right and true.
@@taylorbarrett384The thing is, you could be thinking that you surely know what is right and true, and be mistaken. That is what the Church is for.
@@taylorbarrett384 That is what is debated in the Sola Scriptura debate, but even if I granted your premise, you still have to account for the canon and how you even what is and what isn’t scripture
@@MarcoAntoniov. you could think that you are certain and know for sure that the Church is correct and infallible, but be mistaken.
@@micahalb No, not at all. Trust me I converted to Catholicism in 2016 and the whole "how do I know the Canon" argument was absolutely pivotal. But then I actually studied epistemology in the Dominican seminary with the brothers, and I meditated more on the issue, and I realized the argument is both based on an erroneous epistemology as well as being guilty of the tu quoque objection (it actually backfires on you if you try to use it). I have several videos on the topic on my own CZcams profile if you want to check them out. In short, we don't come to have divine certainty about truths of the faith through the sort of inquiry you are suggesting. It's a gift of grace, possible only by immediate illumination.
Why is protesting the default? Doesn’t the act of protesting usually occur when something you object to is already established? Isn’t the establishment usually the default?
good point.
Denomination leaders argue that Catholicism wasn't the default in the first place, even though St. Ignatius argued against heresies in the first century and named the original "Katholikos" in 108 A.D. They keep trying to go back to the "Biblical roots" of Christianity, and all they do is create another new "understanding." Biblical roots isn't how it started anyway. Christianity survived for over three centuries without a closed canon. It was never meant to be "book only" in the first place.
@@julieelizabeth4856not trying to start a religious war here but the beliefs and practices of the modern Roman church would be foreign to the saints of the 1st and 2nd centuries.
@@countryboyred As would using rock bands and flashing light shows in "services" and calling it "worship." We were left with one Church to guide us. Reading the saints of the 1st and 2nd centuries, you see the Mass. The modernization of that is certainly questionable, but still valid. People are flocking toward more traditional and reverent Masses.
@@julieelizabeth4856 I’m Orthodox so I largely agree with you. Especially about the rockband and smoke show nonsense. Although I believe Rome has fallen into error and Orthodoxy is correct. I think you mistake me for a Protestant.
As a Catholic and former Protestant, I actually agree with your argument here. Historically, Protestantism is not the default - I think each Protestant should be aware of what they're protesting and be able to reconcile that some or many of their beliefs were not held by the first 1500 years of Christians. However, dogmatically, you're right - Protestantism requires assent to much less, and is easier to explain. My perspective now is that Baptist/Non-denom Christianity in particular is a great stepping stone to going all in on Apostolic Christianity. Though I don't believe God desires division in His Church, I think He can use these more stripped back expressions of Christainity to draw people in who might otherwise not be open to Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
Great vid as usual, Austin!
I’ve been thinking about that same thing recently. God clearly uses the evangelicals for a reason, to draw people in.
Not going to pray to Mary or saints sorry
Pray THROUGH* Mary or saints. Interestingly, Catholics and Orthodox aren't required to. A faithful Catholic could go their entire life never praying the Rosary once and it wouldn't be an issue. But don't you find it interesting that the two branches of Christianity spanning the entire globe that we KNOW have been around for 2000 years both have intercessory prayer?
This is because Christians have a unique notion of the afterlife set apart from all other major religions: We believe those who rest in Christ do not actually die, but have eternal life (Mark 12:27)! We believe we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1), who live in Christ as He reigns! We believe the martyrs are in Heaven praying for justice (Revelations 6:9-11), and that the prayers of the Saints are offered as incense in Heaven (Revelation 5:8)! To touch on the topic of this video, the default position CANNOT be that Christians were simply all wrong about this for the first 1500+ years after Christ. You have to reckon with why Christians have always practiced this. @@darkma1ice
@@darkma1icethat’s fine. You’re not obligated to do that in Catholicism even though it’s practised widly. But you have to ascent to the doctrine.
Love this take. I have some non denom friends and im always just trying to show what we have in common. Sometimes i think we are so much different than them that its a different religion entirely but its just 500 years of separation
"Wherever the truth leads ..." is more than good enough for me. I thank God frequently for helping me to find the peace and joy in the Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church a couple years ago. God bless!
Exactly! Because its true.
What I will say is that I grew up Protestant, and there was a time where I was committed to the church I was raised in. However, the deeper I tried to go, the more I read jist the Bible itself, the more I began to feel like something was wrong. So I decided to reread the Bible but as objectively as possible, with only historic and cultural information to inform my understanding. Check all denominational trappings at the door. Doing that didn't make me Orthodox but it did make me more open to certain doctrines that I'd never seriously considered before and that eventually led me to Orthodoxy.
For me it was the default when I became a Christian as an adult because it was the main kind of Christianity I saw on TV and film growing up. It was also the majority of churches in my neighborhood. Maybe it depends on where you live. I lived in Canada at the time. I believe Protestism is the default on average in modern North America if you were atheist or agnostic, unless you grew up in a Catholic or Orthodox household. I was in a Protestant church for about three months and noticed contradictions with how the early church was described in the Bible. I thought it was weird to blindly hate Catholics without understanding the "why" behind what they do. So I dug into church history and after a lot of research and searching in my heart I became Orthodox.
All great points, but it is quite a paradox one of your most compelling reasons to stay protestant is because of...tradition.
The problem with “dogma stacking” and “lowest common denominator” is Christianity isn’t a build-a-bear religion. If someone said “well I think the dogma of only one God is convincing, but I don’t know exactly about the deity of Jesus” you wouldn’t say that’s okay, much less that it’s Christian. So when you have modern Protestants who “aren’t convinced” about real presence or apostolic succession or iconography, you can’t just say “well at least they believe these other simpler dogmas.” Christianity is a whole package that has been handed down for generations. You can’t pick and choose and still call it Christianity, much less historical Christianity. Christianity isn’t defined by a lowest common denominator of dogmas. Believing in the dogma of the Trinity doesn’t make you Christian. You must be part of the body of Christ, the Christian Church, which has existed since the first century.
Agreed. The problem lies within the fact that multiple churches make that claim. Rome and Orthodoxy both have extremely solid arguments to be the One True Church™️ Am I damned if I pick the “wrong one”?
@@countryboyred God judges justly. If you pick the wrong one, you won’t be in communion with the Body of Christ in the way He intended, but how he’s going to judge each individual’s heart is not for us to know.
But to point out that there’s multiple claims to being the true church isn’t a defeater to the argument being made by any of them.
This is where the Protestant argument about “catholicity” falls flat on its face as far as I can tell. Being the most inclusive and tolerant and ecumenical doesn’t mean it’s true. Either there’s one true church or there’s not. If there is, do your best to find it, if there’s not, then I guess pick your favorite flavor. But saying “we will give grape juice and crackers to anyone” doesn’t mean your church is the true church.
Not saying you’re making these arguments. But if you believe Christ founded his church on earth, I’d say it’s pretty important to figure out which one it is (hint, it’s the Orthodox Church)
@@marincusman9303 I’m currently attending an Orthodox Church now so I agree with much of what you say. I just worry about my Protestant and Catholic friends and family. I can understand how all of this can be confusing. It’s been a long road for me. And even though I feel like I picked “correctly”, I can still stumble or cause my brothers and sisters to stumble and I wouldn’t want to do that. I am seeking for truth and hope Christ has mercy on me. God bless you.
@@countryboyred God bless you
AMEN!
Keep up the good work, I’ve been encouraged and strengthened by your channel content!
Presbyterian, attending a Baptist Church, who misses going to an Anglican Church, and admires Orthodox mentality and Catholic traditions. I'm glad your channel showed up as a recommendation.
If these ancient churches (Orthodox , Catholic ,Coptic and others )a no longer in communion but the core doctrine is the same Intersession of saints , prayer for the dead , eucharist is the body and blood of Lord Jesus Christ (not symbolic) and many more that tells you they were there when they were together and Protestants reject them means they reject what's been passed on from the beginning Good luck on your journey.
Some Anglicans would fit that too.
Thank you, Austin! Your videos have been so encouraging, enlightening, and relatable! God Bless you, and bless your family this season!
Amen brother. As someone born Protestant and remaining so after study of Church fathers and various traditions I think you’ve done an excellent job arguing for Protestantism
When it comes to Christianity, you don't get to make it up. It has to be given to you. I think it's perfectly fair to default to the Faith that was given to you unless a better option comes along. I think your point about spiritual anarchy if everyone constantly changed their minds is a valid one. Much to think about here. Thanks for making this!
What causes more "social anarchy": people changing their minds as they sincerely and zealously seek the truth or the heresy that there is no ultimate incarnational authority in religious matters?
This sounds related to a recent comment I left on one of your videos. Protestantism has to make its own case, not merely be the default. Despite Ortlunds cherrypicking and out of context attempts, the historical case just doesn't exist. Dave Armstrong has ramped up his critiques Ortlund with persuasive effect.
Please provide an example(s) of Dr. Ortlund's cherry picking and out of context attempts.
@@govitman Plenty of response videos (especially at Patristic Pillars) you can browse. Dave Armstrong has also been churning out some good blog posts showing the sloppiness/shallowness of Ortlund's historical/patristic analysis; I'd start with the posts on Ignatius and monoepiscopacy.
@@tonyl3762 Totally agree that Protestantism or more specifically the individual traditions under the umbrella term need to make their own case and not simply be assumed as the default. Ideally, every Christian tradition should make a standalone case for itself. There is nothing that makes Sola Scriptura the default position over "Sola Ecclesia" and vice versa.
Whether Gavin Ortlund cherrypicks or not is a good question. Having read a few of the Dave Armstrong's posts, as you suggested. In one of them, Armstrong admits the practice may have been different in some places, but eventually the doctrine developed into a clearer universal understanding. While he proves that Jerome does accept monoepiscopacy as the form of church government in his writings, we are still left with the "cherrypicked" passage. I think it would be safe to say Armstrong does not provide a clean "slam dunk".
It seems that in the end, the discussions on early church history always devolve into Newman. If you agree with Newman's thesis, you will be more focused on justifying your position as the common development. If you disagree, you will try to poke holes to find the "core" apostolic deposit. In that case, I think Ortlund uses the quote from Jerome in its proper context and is not "cherrypicking", but it is true he's just poking holes using only certain quotes.
@@daliborbenes5025 You've misrepresented what Armstrong actually claims and demonstrates, which is that the evidence for the monoepiscopacy is still overwhelming and universal. In the one or two places/churches where there is more room for doubt, it didn't last long in the historical record. Armstrong shows how later but still very early evidence points to those places having a monoepiscopacy too. (Not even necessarily that those places adopted it but just that the evidence finally becomes clear in favor of it.)
The monoepiscopacy can be found in Clement, Irenaeus, and especially Ignatius, with the evidence only growing more prevalent and explicit as time goes on (which is what development really is). All Protestants have to offer are weak arguments from silence in the first 2 centuries.
The context of Jerome is him trying to humble the bishops of his time by reminding them that the episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles, not _directly_ by the Lord. And yet in his other writings, Jerome still points out one leader of the major churches in the first centuries before him.
Additionally, Jerome's point is weak in that even he would admit that the Apostles had divine authority to establish sacred traditions, including for universal and local Church governance. He would have to admit, as Clement of Rome makes clear, that Jesus Christ was intimately involved in the establishment of the office of bishop, of the authoritative successors to the Apostles:
"… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." - Clement of Rome
"Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ." -Letter 14, To Heliodorus, Monk
@@govitman literally every time he uses a quote from the church fathers to prooftext one of his own beliefs. The church fathers were not Baptist and provably disagreed with baptists on multiple theological issues, so you can’t just assume that you can pull a couple of sentences out of context and it must line up with your same train of thought.
I just find myself more confused now than ever Since discovering the Orthodox Church 2 months ago. Catholics say they are right, orthodox say they are right, the many Protestant denominations all say they are right, Anglicans say they are right. Who is right? Who should we believe? Sola scriptura has become whatever someone’s interpretation of the scriptures are. Two people can have two different interpretations each claiming sola scriptura. Basically sola scriptura becomes sola my interpretation.
Is finding the true church even possible today? Or should we just settle for any church as long as the fundamentals of the gospel are believed and preached.
I find myself now more confused than ever.
Just to put things in perspective, we the believers are the church, all of us collectively, regardeless of our denomination :) I don't think Jesus will go and say "hey y'all, I'll only save the methodists! Sorry, you believe in me for your salvation, love me, serve me, worship me, forgive and love others (as best you can), repent when you sin, but you got the denomination wrong dude!" ;) Finding what you believe and finding your "group" is important of course, but we all who believe in Him, his death and resurection, are the church, I don't believe that any denomination gets it all perfectly right, because we are humans and we mess it all up, but Jesus never said, that to be saved you needed the perfect doctrine. The thief on the cross next to him only know one thing: that Jesus was the way. And that, I think, is the only thing we can cling to.
Well said! I’ve been looking for a church to call my home now for over a year. I can’t seem to find one.
@@michaelkish7794 It took me some time as well, but I found one, I'm sure you will find yours as well. But maybe, don't try to shoot for the perfect match from the get go? I first went to different places, and by going there it helped me work out what I believed and didn't, and what was most important to me to share with my church and where I felt I could disagree on some things but still truly belong. I pray you find a church soon!
I feel that. Encountering the Orthodox Church while an evangelical missionary living overseas, flipped my world upside down. It took me 10 years to join the Orthodox Church. Lots of confusion and dark days as so many of my unevaluated presuppositions were being over turned. But I can say, now 10 years since becoming Orthodox, that I’ve never regretted that decision. The challenge with Orthodoxy, is that it’s learned and understood in the living of it, not simply in the study. Standing on the outside looking in will only get you so far. Attend the services, pray the prayers, participate in the fasts and feasts, this is the best way.
I’ve visited an Orthodox Church about 4 times now. I love the icons, candles, etc. I think those things should be in all churches. I’m having a hard time accepting asking the saints, or Mary for intercession. I’m sure there are thousands, and thousands of people praying to jesus right now. And I believe he can hear everyone of those prayers. Does this mean the saints can hear thousands, and thousands of prayers too? I’m sure there are many people praying to the same saint right now. Does this saint hear every prayer at the same time? Maybe that’s just part of the mystery. I don’t know.
My question is, at this point, what exactly is it that you are “protesting”? 🧐
So I guess it took 1500 years For Christianity to get it right according to Calvin and Luther 😂!
1,540 years
The East had it right all along, even the Scriptures which Rome and Jerome's translation of the Vulgate rejected.
Retire the argument. No one believes it anyhow.
Well it took 4000 years before Christ came along after God started with the Jewish people so, why not? Also, even before the reformation, people believed in Jesus for their salvation, therefore, the minimal condition for salvation was upheld, wrong doctrines can but don't necessarily send you to hell, but faith in Jesus saves, not in a particular church.
@@moodydollyso can we be Mormons or JWs then? They “believe in Jesus” too.
As a Lutheran, I appreciate this video.
Hey Austin I really love your videos and hearing your thoughts. Your channel helped me on my journey to becoming a Christian and I thank you for that. I am an Orthodox Christian who converted from Eastern Mysticism.
I think when someone says this about the “default” oftentimes they’re pointing to the historical argument that many Protestant beliefs/style of worship do not have continuity with the ancient church and that oftentimes Protestants encounter Orthodoxy through the evaluative lense of Protestantism which makes it difficult to see it for what it is.
I know you spoke with Dr Constantinu on the Orthodox “phronema” this is kind of what I’m getting at.
For instance the issue of iconodulia being present is the first/second century is not where the crux of the truth of Orthodoxy lies. I would suggest it is primarily in our worship and encounter with Christ.
I know that you’re not necessarily suggesting this but Orthodoxy is not primarily a set of doctrines to believe or not believe but an encounter with Christ.
Forgive me for writing all this I really like and respect you but I thought I might add my 2 cents because it is a worthwhile conversation you are having.
The obvious trueness of apostolic succession makes this *impossible*
If bishops/apostolic succession is true (which, obviously it is): you can’t in good faith stay in a bishopless church while you “figure it out.” That makes no sense whatsoever.
If it were so obvious there wouldn’t be anywhere near as many Protestants. You haven’t adequately sought out arguments against if you don’t think logical opposing views exist.
I was a protestant and on staff doing youth ministry at a church. I spent 2+ years talking to everyone I could, trying to find a good argument against the historical case for apostolic succession-trying to confirm my bias so I could stay in my cozy evangelical church.
I couldn’t find any arguments solid enough to stand on. The universal witness of the Church, from very early, is to episcopal polity/apostolic succession. Thus I had to find an apostolic church. It was (and in many ways, still is) heartbreaking for me.
@@justicebjorke2790 Well pastors at your evangelical church never mind laity are not going to be able to lay out the best arguments for each side with lots of historical detail. And that’s not even much of a knock on evangelicals, I strongly doubt your average Catholic clergyman would be able to give you the best arguments unless they had studied it recently, although they would be far more likely to be knowledgeable of the history.
But regardless of all this, you’re already operating with so many assumptions here that don’t cover the distinctions of the Protestant principles and mindset- just because something is “very early” or historically rooted doesn’t mean it’s “obviously true”, the history is one thing and its obvious trueness of church practice is already something you are equivocating in your statement to make the it seem more obvious than it is and therefore to make the Protestant position more ridiculous. If you’ve searched out Protestant explanations you must be aware of the common belief that the move toward a monarchical episcopacy was roughly late second century and before that we observed things like for example in the shepherd of Hermas we see multiple presbyters presiding over the church in Rome, Polycarp who gives us in his letter to the Philippians qualifications for two offices, the Didache gives us bishops and deacons - again two offices, the first epistle of Clement in chapters 42-44 the Apostles appointed us with two offices: bishops and deacons and uses the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably in chapter 44, and then finally the entire New Testament where the word for bishops or elders is used and either way they have the authority with a plurality of them overseeing the local churches, as well as the New Testament’s complete silence on many elements of apostolic succession as practiced today. Acts 20:17 shows that the elders have been called together by Paul and these are who are being addressed, and in Acts 20:28 Paul says to the elders that they have been placed as bishops - again synonymous. In Titus 1 you have two different qualifications lists which are unmistakably similar and even the language suggests they are the same - verse 5 “appoint elders in every city, as I directed you: if anyone is unreprovable”…. verse 7 …”for the bishop must be unreprovable”… so again the same role. Then when you have Ignatius and his strong wording concerning bishops, it seems clear he doesn’t have the same conception of apostolic succession in mind with the bishops, so he isn’t exactly a witness for that, for him the presbyters are the successors- bishop doesn’t have the same meaning for him. Additionally, for him bishops do not have an authority over a diocese, but rather local churches. There’s so much complexity here that your statement of “obvious” trueness seems not only like an oversimplification, but also an overstatement. Now I’m not expecting you to rebut every example I just gave but I wanted to quickly list a bunch of things Protestants generally point towards to say “well we can’t just take apostolic succession for granted.” It must be tested by the Spirit and the Scripture like all else to the Protestant because it is in fact a post New Testament development.
A Roman Catholic scholar’s summary:
"Christian scholars from both sides agree that one does not find the threefold structure of ministry, with a bishop in each local church assisted by presbyters and deacons, in the New Testament. They agree, rather, that the historic episcopate was the result of a development in the post-New Testament period...” - Francis Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (Mahwah, N.J.: Newman, 2001), viii.
Wasnt monoepiscopacy a developed doctrine of the late second century?@@justicebjorke2790
That's like saying if you are rooted in pagan tradition then you should stay there despite what the truth is. Thanks for being honest that you care more about being comfortable than coming to the full truth of Jesus.
If I wrote a book about my becoming Catholic after being an EV all my life, I would entitle it “Both And”. I am fortunate in my retirement to have the time capacity to go to mass and also go to the Evangelical church I have been a member of for years. For me it is easy to differentiate when the teachings don’t correlate but that doesn’t upset me. There are many people I love in both camps. I can still learn so much from my EV brethren simply because many sermons and teachings do not conflict with the Church Christ founded😊. I know…. A tiny dig. But I love both and do not feel called to abandon my EV history or tradition. It brought me to Christ.
Same ❤
I can appreciate that. The EV's that I studied with were Catholic haters so it made the relationships unavailable to me.
@@billpletikapich5640 That is sad but understandable. Most EV's where I live are focused on being Christ followers and loving Christ and trying to love their neighbours as theirselves.
As a person who is no longer settled in any camp, but coming from a Protestant background, I think you do have to examine the specific claims that your tradition is making. Sola Scriptura for example, if it can be demonstrated to be a novel doctrine, virtually all of the Protestant distinctives fail. So rather than seeing fewer things to prove as a benefit, it is actually a liability, because there are so few things holding up the foundation.
Definitely agree with the threshold for change. I can’t speak for all converts, but I had to go through a pretty dark night of the soul before being willing to consider Catholicism. Disappointment brought me to borderline agnosticism. Jesus held me. Now I wouldn’t trade my story for anything. Catholic or bust!
That's an interesting question. I would say that historically and globally the answer is, well, no. The default through time and across space is Catholicism. (Broadly speaking, I'd still lump Orthodoxy in with Catholicism.)
I also think this is a quintessentially American question. But I'll leave it at this point until I see your video Austin!
the default is non-denominational like the first churches.
@@donhaddix3770 -- Well, Catholic is not a denomination, so there is that, yes!
@@donhaddix3770I think a better word is pre-denominational. The early church bore the marks of catholicity: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. It most certainly was a church that embraced a Eucharistic liturgy and recognized a three fold apostolic ministry of bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon. It is only through the sin and pride of man that denominations are now a “thing”.
@@padraicbrown6718 of course it is
@@donhaddix3770Original Christian Church was not denominational in the present sense. But, it had way more pronounced and way more specific teachings (dogmas, rituals, Church authority, Ecumenical Councils decisipns) than just about any protestant church. Also, all traditional churches, including Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches have pretty clear ideas about the origins and history of their respective and the Early church. Most Protestants are clueless and completely lack interest about the origins of Christianity beyond XVI c. But, lo and behold, all key teachings are predating any form of protestantism for centuries- Bible canon was established in 367 C.E. Teaching about the Holy Trinity was established with the early Church fathers, and became official in 325 C.E. Teaching about the Nature of Christ was established in Ecumenical councils in IV and V c. So, the foundations of the church were there an entire millennium before Martin Luther, Zwingli or Calvin.
I’m curious what you say when an atheist says I don’t believe in God until proven otherwise. Do you accept that argument the same way that you ask for your argument to be accepted? What if an atheist says you don’t believe in all the Greek Egyptian and Babylonian, gods, and neither do I, I just believe in one less God than you?
I suppose I accept it in the same way insofar as it's a subjectively true statement: they (the subject) won't believe in God until proved otherwise. I accept that they're expressing something that accurately portrays how they're approaching the issue of religious faith. I don't think telling them they must start with faith will be fruitful because for them, the question is whether they should have faith in the first place, so telling them they must start with it is just question begging. I might not agree with their conclusion, but I don't think telling them they must start with my conclusion will get me very far.
@@GospelSimplicity thank you for the reply. I like that you make videos that are honest and from the heart. You strike me as intellectually honest.
I also agree that in talking to atheists we have to start with if a god exists. Then, once done, we can discuss if the Bible is reliable.
The Eucharist I think ultimately will decide for me. The unanswered questions will be surpassed by the need for the Eucharist. Do you feel comfortable taking communion at your protestant church? Even when i looked into Lutheranism or Anglican it's not the same ... I understand your situation, were in the same boat.
I am in my seventies, and for 60 years, I was a faithful Catholic being borne, baptized, and educated as such. However, and I can not explain why this happened, I was drawn to start reading the Bible; something I never did in my 60 years as a Catholic. Since then, I have studied Scripture, church history, and scholastic writings on an almost daily basis. In summary, though this was very difficult to do initially, I have based my faith totally on Christ as taught in Scripture. Please understand that I am not anti-Catholic. But I have learned there isn’t a church on the face of this earth that can save you. Salvation is only through Christ. When I came to understand this I found real peace.
I found the Word of God to be beyond any other teaching. As explained in John 1: 1-5, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God..." This truth is, in a manner of speaking, the Alpha and Omega of God's instruction to us. This came full circle for me when Christ told us shortly before His ascension, " Heaven and Earth will pass away, but My Words will never pass away." There is nothing more. There can't be. I do not see how anything can be equal or superior to this. It is the Word of God.
If Scripture, independent of any additional teachings, is considered the "default" in our journey with and toward Christ, this is the road I will travel. Each of us must make that decision for ourselves.
Funny to hear a Protestant appeal to tradition in support of Protestantism as the default! You do see the great irony in that from the Catholic perspective, yes?
The "history, memories, sense of where we've come from" that we receive from our family/upbringing should not be an excuse to _not_ seek the truth as objectively as we can, to not seriously question our own religious background and hold it to the same standards that we hold to those we reject. There's a difference between acknowledging our natural tendencies and using them as an excuse.
Much less ironic than a current Roman Catholic apparently not recognizing how different the current Roman church is to its predecessors.
@@joefrescolnMore ironic than a RadTrad schismatic/sedevacantist who criticizes Protestants?
@@tonyl3762 Great question! I haven't done much study on those positions. They just deny the doctrine of "Papal Supremacy" or infallibility as well?
Coming out of protestantism and currently in rcia, I now understand that certain teachings from protestantism and protestant leaders robbed me of knowing truth. It's not even a matter of "feeling" robbed or deceived because from an objective standpoint, protestant leaders and teachers teach certain doctrines that are known heresies. I am thankful for my journey but also wish Catholicism was the default, that way I and many others can avoid dangerous heresies.
Hope you’re comfortable with the Marian dogmas. The immaculate conception was declared a dogma in 1854 so that is pretty late in church history, hey but the Pope declared it infallibly so it must be true right? I’m leaving Catholicism and going back to Anglicanism, good luck. BTW it’s a mortal sin to skip a holy day of obligation, try finding that concept in the Bible.
I love your point that we are all products of our upbringing as to our default. So, true, I was brought up Catholic (very Catholic, Catholic grade school, totally observing mom). However the entire family except my siblings were Protestant. Mother inherited her faith heritage from her father, who died when she was 13. Anyhow, as an adult I became Protestant and a member of a variety of denominations. However, when my mother received last rights I felt called home to the Catholic Church. My sis is still Protestant. Catholic was my “default “ and I am thankful I reverted every day.
A couple of thoughts:
1. On your first point, you seem to conflate “personal background” with “theological default”. The fact that there are more Protestants in US doesn’t make Protestantism the default framework.
2. On your second point, the fact that it’s “easier” to be Protestant than Catholic (you need to believe less “dogmas”) doesn’t make Protestantism the default either. Just because something is simpler doesn’t make it more likely.
3. The idea of “default” should instead be understood as “the most coherent theological framework”, that is, the one the is “more compatible” with Scripture and, from a historical point of view, is closer to the beliefs of the early Christians. I would argue that Protestantism (any denomination you may want to pick) fails on both aspects. The core beliefs of Protestantism (sola fide and sola scriptura) are explicitly denied by Scripture (no Catholic dogma is explicitly denied by Scripture) and are nowhere to be found in early Christianity (early Christians worshipped exactly as Catholics do today, while the Protestant liturgical framework is totally alien to their practices). (You cannot put on the same level a practice like veneration of icons that has nothing to do with salvation with the core doctrine of justification by faith alone).
So the saga continues... What season of this soap opera is this.?
I'd agree.
stirring the pot gets you Nowhere
I would love to see more videos of you detailing your personal Theological stances and why you hold them compared to other stances, such as Protestantism over Catholicism/Orthodoxy, Modern Protestantism over Reformed Protestantism, Symbolic Communion and Baptism over Eucharist and Regenerative Baptism.. etc etc
I am a firm protestant and I feel like it really depends on region and even then there's a divide. In Mexico there's "Catholic" and then "Christian" which is evangelical, usually Pentecostal for example. As a Lutheran now, I probably would've became Papist if it wasn't for the LCMS being in my area but it was definately a strong resistance to begome Papist as the kids say.
@5:38 Lol, zed.
Austin, I enjoy your videos. I think we disagree more than we agree, but with that being said it doesn't mean my hands cannot come together in prayer for you and your wife. My wife and I left protestantism largely due to the influence secular culture was having in the various churches we visited. You had Fr. Josiah Trenham on once, and you asked him what it was that lead him more to Orthodoxy to which he replied when he asked the question "who has not changed" Orthodoxy stood out. The same is true for my wife and I in our search. Maybe you aren't convinced by what you've read or seen as of yet. Thomas too had his doubts; faith is a hard thing to cultivate sometimes.
Do I believe protestants know the Lord? Sure. Do they know him in the same way Orthodox Christians know him? I would say no. Does that mean they have no grace? Not at all. It's just not for me to say one way or another actually. I would never comment on your salvific status let alone whether you have a relationship with the Lord or not.
With that being said, there is a visible Church our Lord Jesus Christ established for us by His holy apostles and the fathers of our Church thereafter, and I would implore you to come home to the one true Church. I know it's a bold claim to make, but it is true.
Sidenote: Perry Robinson did an excellent breakdown on Sola Fide. I would highly recommend you check into that, it's lengthy - about 5 hours - but it is the definitive, exhaustive breakdown that would really contextualize the background of Luther's presuppositions regarding faith alone.
Before I was orthodox I had already decided its claims were true, but because of the pandemic I was unable to attend any services. During this time I still considered myself a Protestant. I know a lot of people online don’t do that, but for me tangibly purposefully attending one as opposed to another is important.
I’m reminded of a video that Douglas Beaumont made about paradigm shifts, that what happens in conversion is a full on change in worldview. You are brought up in a worldview and have experienced things that affect your worldview to this day, so when it comes to others proposing that your paradigm should be changed to a new one, you are naturally going to cling to your current paradigm until something breaks it. Your own current position is the default until proven otherwise whether or not it is most in line with the Truth, that’s just how it is, and we have to be patient with people when evangelizing, trusting that the truth will win out over lack of truth.
I appreciate this video Austin. I think the same principles you've talked about, regarding personal bias is always important when talking about our perspectives and the search for truth.
I don't know if I agree with the idea that it should take better evidence to change your mind than to maintain your beliefs. Obviously, no one wants a society of people who flippantly change their ideas and practices. But that's a practical consideration. If you want to be objective about your theological/spiritual journey you have to be fair. That's why this objection is important, it's not about whether you should maintain your beliefs, but the realization that the evidence of your beliefs in the first place may be scant. You may have an implicit bias toward your own beliefs and be holding other views to a much higher standard.
One of the main things that comes up with protestants is the idea that some belief is more practical, reasonable because it is a modest proposal. As a catholic, I always find that interesting because I'm not interested in modest theology, I'm interested in true theology: what does God actually want to communicate to me. A person on the journey of discovering their faith may be able to assent to some form of Protestant, precisely because there's much less to assent to, but that doesn't mean that he should stop there. He should look for the truth of the bible. It's what Dr. Plato talked about with Cameron Bertuzzi. He was rationally picking what Christianity was but withholding belief in Divine Revelation.
how about the continuous original church until proven otherwise?
I appreciate your being a careful thinker, Austin
Not making claims like "one true church" or "anathema on all other churches that aren't our flavor"... is a BIG difference. It leaves a lot more room to reside. So "protestantism" has way more geography in which to settle.
So the story goes, Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey was once asked "Where was the Anglican Church before the Reformation?"
He responded "Where was your face before you washed it?"
I guess it comes down to being honest about what our current beliefs really are. This might have been a me problem, but aside from an aversion to Calvinism, I had pretty squishy, nebulous beliefs. What did I believe about where the canon came from? What did I believe about whether Satan and demons were currently active in the world? What did I believe about church hierarchy, or how to worship? Most of this stuff I just adopted culturally and uncritically because it seemed tangential to the core of things and also I was barely a nominal Christian tbh. I do think you're broadly correct, but still when I finally started to take an interest in those topics, and by this point I was a bit jaded with protestantism, it didn't feel like my current tradition was the default launching point anymore. I'm not sure I could pin down exactly what the difference is tho or if it was just unique to me.
What do you think when Muslims use a similar argument. "Jesus never said I am God, therefore Islam is true", or "I can't find the trinity" therefore it's Islam
This is also a false dichotomy.Protestantism doesn't just make less claims on you, it qualitatively makes completely different claims on you. In fact because it is protesting, it simply takes different positions contrary to the established ones that necessarily pre-dated it since it is a relatively modern invention.
Why would you choose your own "preferences" over the truth?
Much older than you, young man, but love your videos! I like the way you think.
Over the years my theology has become more Orthodox, but haven't been able to make the leap.
So, yes, still Protestant until convinced otherwise, even though I feel like I fit in there less and less.
Please consider EO! EO has the GRACE! 🙏🏻🥰☦️ praying for you!
Your comment doesn’t sound very grace filled. 😂
Why would he go from one protestant church to another.
@@albertaowusu3536she said Orthodoxy, not Rome. You guys left the pentarchy. When 1 leaves the other 4, who is the “protestant”?
Orthodox here, being triumphant isn’t humble or kind.
Jesus established the Catholic Church, making it the default.
Much love Brother! I appreciate you tremendously. I'm a cradle Latin rite Catholic who is slowly being pulled into Orthodoxy, first through the Ruthenian Catholic Church. The journey is as strange as it is beautiful. All glory to God 🎉
I agree with most of what you say but I have seen too many times to count that the switching of religious beliefs or religious affiliation happens all the time with protestants, where they do not like the pastor so they go to the church across the street, or they disagree with certain interpretation and because there is no authority but their own, they just switch to another church that aligns better with their opinions of what the word of God says and its interpretation. This is precisely why there are so many different denominations within Protestantism
Is "protestantism" diverse and varied? Or is it scattered?
As someone who was raised in an evangelical family (Restoration Movement), I largely agree with many of the comments stating that your default is what you were raised in. It was INCREDIBLY difficult to leave those beliefs behind in some ways. I was hurt by my old tradition, but theologically, I largely agreed with it. Once I left that behind for Augsburg Catholicism my perspectives shifted massively. The sacrament of the altar, confession, liturgy, scheduled fasting etc. It was SO good for my soul and my spiritual life... But even still, becoming convinced of Christs presence in the Eucharist, recognizing people are saved in their Baptisms, recognizing the importance of routine prayer etc... that was HARD, and I still struggle sometimes. We are molded by our upbringing, and naturally we fall back on what was instilled in us throughout our childhood/ early life.
My journey put me on the door of Eastern Orthodoxy, and I was starting to inform people I would be converting, talking to my wife about how our lives were going to change etc. but I wound up simply not being able to affirm everything required of me, and in discovering the depth of the Book of Concord and the potential and richness of the Evangelical Catholic faith, there was really no going back. I'm now planning on entering seminary, and am working with a number of Synods to regain traditional values of the Episcopacy, Apostolic Succession, The Liturgy etc...
The Lord guides us all to where he wants us, we will all end up there if we only listen to him. May God guide your journey and your ministry Austin!
Had a similar journey to you except I couldn’t consent to many doctrines that Rome has. Ended up EO. Never felt more at peace in my life. God bless you on your journey.
@@countryboyred And to you brother! Rome was a bit of a non starter. I found the east very attractive for many reasons, but like you with Rome, I couldn't consent to certain things without lying to myself and to God.
I don’t object to Protestantism conceptually if the church was essentially lost or broken. So, the default becomes your initial answer to that question. Was the original church lost or broken and we must recreate it? Or is there a real continuity from the first century to the present? I’d say obviously there is a continuity, a path. It’s also no coincidence that the closer a spinoff is to the ancient church, the fruits are relatively better. Thank God we have more access to good information than ever before to find our way. ☦️🙏
Thank you. Also, you are at a disadvantage to conversion because you DO have theological hang ups. And as you point out looking at it from a Protestant lens informs your views.
What I would say’s because I didn’t have those hang ups because I was an Agnostic for 20 years. I realized early on it does depend on your lens to your view of which interpretation of the faith is most likely correct.
With this understanding I took a simple hypothesis and put forth that IF Jesus actually created a Church then that Church is most likely to best represent what he taught along with his Apostles.
So that took me to pre denominational Churches such as Catholic, Orthodox, the Oriental Church, Assyrian Church of the East…
Why? Because these Apostolic faiths draw us much closer to the source of what was taught and how they viewed Jesus and the faith.
I think many others do the opposite they read the Bible, interpret it their own way and then GO Find a Church that matches there view and if it does not they move on the next one….Church shopping.
However with any other discipline this IS not done. I didn’t read an engineering book, interpret it on my own and then pick the School who would teach what I already interpreted. The first step is choosing THE RIGHT SCHOOL.
And look you should not feel any pressure to convert it is your faith journey and I’ve watched you since your first video.
One question though on this faith journey, what about the historical evidence, What Church did Jesus began and if HE in your view did begin a specific Church should one then enter that Church and through the lens with which the Church interpreted Scripture view it through that lens to inform you faith, and if so why or why not?
It's a strange question imo, to ask which church Jesus began. He began "the church", and the church has branched and changed in many ways since then. Many branches are claiming to be "The True" one and yet they all apparently differ from the original in various ways. So it's just an odd way of framing it. I think many are asking a different question: Which church has changed the least from the original.
@@joefrescoln what was the original church? I don’t find it odd at all. We see this church in Acts of the Apostles acting as One Single Church. Operating under one interpretation of the faith not several. It is pre denominational.
@@catholicguy1073 _We see this church in Acts of the Apostles acting as One Single Church. Operating under one interpretation of the faith not several. It is pre denominational_
No disagreement there.
❤
All of this sounds like he's debating religion in general, not just Protestant and Catholic.
Much of this seems to be headed in the direction of Agnosticism.
It's ironic because Agnosticism posits " knowledge" and certainty and yet the very name means " without knowledge"
Protestant until proven otherwise? Is that a Judgement? A Condemnation??
Learn Where Protestantism came from...
Was Luther's Reformation exclusively about Scripture Or did he have Political motives as well?
He may not have been the " godly" man which many Protestants had believed him to be
Had Luther lived centuries before he had, He would've been stoned to death for Sedition.....
Both the Catholic And Orthodox faith come to us from the Apostles Of Jesus!
Protestant comes from Luther and only from him...
A mortal man, a sinner
I'd heard an Evangelical Christian say " The Reformation had to happen, but, that doesn't mean we approve of Everything that Luther did!"
You forgot to mention that there are 2 different types of Prots...
High Church --- Authority is The Church leaders
Low Church ---The People Are the Church
Interesting thought Austin. As a Protestant, you must hold to "saved by Faith Alone" right? Therefore, it is so ironic that you would declare that it safer to believe in less things (regardless of their truths or not). I still remember that your Protestant faith (church) taught you that the Eucharist was just symbol.
One can be protestant and believe in the presence of Christ in the bread and the wine, indeed, one does ;)
@@moodydolly That wasn't my point. Austin's church taught (and he himself) believe that the real presence wasn't true. It was only a metaphor. Yes, he has change his belief, but he still remain in that group that taught this false doctrine. Can one only give an intellectual agreement to something, but acts as he believe the opposite?
@@johnlee6780 It depends on what one believes to be essential and consequential and what is not. And because actually "this group" does give you the freedom to read and interpret scripture for yourself, and that some disagreement is okay even within a group. :)
I would not want to die outside Mother Church. One never knows when one will die and face the particular judgement. This stand is perilous.
Read the Scriptures for yourself so that you can have assurance for yourself.
Well, I will die outside of mother church, but in Christ, so I think I will be all right, I hope we can meet together one day after that judgment :) I have researched all that, and I simply don't believe the same as you, and I cannot make myself a believing Catholic, the same way you cannot make yourself become Baptist or Orthodox if you don't believe what these denominations teach. If God wills it differently, it will happen, but no need to try scaring (saying it's perilous) people in the church, fear is not real faith, it's just fear, and fear is not always honest.
@@moodydolly Nothing separates the bridegroom ( Christ ) and the bride ( the Church ). Divorce not allowed.
@@JamesMartinelli-jr9mh the Church being the people, yes ;) Because I don't think Jesus is going to save people based on their denominations, we are judged individually, not as part of a group, (we each have to give an account) and because what is now the HRACC did not exist as such, the church was understood to be the assembly of believers, the people. :) So Yes, I agree, you don't divorce any of the people of Christ from him, that means all Christians get to stay with him.
*and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.* - Mathew 5:41
The next simple question to answer:
How do will Protestantism hold when it is subject to the standard of Criticism they make against the Catholic Church and refutes they make against atheism, I learned that from Trent H.
We can stay Protestant - as long as we are honest. We have inconsistencies/ corruption / brokenness / we lack unity and have a different version of what the early church clearly taught.
I don't mean this to come across as rude or unkind... sincerely I don't. But in my humble opinion to say that you would remain Protestant as a default in my opinion has a lot of Pride attached to it. God is not a God of riddles and we cannot think our way into the church! The church was established by the apostles immediately after Christ's Ascension. The apostles were taught directly by Christ himself and told what the church should be and they established that church so to say any other kind of church is the church again in my humble opinion is wrong and it's simply makes no sense! So many highly intellectual people are literally going to think themselves out of the Kingdom in my opinion! A major part of being in the church is putting down "your way" of thinking and yielding yourself to the church! I had to come to this realization myself after 25 plus years of all different kinds of protestant denominations. There is so much unlearning to do initially before start to humble yourself and fall under the leadership of the church! When I first walked into the Orthodox Church I wanted nothing to do with it. Now after just two years of being apart of the church I realize in such a real way of what it means to be called the pearl of great price! Jesus did not come to bring us a book! He came to show us how to live! That way of living.... the tradition of the church.. both of those things we're put in place first to inform the Bible! People in that time when it was written did not need a long thought out interpretation of what it meant because they already knew by how they were "shown" to live! Anyhow forgive me I digress. Dalton I have absolutely cherished your videos because I can tell you have a true heart for Christ but I pray with my whole heart that you will find a way to put down all of your thinking and find a way to end up submitting yourself fully to the church despite your way of thinking 😊☦️
The Bible, history, and the Church disagree. That’s enough for me. ☦️
The questions for me.
Is Christ enough?
Do I require a mediator between Him and I?
Does antiquity equal truth?
The Dalai Lama said it best: Bloom where you are planted. Bloom is the important word there.
I’m a Catholic and I have to say you are one of my favorite Protestants
Respectfully, this argument can be reframed as "Is heresy or orthodoxy the default"? I don't mean that as a dig on Protestants, please don't misunderstand. But if I pick and choose what I believe rather than to humbly receive that which has been passed down since the time of Christ, I've placed myself in judgment over all who came before me and am no better than Martin Luther, the deacon Arius, etc. If orthodoxy is the golden thread walking the tight rope, the both/and, then heresy is Christianity that is not orthodox, which you have here put as being Protestant.
I found Jesus in September or I should say He found me. Prior I had no tradition nor experience with christianity other than a desire to disprove it or ignore it. I tell you trying to find my path through the insane amount of opinions is tough. I do feel guided. I'm sure I'll find my place. Either way, I'm about as tabula rasa as it gets. Very attracted to Orthodoxy in terms of their view of the fall and salvation. But does "what I like" even matter?
If you have questions about Orthodoxy let me know. Im not a theologian or priest but I know the basics of my faith well enough (still learning myself because Orthodoxy is very deep and rich).
Im just a sinner.
I experienced a hiatus of a 15 years before returning to the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. During which time I delved into Protestantism and I am so glad that I did, because it gave me a greater awareness of Catholicism in the economy of Salvation. I had friends that were trying to pull me into each one of their own competing Protestant denominations, and the deeper that I inquired then the more I came to understand that Protestantism is phony baloney and that only Catholicism is the real deal. It's all about the Sacraments my friends. The Biblical mandate is for Sacramental Salvation and there is no other Biblically revealed way to be saved. So what is the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? It's the Sacraments. There can be no Salvation without them.
I think if you can prove that the different orthodox churches had a high view of the papacy before their individual schisms, then you have to go with the only church that is still communion with the successor of Peter. That seems to be the default historical stance of the church, along with the eucharist, veneration, and a proper Old Testament. Ive never been able to really see much distinction of why the easter orthodox are the true church and the oriental orthodox arent. The orthodox pretend like its either them or Rome when it comes to options in the ancient church.
Maybe you fail to understand the roll of all the Patriarchs and the conciliar system of Church governance.
The first Council was not in Rome Italy and there was no Pontiff running the Church. There was Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople with 5 Patriarchs. Rome was not in charge, the Patriarch was honored because of Peter.
When the Great schism occurred 4 of the 5 Patriarchs stayed together as they are today. So, who left who?
Rome left the East.
@@bonniejohnstone You guys are so silly. Orthodox have such a strange biased view of history. Like i can point to the pope excommunicating patriarchs without a council and that wont mean anything to you so whats the point of even talking to you? The arrogance of your church, every single orthodox christian ive met, is every single reason i would never be orthodox. Your collective superiority complex is enough to make anyone turn and run in the opposite direction. You never even addressed my original point, typical of orthodox. Catholic arguments arent worth engaging to you im sure.
Ill try to restate my point. The assyrian orthodox and oriental orthodox broke away from the church with the papacy. (Yes i know they didnt call it that back then, thanks for the lesson. I know im a dumb catholic so its fair to assume i know nothing right? Again the point is the Assyrians broke away from church who had Peter’s successor, the oriental orthodox broke away from the successor of Peter. Then you guys excommunicated the successor of peter and then the Protestants broke away from the successor of Peter.
Oh there is that time where the orthodox accepted the papacy at rhe council of florence! Years go by and final agreements were made! Too bad when they got home yall beat, excommunicated, or killed the repreaentatives. What was the famous phrase? Rather be enslaved by the turks than bow to the tiara of rome? I guess yall got your wish…. Imagine if you guys didnt betray your representatives! Constantinople might still be standing. Pride before the fall i guess….
I heard your guys church might schism over the russia ukraine thing. Probably appropriate for your guys cultural superiority complex. Have you thought about what church you’ll chose if it happens? Russian or Greek? As far as i can tell its all about which country or people is better, no theological issues
You’ll know a church by its fruit.
@@Apriluser Amen! No church is more charitable, more widespread, more interested in reconnecting with other churches than the catholic church. We even managed to get legal christian religion in China! Roe V Wade was overturned because we have 6 catholics on the supreme court. The fruits are def on display!
All the bishops are successors of Peter. Rome had special status because of Peter and Paul. The early church operated in synodal and conciliar fashion- not Vatican 1 style Catholicism.
I don't think Protestantism can be the default, unless one is born in a Protestant environment. During my 15-year journey from atheism to Catholicism I went through all phases: nearly militant atheist, atheist, agnostic, intellectual/lukewarm Christian and then (very suddenly) Catholic. At no point I felt a serious interest for Protestantism, not even when my main source of information was William Craig Lane. I just opened my mind and heart, I kept studying and one day I woke up Catholic and not Orthodox.
This is definitely a topic worth discussing. I will probably do a video about this on my channel soon.
When in doubt fall back to the beginning, the 1500s….
Or to 33 ad, before our Lord had ever moved among the apostles and their successors and worked and developed the Church, back when there was just people who believed He was the resurrected Lord and gathered to worship Him together.
@@taylorbarrett384 describe the worship.
@@rubenmartinez4346 I mean, if we assume it stayed the same from then until Justin Martyr, it has a rough outline that matches with pretty much every denomination except for a few, including Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Church of Christ, and every gathering that includes corporate prayer, corporate hearing the word of God, listening to a sermon, and corporate celebration of Communion.
@@taylorbarrett384 only one of those till this day believes in the presence of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ in holy communion.
@@rubenmartinez4346the Orthodox absolutely believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. It’s not a doctrine exclusive to Rome.
Hey Austin, I love your channel and like to see most of your content. When you replied to reasons why you were not converted to Catholicism and Orthodoxy I was expecting you to reply to this reason: are you afraid to change religion because you got married to a person who is very comfortable (at least gives that impression to us) in her church and you don't want to hurt her and would only convert if she was doing it with you?
It would be nice to see a video of you responding to this because this is always the first thought that comes to mind at least for some people I spoke about your channel.
God bless
That would make for an interesting video, but I'd have to think about it more. It can be easy to overshare online, and I do like to draw some boundaries when it comes to speaking on behalf of my wife.
@@GospelSimplicity I understand. God bless.
Protestant can't be the default because if you lived anytime between 1-1500 you would be Orthodox or Catholic. So you have to choose one and then decide if you want to be Protestant :)
You should do a video on the quartodeciman controversy. Many Saints who kept the 14th of Nisan as Passover and Hebrew holidays would be heretical “judaizers” by many today yet still revered nonetheless as Saints. It’s an odd conundrum.
Chesterton said if there was no God, there would be no atheists. In the same vein, if there were no Catholicism, there would be no Protestantism. It's simplistic, but it's true.
Excellent quote and analysis.
Yes your background is a cognetive bias, but to be objective you do need to remove all bias as much as possible.
As a Protestant in RCIA, I think this is mostly how I feel. I believe in family tradition and think there is a level of burden of proof required to pull you away
However, I would push back that this applies in an intellectual setting. I don't presuppose sola scriptura in any debate I watch because, frankly, I don't think I could reallt defend it. It's unfair to grant Protestant presuppositions when they wouldn't withstand the level of scrutiny as the other side
A fair question. I will tune in
I wonder if in other countries where other branches other than Protestant is the majority, if the feeling of default is different.
If someone who is atheist hears about Jesus and then decides to become a Christian. They might say a prayer or begin to have faith. But this does not immediately make them Christian. You might say this defaults them to protestantism. It doesnt. It means theyve begun their faith journey and need to be brought into the Church (Holy Orthodoxy) to continue that faith journey.
4:48. Christianity is not about following the lowest common denominator. Everyone agreeing in the Trinity does not make you a Christian automatically. It is a protestant idea of reductionism to say that the lowest common denominator is good enough
After this you say to be Catholic or Orthodox you take it dogma by dogma. Also a dishonest comment about catechism, and the "disclaimers notwithstanding" does not mean you weren't highly disrespectful in that comment. Catechism is not about forcing yourself to learn one dogma after another in order to believe all the right things. It is simply teaching the inquirer about the fullness of the faith, you can't just ZAP knowledge into someone, they have to learn. and "going further" is literally just learning the exactness and completeness of the faith. You're admitting that (some) protestants (save for the know-it-all presbyterians) permit ambiguity and lack of doctrine on key important matters, such as the numerous heresies like iconoclasm and nestorianism
Wishing for the least amount of things to follow and agree to is a dishonest approach to Christianity. It's like saying "I love God but I wont listen to what he says about this and that and that because its too much to remember and believe, I'd rather believe as little as possible and call myself Christian"
7:50. This is an ahistorical assumption about apologetics. There are the most writings about 1 topic if there are a lot of heresies about that topic. There are hardly any writings in the middle centuries about the evils of murder compared to iconoclasm, doesnt make one more or less important because theres more said about it. Your example debate is so backwards thinking. The early church spoke a lot about gnosticism because that was their problem to resolve, their problems werent about icons for example.
As a convert to Orthodoxy I would say Protestantism is the cop out option not default . Following "the way" is nigh on impossible but if we choose to strip out elements that don't appeal or interpret them our own way (I.e. protestant churches) then it makes it appear easier . In Christ , Mark a sinner
Question: Were you a Christian before you converted?
@@Apriluser cradle Methodist, brought up CofE but not really following the Christian way.
The difficultly for me is that I am one of those intellectuals who likes to hammer out facts. So I don't understand very well those whose faith, equally strong, equally true, rests on other grounds than the intellect.
The various Protestantisms, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy are intellectually distinct. They've got clear boundaries and differences. But you can validly mix traditions, sacraments, and practises from each of these, if you yourself start off knowing God from somewhere other than doctrinal clarity. Perhaps you know a saint or an image, or there's a psychological, tropological, or spiritual thing you can sense, and it happens to be in more than one place.
I can see all that. Not well, but I would like to hear someone not coming from another perspective than doctrinal.
At one point on that Christian seeker's journey you describe, if he comes first to Protestantism, he would have to tacitly consent to being in a church that denies that public revelation can come from the Church and it's teaching office. It can't be said to be neutral when the forks in the denominational road contain a lot of hard binaries on basic Christian epistemology and soteriology. If he genuinely isn't sure then that's one thing, but a Russian Orthodox man could be in the same situation, but still actively be benefiting from the full sacramental life.
There's also that classic dichotomy on soteriology being, that for example: Catholics historically have not seen Protestants as being assured of their salvation, on the other hand Protestants historically have believed that individual Catholics can be saved if they have their definition of real faith. Swing that through Pascal's Wager and any betting man is going to become a Crusader.
I would be intrigued if you were willing to do an in depth study of passages like Luke 9:27 and Matthew 24:34.
Most are unwilling, it seems.
At least publicly.
Is that the way Protestants evaluate/determine the inspiration of Scripture? By how few or how many dogmas Scripture proposes?? Again, we're back to double-standards.... "Racking and stacking dogmas" is a very dubious, if not totally wrong-headed, way to go about it. If one tradition or church truly has authority from God (like Scripture has authority from God), then it doesn't matter how few or many dogmas it proposes; they are all true by divine authority. You gotta start by determining who has authority and who doesn't.
Ironically, "racking and stacking" dogmas is actually what you condemned in your first point, pretending that we can be perfect objective observers/analysts. Does this also cut against my other comment? No, because one can sincerely and zealously seek the truth by seeking who has authority rather than by implicitly grabbing authority to ourselves to evaluate various potential dogmas.
Good point on authority.
Yes, I agree. A person ought to consider proposed better explanations, trying to behold the truth as best as possible, as time allows. With that said, 2nd rate (or worse) explanations should continue to be civilly rejected.
Im Anglican
Been researching Catholic/Ortho for 3 years but havent converted yet.
I often think of Protestants as on the baby table. (What did Jesus say about the children) As you grow up the non-mystical/ fully rational/ individual perspective becomes like bland baby food. At least it did for me.... although i think as you move to the adult table you need to be careful not to let your love grow cold or not to be prideful.......because your eating the steak of beauty and dont use crayons to draw anymore
Unfortunately i am not Anglican enough for my protestant friends anymore (i pray to the saints and love Mary/ im not catholic (dont like papal infallibility or purgatory) and im not Greek orthodox.....
My husband doesnt like orthodox services..... doesnt think he can do it....
So i am stuck in a casism between churches/ friends etc....wierd place to be
I can relate. I have studied Orthodox and Catholic theology for over a decade. I have prayed continuously that God show me the truth. I grew up Protestant in a village that was mostly inhabited by Catholics. My friends and I would go to Protestant church one weekend and Mass the next. I have many Catholic and Protestant family members on both sides. Then later in life I met a lot of Orthodox people online and discovered their traditions. It’s a big jumbled theological mess😂 I’m currently attending an Orthodox Church but I relate to people who are searching.
@randyorlando67
Thanks for sharing your experience and replying.
May God lead us...
I'd go Orthodox but my hubby and son who have adhd hate it.... sigh. Can't sit through a whole service....
It's so confusing for my kids as we will go to church. They'll be taught something and I give a more Orthodox explanation.....
God have mercy on our souls.
Blessings to you friend.
@@MB-sb5vh May God bless you and your family as well.
I don’t think Frodo would’ve condemned any of his companions , should they have remained in the Shire… or in Bree, or Tom’s house, or Rivendell, or Lorien. Hotels are not homes.
My biggest concern, and my only real criticism, with joining the Orthodox Church is that the services don’t appear to be very seeker-friendly to friends that I evangelise to and want to bring along with me. A new comer likely needs to feel the love and acceptance of Christ and not a 3 hour liturgy with mostly old people (no disrespect)
I concede that Protestant churches don’t acknowledge history/the fathers etc and this annoys me, but I do find the people more friendly and also they seem to be more concerned about reaching the lost and helping new comers feel connected with the community through services/events/socials/bible study’s etc.
I don’t mind being wrong about all of this. The truth is, I’m just torn between both systems of operation. Orthodoxy seems more true, but Evangelicalism seems to have more life and joy.
I really appreciate this comment, and I think questions like these often get lost amidst all the focus on history.
@@GospelSimplicityagreed. Ultimately, reaching the lost is the highest calling and our great commission. Like you, I feel drawn to Orthodox doctrine and the reverence they have but I’m not convinced that this impressive doctrine and practices are what the everyday agnostic/atheist/truth seeker can acclimatise to. God, please guide us all to the straight path and simplify this denominational identity confusion for all of us seekers 🙏. Your will and not ours Lord.
I'm a Protestant and I appreciate your comments. As a Protestant talking with Catholics, I often tell them how much I'd love to see a fully united church but I can't see that happening in the Catholic Church until the Catholic Church humbles itself and becomes open to reform. The thing is, its not just about the doctrines that I disagree with and one that I abhor, its about the fact that the Catholic Church seems more concerned that people have submitted to the church then having submitted to God and because of this, the average parishioner is Biblically illiterate and there is no encouragement to know their savior through personal prayer and Bible study. The things that you point out that you like in the Protestant traditions.
I believe we are called to be mature Christian, lacking nothing. To get us there I like to encourage a Robust Well Rounded Faith. Robust just means that its defendable. The reasons we believe what we do is because we think there are good reasons to do so. It doesn't mean we are always right, but we have a rational basis for why we believe the things of God.
"Well rounded faith" is summed up as "Fear, Foundation, Faith."
Fear: This is standing in awe of God. He is the Almighty Creator of all there is. He is Holy.
Foundation: This is the Bible. It is our final source of authority. We can have many applications that come from it but in the end no doctrine, church or authority has anything if the Bible(therefore, Jesus and the apostles) didn't first give it to them. For this reason, all our doctrine should be founded on this canon. Does it mean that we are all going to agree on its interpretation? No, of course not but we should be striving to match our beliefs to what it teaches.
Faith: In Genesis God enters His creation and brings to it order, function and purpose. Part of that is that he made us in the image of God and therefore imagers of God in His creation and made for the purpose of co-laboring with Him in the management of earth. If this is right then we should expect to know the presence and power of God in our lives.
You know, the Catholics and the Orthodox are really strong in the Fear of God. Everything they do reverences the Lord. Their weakness is that they elevate tradition to the level of the Word of God and many times above it.
The Conservative Protestants are really strong in making the Bible their foundation. Many of their churches preach verse by verse and their Bible studies are dedicated to learning from these scriptures. Their weakness is that they are afraid of emotional expression for their love of God. They are afraid of "faith" because they are afraid of looking like the charismatics who they think low about.
The Charismatic Church is really strong in Faith. They truly believe that there is a real power and presence of God in their lives and they have seen the fruits of that faith. Miracles abound in the charismatic church. Their weakness though is "foundation." They tend to be experience driven people and they have a tendency to want to hold tightly to their theologies in the face of scripture if the scripture challenges their theologies of greater experiences.
Now imagine if our churches could respect and recognize the value and the way God has used each of us, to expand his kingdom and by so doing, chose to learn from each other and grow in the areas they are weak in by observing the strengths of the other churches?
Would that not result in a mature church, lacking nothing, and therefore mature members who also lacked nothing?
@@blusheep2I hear you. Especially what you said about charismatics not wanting to change their theology when the bible clearly teaches to the contrary (praying in tongues with no interpreter, woman leading/teaching etc)
Me personally, I actually whole heartedly affirm tradition + scripture as I believe it provides a more accurate rendering of the text, and I think everyone being his or her own central authority and exegete has lead to a mess in the Protestant churches. However, I reject that those in other denominations are all heretics and I don’t like the style of their meetings. In essence, I’m 90% Orthodox in my beliefs, but I just don’t even know how I would acclimatise to the liturgical and very repetitive services (it’s the same every week)
I guess we are all at different places. But yes, if we all combined, what a church it would be! Shall we plant a new church? 🤓 we could call it the Protodox Church.
@@ljordan1714 I'm not against tradition. The Protestants have traditions. I'm against tradition being elevated to the same status of scripture. If the argument is that tradition is founded in scripture then that only proves the fact that scripture has supremacy. Tradition then becomes a way of evaluating how the scripture has been understood through time, but not in itself infallible or controlling.
I really don't know much about the Orthodox. I've been in their churches. I'm lightly familiar with the icons. I don't even know what their head dude is called. Patriarch?
There are quite a few different denominations of Protestants. That is a by product of not having a centralized authority. As I've pondered how the churches could reform, I believe the Protestant denominations could convene a council of many Protestant leaders and set out those theologies that they all agree upon. Things like the Trinity, or salvation by grace alone. These are all common to Protestants. The early churches ecumenical councils didn't have a presiding Pope. They were decided by the greater group of Bishops. I think there is room for this type of council in Protestantism.
I don't think having an ultimate authority, like a Pope, insures that the church won't fall into error, but I like the humility of gathering godly men who are thoughtful and intelligent to decide on certain doctrinal claims that allows the greater church to know what is considered inside or outside of "orthodoxy" according to the greater world wide body.
I love your idea about starting a Protodox Church. Where do you live?
Great points, Austin!
With orthodox and Catholics the Holy Eucharist restricts activities many folks look for on Sunday church. At my senior center I talk to many oldsters who choose evangelical and dump Catholic because Catholic is too much trouble. So, these residents float to what’s left. Visiting Protestant pastors who say “just have faith “. Or, right off it appears this is all one needs to do. Then it’s happy, happy, no worries type of thing.
too simplistic
I think something to grapple with is: What is your goal? What are you seeking, exactly? If it is anything to do with yourself, then the goal is you (which you know is contrary to Christ).