Catholic, here. I wholeheartedly agree with your approach. One should appeal to the best thinkers of one’s tradition before swimming the Tiber. Your conscience deserves all the care you can muster.
4 месяца назад+17
I'm a Lutheran but really appreciate your comment and approach. God bless.
it is critical to challenge one's own faith. aside from challenges, it is wholly beneficial to be exposed to great critical thinkers who we can learn from even if we disagree with their ultimate conclusions- but we should disagree on substance and understand why we disagree or else it's just tribalism. I'm deeply Catholic and there are things that I believe the Orthodox have a better take on, but these don't outweigh why I am Catholic. I was Protestant for many years and those traditions formed me and I am forever grateful for that time and those people who truly love God.
1. An apology of the Church of England by John Jewel 2. The freedom of a Christian by Martin Luther 3. A reformation debate letter to Sadoleto by John Calvin 4. Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth 5. The mediation of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance Thanks for the suggestions.
Although i haven’t read as much as id like to, id recommend these works for anyone looking into Eastern Orthodoxy 1. On the holy spirit by St. Basil the Great 2. On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and two letters to Cledonius by St. Gregory of Nazianzus 3. On Death and Eternal life by St. Gregory of Nyssa 4. The Triads by St. Gregory Palamas 5. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the future by St. Seraphim Rose
Aside from maybe the last two, those wouldn't be distinct from something Catholics and Orthodox Christians would both share (and it gets a little tricky with Palamas, cause he is venerated in the eastern Catholic Churches, too.)
Your loss. As a Protestant who considered orthodoxy, I would absolutely miss out on the treasures of my tradition - which is the best system to derive the treasures out of other traditions.
@@johnathanl8396 The point of Orthodox tradition isn’t to “derive treasures out of other traditions” - it’s to hold fast to the deposit of faith, the traditions handed down to us by the Church from the apostles. This idea of picking and choosing what one likes out of other traditions is not only antithetical to Orthodoxy, to the mind of the Church - it’s also the etymological definition of heresy.
@@nuzzi6620 As someone who converted to Orthodoxy (in my 70s) after a long and winding journey that included a lot of association with New Age, that is exactly the definition I would give of the otherwise extremely varied currents known as "New Age." That is: the essence of New Age thinking is that you can choose what to believe based on what you LIKE, not on what is true (because everyone has their own truth). It's consumeristic. When I see that attitude among Christians, I see it as New Age influence.
That's a very Protestant answer: read more books! I tried that strategy. I even learnt Greek and Hebrew. Exhausting. In Orthodoxy I found rest. Come taste and see.
True. While books can help, all the books in the world can’t replace God’s grace and the mystical illumination of the heart that occurs when you find out how to become closer to him.
Cradle Catholic here who left the Church during my youth for some years and attended several Protestant denominations. Considered definitively leaving the Catholic Church and joining the last Protestant church I was attending but every time this thought struck me: "I can't leave Mama!" Although I had been neglecting the Virgin Mother Mary for years, nonetheless the thought of actually cutting Her out of my life was too much for me. I'm so glad I have a perfect Mama to love, guide, and comfort me. The best Mama who kept me in the family, the huge extended family of all the saints and angels. Thank you, Mama Mary! ❤💙❤
You have "mama" but you lose Mary's Son, Jesus Christ. I know it feels sweet to be in a place which venerates a woman so much - but it's SO much sweeter to fully embrace the Gospel of Christ - the one that truly frees you from sin and the one that guarantees the sweet fellowship of Christ forever! "God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:4-7 The kindness of Christ surpasses all other comforts :)
Hi@@johnathanl8396 "Son, behold your mother." In His moment of ultimate self-giving on the cross, Jesus Christ gives us not only His divine nature but also His mother, our Blessed Mother. She becomes our guide and model in the Christian life. Thank you, Lord Jesus. Indeed, Your kindness surpasses all other forms of generous Love. Thank you, Blessed Mother, Theotokos, for leading us to your Son, saying, "Do whatever He tells you."
Hi @@carpediem5526, It was more than just caring for His mom. Every word Jesus spoke on the cross carries *eternal* significance. Understanding the scriptures needs the support of the Church, like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. You clearly have our (Catholic and Orthodox) scriptures and I hope you're enjoying them! I urge you to keep your ears and heart open. By the way, I like your Latin username! 😊
As a Protestant who seriously considered Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the books thay helped me the most was Roger Olsen's "The Story of Christian Theology." It is a big book, but he presents things in a clear and fair manner. I haven't read any on this list, but i may check them out for fun.
I had to read this for my church history class in university and it opened the door for me to Orthodoxy a couple years later. I still recommend it as a book to read as an overview of church history from a protestant perspective.
@EasternChristian333Sorry to burst your bubble but the same “statistics” that started the 30.000+ myth also says there’s 781 Orthodox denominations. So much for being the One and Only 😂
After becoming Catholic after having been Protestant for 10 years I compare the two as such: Catholicism is like going to a five star Michelin gourmet restaurant 7 nights a week feasting on the most delicious and highest quality food and Protestantism is like Popeyes or McDonald’s. It has some good things but it pales in comparison to the full experience of a 5 star gourmet meal. The fine wine, the perfectly prepared steak, the delicious dessert 🍮. And wonderful service and ambiance. It’s the feast we all long for ❤
As a former cradle Catholic, I can honestly say that attending my Anglican parish's services are like that 5 star gourmet meal also. But the Anglicans teach the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from works, like the Bible teaches. And they don't endorse rendering adoration (worship) toward the image of bread which one sees in the Eucharistic host. I'm home.
@@yvannaa.1102 Actually, Anglican doctrine is more catholic, more similar to the Apostolic church of the First Century, than Roman Catholic doctrine is. So it's all of the catholic faith with less of the later, innovative accretions. For example, you simply don't find any Apostolic writing (or anything prior to the 5th Century!) which suggests that Christians directed worship toward the Eucharistic elements.
@@anthonyhulse1248 How about providing some quotes and/or citations, instead of just naming two early churchmen? Where did Irenaeus or Ignatius say that we should render worship toward the images of bread and wine? Give real proof, or it didn't happen.
Most people that I have heard of who converted, converted because of the authority issue. They realized they needed both Scriptures and Tradition in order to have unity of interpretation. So a good list of book that you could propose would be books about why the protestant churches are valid churches even if they don't have apostolic succession, why the papacy is not true, why Sola Scriptura actually work (even if it seems it produced hundreds of church splits and denominations since the reformation). Those are the kind of books I would like to read because I really do believe this is the heart of the matter for most
I'm genuinely curious to know why someone would set out to disprove apostolic succession. If someone were to show that the line of succession was broken somewhere in history in either the orthodox or catholic church it would make the choice easy so I get that. But I don't get saying 'okay here are two churches who claim an unbroken line of succession from the apostles, they have significant differences but they agree on a majority of major points despite being in schism for 1000 years...' why would you be like hey that's great let me tell you why this other church is just as valid and we don't need the gifts our Christian father gave their lives for. It seems to me you can't claim an equivalent validity without disproving the claim that these churches have what they say they have. I should add that I when I say valid I mean it in very specific/technical terms. There are many people in Protestant denominations who are true believers, love the Lord, and are better Christians than I. But we'd love to see them home in the Catholic church, where they can experience the medical power of our God in confession and the eucharist, God willing
@@dailyDorci just am trying to understand. I trusted Christ Himself, believe in the Trinity, serve in India seeing God change lives, and William Carey and Hudson Taylor and AB Simpson CMA missions revival and Jonathan Goforth and the Manchurian revival and Korean revival of 1905 - 1910, George Muller and Amy Carmical and Mary Slessor and Henry Nott in Polynesia and George Paton in Vanuatu - and many more like them saw many transformed in Christ by finished work doctrine people born again in the heart by the Spirit apart from any ritual and saw much legitimate fruit all over the world yet they always took the bread and juice as symbols of Christ “in remembrance of me” and not transubstantiated - and how did they get spiritual strength and grace power? They never confessed to any priest but Jesus the high priest, they never had the last rites. They never had anything from from the Orthodox or Roman Catholic church, they never kissed an icon or the ring of the Pope but as both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox say that these traditions and ritual sacraments are necessary for both salvation and sanctification. You are gaslighting and not reflecting your church anathema when you say Protestants are better Christians than you while sweeping all the former anathema’s under the rug correct? Maybe I am wrong. What did the many anathema on all of what the godly missionaries believe and taught? They knowingly rejected Roman Catholic authority - you say they are right with God anyway? I am trying to understand your position compared to what your church actually has said ?
@TheGraceAdventure hey sorry for the late response. I only just saw your comment. I'm not gaslighting when I say there are Protestants who are better Christians than me. I'm just stating a fact. There are Protestants who have died for Christ, some minister to Muslims knowing it puts their lives at risk, some are less sinful. Personally, I spent 10 years as an unbeliever. Many Protestants have not wavered in their faith. To clarify my position - I believe that the fullness of the faith can be found in the apostolic churches. I believe that confession, the Eucharist, and sacraments in the Church offer tremendous opportunities for us to encounter God and grow in grace. I also believe that God meets people where they're at and that someone's Baptist grandmother, who never dug through the mire of Christianitys 2000 year history, but had the simple unwavering faith of a child is not going to be condemned for not being in one church or another. I would also point out that the Church has made many statements about Protestantism and the strong words of a 16th century bishop condemning another 16th century bishop for walking away from the Church are not a standard to be applied to a Protestant lay person 500 years later. If someone is convicted by the Spirit that the Catholic church is the one true church then they're obligated to come into communion with the Church. If they think it might be true, they are obligated to prayerfully as for guidance and seek answers. But if they're convinced that the Churches teaching is all a lie from the pit of hell, then I would say they are obligated not to join. I've met such people and I don't think they understand the first thing about the Church but I'd only ask them to reconsider or try to understand, I couldn't ask that they go against their conscience I think anyone is saying people in India who haven't kissed an Orthodox icon, and being unlikely to have encountered one, have missed the boat on salvation. You're the first person I've ever heard say you have to kiss the Pope's ring for salvation, that's simply not the case. If it were idk how the pope would get anything done because it would make his mission to figure out the logistics of giving 8 billion people an opportunity to kiss his ring rather than to spread the gospel to them. That ring, btw, is called the fisherman's ring. The pope is a successor to Peter, he's been made a fisher of men. He could care less about kissing rings
Protestant here who is only becoming more Protestant after I started reading church history. Cardinal Newmans famous line is not necessarily true. Thanks for the video, adding these to my reading list!
Even as an already converted Catholic, this is helpful. I am finding that just because someone disagrees with me, doesn't mean they are uninformed. I know it's sad to have to realize that, but judging by youtube comments I see on other videos I know I'm not the only one. Wherever I look, even in atheists, I find at least some people in that group have a good reason to believe what they believe. Learning those reasons can help you appreciate what you believe more if nothing else.
A timely video! Thank you so much, Austin. I believe that at the end of the day, all three Christian traditions can lead a true believer to salvation and a life that pleases the Lord. I want to make the best decision for myself and my family, though...and that might mean considering a conversion. But, then again, maybe not! I feel like I'm in a very similar boat as you, brother! Praying for you, and I ask that you'd pray for me + my family as we don't fully "belong" in our non-denominational church, yet we don't fully "belong" in the Catholic or Orthodox church, either. Somewhere in between is a hard place to be, but I'm praying that it won't last forever, and that the Holy Spirit will give us clear direction.
I'd say 5 traditions, more than 3. I see some difference between Oriental Orthodoxy (Cooptic, Syrian, Armenian) and Eastern Orthodoxy (Greek, Russian). And I also see some difference between high-Church Protestants (Anglican, Lutherans) and no-Church Protestants (Baptists, Evangelists)
It is actually fair to compare "pastor Bob" to the saints of the Catholic or Orthodox tradition. The reason for this being that when you enter a traditional communion, that regards the saint's lives as a rule, those saints are more authoritative in the life of the church than the local priest. Pastor Bob, on the other hand, is the final authority for whatever happens in his church. Also, a lot of the books I found most compelling in Orthodoxy were written in the last few decades. The saints are alive and well in some places!
Pastor Bob as the final authority of whatever happens in the church is not what happens in most protestant denominations. It's not helpful to straw man things.
Substitute “board of elders”, “presbytery”, or whatever you like, but the point remains the same. Evangelical churches (likely the type of church that come to mind when referring to “pastor Bob”) do tend to be centered around the personality of the lead pastor.
@@zasdertu1 That happens some places, it's still not most of protestant Christianity. And in reverse, I don't think it would be fair to compare whatever saintly and revered historical protestant Christian to the local orthodox or catholic "priest Bob", either.
Perhaps fair isn’t the right word. But the comparison is very applicable. If someone reads St Gregory and loves him, he can walk into most any Orthodox Church and find that the church worships the way St Gregory worshipped and accepts his teaching as good. If someone reads John Wesley and loves him, it would be very hard for that same person to walk into a modern Methodist church and find what he loved in Wesley, therefore he must make a local judgement about whether the leadership of that church has that same stuff. So when comparing a large tradition like Orthodoxy to Evangelicalism you have to really compare an entire tradition to a single church if you’re deciding where to go.
This guys really think that non denominationalism and Pentecostalism, both movements that started in the last century, really preach what the reformers taught. If it was like that, i would not be a protestant either lol.
I really appreciate these recommendations and would like to read them. I have been Orthodox for 17 years now after converting from evangelical Protestant. It would be nice to have sources that provide the best of Protestant thought when speaking to other Orthodox Christians about Protestants. It does seem that the best of Protestant thought is still a reaction to the worst of Roman Catholic practices. Hence, the protest. The wealth of writings found in the Orthodox Church obviously far surpasses Protestant writings simply because they got a 1500 year head start. But that wealth is why I feel at home and why I feel connected to the early Church.
That is a totally unfair evaluation. The Reformers rightfully NEVER saw themselves as making a new church, and there are VERY good evidences that Reformed/Lutheran Protestantism reflect better the first 5 centuries of Church History than the Catholic/Orthodox Churches. Your interpretation of the "early church" is completely skewed by modern orthodox propaganda. There are things that would get you banned from a modern Orthodox Church that the early Church wouldn't - we have NO evidence of any veneration of icons and NO evidence of aversion to the filioque. To promote the Biblical position on either of these issues is to face excommunication from the so-called "Orthodox".
Also, it is very clear that you have never truly tapped into the Protestant treasury of writings. Come back to me after you have read the Puritans (Thomas Watson, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Owen, etc.) and their prayers (Valley of Vision), the writings of Jonathan Edwards, the commentaries of Luther (who is mentioned here!), the Lutheran scholastic treasures, or the psalms commentary by Spurgeon. I cherish the early church writings, and read them regularly myself - but the Protestant treasures put me most closely to the Christ, Paul and the 12 apostles. And nothing is more valuable than that.
I know you’ve done a video on “Protestantism as default” in America, but it would be really cool to see interviews from people who became Catholic or Orthodox from non-Christian traditions and how they found Christianity and decided on Catholicism or Orthodoxy and why not a Prostestant denomination. I’m one of two people at my parish who came into Orthodoxy from Norse Paganism, there’s another person who was raised Sikh and their only experience with Christianity is Eastern Orthodoxy. We also have some Jewish converts, and Mormon and Jehovahs Witness (Christian adjacent traditions?) I’m sure there are similar stories in the Catholic church. For me I was already coming from a highly ritualized, participatory, non legalistic, communal, mystery tradition so Orthodoxy made the most sense. I instantly connected with it like I never did when encountering Protestantism or Catholicism. I read a few books before attending Liturgy, and I am very appreciative of Met. Kallistos Ware, but it was the experience and participation that fully solidified it for me. I work in my parish bookstore and when inquirers come in asking for book recommendations I usually just hand them the Way of the Pilgrim, tell them to come to church as often as they can, and converse with the clergy regularly even when catechism classes aren’t going on
Another recommendation: The Spirituality of the Cross by Gene Veith. It’s a book often read by those converting to Lutheranism, which I believe is relevant because Lutheranism contains many of the elements people find attractive in Catholic/Orthodox worship, and sacramental theology. You might not become Lutheran, but at least will know there is a place for that sort of thing in Protestantism.
It wasn't written yet, I don't think. I thoroughly examined Anglicanism and Lutheranism. I was not seeking merely ritual, if that was the case Anglicanism would have done the job. I was seeking Christ and His Church. My study of history and Church history made it impossible to accept protestantism any longer.
Here the book list but watch his video and check the editions he recommended: From the reformation: 1- An Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel 2 - The Freedom of a Christian by Martin Luther 3 - A Reformation Debate by John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto Modern: 4 - Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth 5 - The Mediation of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance
as a Catholic I think it is a great idea for future converts to read up on their traditions as you recommend. Some of the coolest converts we have no exactly why they converted and can explain it well. That is a very powerful witness. On the other hand I am just a simple cradle Catholic who probably isn't really going to research Protestantism very deeply at all. Other than maybe for general curiosity or to convert my friends.
So... you're not Protestant... why? If you've never researched Protestantism, it's very unlikely your answer will be informed. I don't mean any offense by that, but I'd just recommend reading the books mentioned in this video and some others to see what other traditions have to offer.
@MrPeach1 Fair enough. I'm a Protestant myself, but I'm not anti-Catholic. I do encourage you to study some from our tradition, though. I think we have a lot of good to offer to Christianity as a whole. At-home Bible studies for example began in Lutheranism - that's amazing! That's just one example.
As a Protestant who cherishes reading the best of the opposing sides to explore the truthfulness of their traditions, it's pretty telling that you yourself refuse to engage with researching historical Protestant teachings. Enjoy your internet "likes" while you do the spiritual equivalent of covering your ears.
Your comment at the end is spot on. I’m reading plenty of books to help me understand the denominations, but actually visiting another church has had a much bigger impact.
There was a time when I was considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but once I started discovering some of the great Protestant thinkers like Hamann, Torrance, Owen, Mascall, and others I began to realize protestantism has far more to offer than people realize
Protestantism started in the 1500’s a.d. That should be a red flag for you. Don’t be tricked by the devil. Orthodoxy is the True Faith. Ask our Lord and He will guide you.
@SteffieR I mean that’s kind of misleading, Lutherans and Anglicans still have the Eucharist and apostolic tradition and quoted the Church fathers extensively to justify separation from Rome. They didn’t just start over though they very much utilized what they inherited (unlike more mainstream Protestants who are more in line with you’re referring to)
@@bradleymarshall5489Those are good points but they did kind of start over in some ways because Luther’s theology on faith alone really wasn’t how the church thought before him. And the reformation has too many red flags for me like immediate split into different churches, Luther adding “alone” to his Bible translation, and not only taking out the deuterocanical books, but Luther also didn’t consider James, Revelation, Esther to not be equal with scripture. I’m a Protestant who is hoping to convert to Catholicism and I think the arguments against faith alone from the Catholic side really are what ultimately convinced me. That’s just me though:)
@matthewodonnell6495 fair but I mean even Lutheranism is way more than Luther. He didn’t even do most of their writings, Melanchthon did. Read some of the later thinkers like Chemnitz and Gerhard and you’ll find men engrossed with the Church fathers and scripture defending Lutheran orthodoxy. Jordan B Cooper also just released a video addressing the faith “alone” thing
I would add St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory (5th Cent AD), extremely short book outlining the early Christian perspective on Ecclesiology and how to determine truth from heresy.
Almost made the jump to Eastern Orthodoxy but then took a class where we covered Martin Luther and it was one of many puzzle pieces that changed everything.
You mentioned in a past video that you have a certain note-taking process to help you retain and sus through information that you read. Can you please make a video about that process?
For me, the problem lies not really with the argumentation of the doctrines. In fact, I find protestant thinkers and their work to be of great quality and they appeal to my modern western mind. Rather the main issue seems to be the doctrines themselves. The more I read, the clearer they seem to be going in the wrong directon. It doesn't feel like orthodoxy is "pulling me in" as much as protestantism is "pushing me out". I want to follow my local church, but where they go, I cannot in good faith follow.
Yeah, he's not really representative of the "average American Protestant from Alabama". He's "premium Protestant". That's why other traditions watch him.
Starting RCIA this month, though I really do appreciate your soft hearted and kind approach towards all Christians no matter if they are Protestant, Catholic, orthodox or anything in between. You have a warm heart my brother
Great final comments on not just "getting the math problem right." There's so much more to it than logic, but the mind is important. The short works that helped me remain Protestant were On the Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus, On the Creed by Athanasius and his Letter 59 to Epictetus, the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Letter to Diognetus. For something more comprehensive, though a bit longer, I recommend Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures and Book 3 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies.
Catholic for 8 years and it's the best decision I've ever made! Did not read a ton of books but the Church Fathers cliched everything. I love great Protestant minds and think that Luther and Calvin have very interesting and good things to say. Ultimately, the whole thing is just philosophically unsound. No ill-will towards Protestants, though. Just sharing what the Lord has done in my life.
@@johnathanl8396 Lol. They didnt advocate wedding rings either. Icon veneration does not break the commandment. Two massive Church councils on both sides (east and west) settled this.
@@JohnBoyX570 It's hilariously Orthodox to compare crap like "wedding rings" to bowing in front of a picture of a dead saint and talking to that dead saint through the picture - which both Scripture and the early church would have both identified as idolatrous. Nicaea 2 approved of veneration of the ICON and claimed that the early church agreed with that - which we have only evidence to the contrary. King Hezekiah broke the bronze serpent when the Israelites burned incense to it. It isn't wrong to have beautiful religious art - it's when you venerate the art itself as assisting in your WORSHIP is when it's a problem. Nicaea 2 is also couched by two other very large church councils in both east and west (Council of Hieria and Council of Frankfurt) which were both critical of icon veneration - does it not bother you that an enormous amount of the 8th century Church was just as likely to condemn icon veneration as approve of it?
@@johnathanl8396 Wedding rings are actually an implement of paganism... and Protestants accept the practice with no question whatsoever... Whereas veneration of icons has types in the OT and NT. You are wrong that the bronze serpent was destroyed because it was venerated. It was destroyed because it was worshiped. The word "worship" is clearly used in the text. The bronze serpent is actually one of the best illustrations of the distinction between veneration and worship. It was not wrong to forge a graven image which God acted through and which actually healed people. Put that in your Protestant mind. People walking up to a graven image and gazing on it to be healed of sicknesses. This was good in the eyes of the Lord. The same is true of icon veneration... or of any sacramental. It can only be something for God to work through and it cannot be God itself. With regards to praying to the dead saints... I suppose you have an issue with Christ speaking with Elijah and Moses? The saints are not dead, they are alive. (Revelations). Intercessory prayer is distinct from necromancy. Necromancy is seeking out direct communication for worldly knowledge / benefit / power, etc...(as in the case of King Saul's conjuring of Samuel). I'm not sure why so many Protestants fail over and over again to understand nuance in Scripture . Lastly, Those on the wrong side of the council do not bother me. We can have a discussion about Arianism if you think that we should give credence to bishops on the wrong side of Church councils.
I became Orthodox from the Evangelical tradition about 12 years ago now. I do agree that it is important to understand what you are leaving as well as what you are going towards. For me, I never could quite shake the feeling that while the Reformers had good intentions, they never really had any more basis for their beliefs than any other person out there. A million people can read the Bible or think about spiritual things and come up with a million different interpretations. Even if they are very well reasoned and rational, it doesn't mean they are correct. I figured that if I was going to read theology, I'd rather it come from as close to the time of Christ as possible. The whole purpose of the Church according to Christ was to carry on His message, so who better to get insight into that than the people who lived within 100 years of him. When I started reading St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and other early writings, I found a completely different way of understanding God and my faith than I ever had before. There was just such a deep well of insight that I don't think anyone could exhaust it and for me, its been a huge benefit. I can certainly understand that it doesn't resonate with everyone. There are people in every Christian tradition that do a much better job of loving Christ and their neighbor than I do, so I'm certainly not going to look down on them. I will say that I don't think that internet Orthodoxy or internet Catholicism is very healthy, because its so full of people who just seem to enjoy being jerks. When I started on my journey, there was much less of that. I cringe now when I see much of the dialogue that goes on now. I think if I was in the process of exploring now, I would probably be turned off by the triumphalism of so many in the historic faith traditions.
00:00 Intro 02:10 An Apology of the Church of England (John Jewel) 02:52 The Freedom of a Christian: A New Translation (Martin Luther) 04:10 A Reformation Debate (John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto) 06:08 Dogmatics in Outline (Karl Barth) 08:06 The Mediation of Christ (Thomas Torrance)
In addition to the good books recommended in the video, I'd recommend: 1. Any of the Crossway Short Classics series by theologians. The video mentioned one of these, The Freedom of the Christian (Martin Luther). But Crossway Short Classics also publishes other short works by theologians like B. B. Warfield, J. I. Packer, and Jonathan Edwards. These are well worth reading and indeed studying assiduously because these theologians pack quite a punch despite their pint-size! And if for no other reasons than for intellectual stimulation and personal edification even if one decides to become Catholic in the end. 2. The essay titled "Transubstantiation" by Antony Kenny in his book Reason and Religion: Essays in Philosophical Theology.
Great idea for a video, and interesting recommendations! I’ll keep those on my list. I don’t intend to be Catholic or Orthodox, but I would love to read those.
Thanks for the recommendations. I remember looking into the various denominations and theological positions when I was at University. Ultimately for me the books never really reached my heart. It wasn't until I heard theology being preached that I became convinced of reformed theology. RC Sproul and Pastor Jack Glass were the two most influential because they were so passionate for Christ and managed to explain the concepts clearly and their applications
Joshua Schooping is reason enough. EDIT: For someone considering Orthodoxy, you should understand there are two models for the transmission of the faith, and _people take sides._ Some think you need to receive the faith, complete and unquestioned, directly from a spiritual father. This is a monastic model; for these monks, your spiritual father is responsible for basically everything about your life, because that's what you signed up for. Monks tap into the blessings that come from obedience. It's a real thing, and nobody can take it away from them, but it doesn't mean what they're learning is correct. It means they are submitting themselves to a representative of our tradition _from the generation directly preceeding themselves._ "From generation to generation" is the idea. The same blessing is available to protestants or whomever else when they find a pastor they are willing to follow. Such a man can be so wrong he leads people away from God, so choose wisely, but the precision and correctness of his understanding is not where the blessing comes from. The blessing comes from obedience, and it is absolutely a real thing. Your conscience has to be on board; you can't just pretend to trust someone, and why would you want to do that anyway? God knows we all have our hang-ups, and we're convinced of this or the other idea. Find a pastor or a spiritual father you agree with enough to trust him when you disagree, is the point. Anyway, the other model is the "older is better" model. This is the way many of us think; precisely _because_ we trust the Church, we want the best scholarship available for understanding our tradition. Not the bible, nor Orthodoxy, nor the councils - none of it needs _us_ to defend _it._ The Church can take care of herself, and we can contribute best by refining our own understanding of her, not by doggedly insisting on what we think we know. We take refuge in our tradition and explore it freely. We do try to find pastors we can follow, but they won't tell us exactly what to think about everything. Frankly, if they tried that, we'd go somewhere else. Like with everything, the way forward is somewhere in the middle. In my opinion, you need a pastor / spiritual father you can trust. It should be someone with the appropriate level of education for teaching the faith. There are rural priests (or at least, there were in the past) who were _not allowed to teach._ Their job was to celebrate the Divine Liturgy and other priestly duties, but their sermons were handed to them by the bishop. There's a reason "READER" is a minor office in the Church; education matters. Here's one more idea though, that leans more in the direction of fundamentalist-style "monastic transmission" of the faith; choose a recent saint and read everything he or she wrote. Again, find someone you agree with enough to trust him when you disagree. For me, it's St. Sophrony of Essex. If instead you try to amalgamate all the recent voices of tradition for yourself, or rely too much on someone else who has done that, you'll end up cherry picking and never confront your blind spots.
@@educationalporpoises9592 Absolutely, thanks for your reply 🙏 He was a protestant who converted to Orthodoxy and became a priest. Later he gave up being Orthodox because he concluded the Church was idolatrously incorrect after all. From my perspective, that means he wasn't prepared well enough, even having gone to St. Vladimir's Seminary (I think, someone correct me if that's not right). People make mistakes, but I just wonder if maybe he never would have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place had he been more familiar with what protestant tradition has to offer. To be clear, I'm Orthodox, and that means I think Orthodoxy is correct and everyone else is at least somewhat wrong. But when I converted to Orthodoxy, _I was informed and convinced about the differences,_ and I chewed on the differences for like, 20 years before pulling the trigger. This video is in part, a plea for protestants to slow down before they make what should amount to one-time, life-altering changes of religion. Joshua Schooping is of course, not the only man to have done this. But he is the only one I know of who is now writing books about it and giving interviews all over RUclips. That's a mistake for the well-being of his soul, in my opinion. Lord, have mercy.
Also! Since you asked for book recommendations, I’ve got two for you: "The Mystical Body of Christ" by Ven. Fulton J. Sheen and “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” by Fr. Louis Bouyer. Both are about 300 pages. The former is a thorough yet accessible dive into the Catholic understanding of "Church", and the latter is by far the most ecumenical book I’ve ever read. The first 200 pages are, I feel, a great steelman of Protestantism, including a detailed dive into the best it has to offer (according to the author) that includes primary sources, followed by 100 pages in which the author digs into how these good things find their fulfillment in Catholicism, and identifies the actual points of divergence between the two parties and their underlying causes. It's very much in the spirit of this video.
There are so many things I have seen from orthodox channels that have blessed me, but comments I see really put them in a bad light. I have seen more grace from catholics.
The Orthodox faith is incredibly beautiful. However the Orthodox commentators do their faith no great service. They are known on every Christian site as Ortho Bros. Are these "orthodox-bros" bad apples, or are they a fair representation of why a 2000 year old church has utterly failed to evangelize outside a 5mile radius of where they started?
My ancestors were forced to become protestants by the king of Denmark. Not sure I owe anyone anything, but I get your point though. But ultimately this is in itself a very modern and protestant way of doing/thinking. It is the mindset that you can be your own guide. But, it is much easier than this to decide wether or not to become Catholic. The ONLY question to decide is whether the pope has been given authority by Christ through Peter. If no, then Catholicism is false. If yes, then it’s settled.
Yeah, before going to Orthodoxy, I thoroughly compared all streams of belief from the best theologians in each tradition. Some of your videos actually helped, too, especially with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is such a different way of thinking, and it's difficult to find the same resources for it as you would other traditions. But, I really wanted to understand it before accepting or rejecting it, so it was great that you brought on and interviewed a lot of the top minds of Orthodoxy, which was a relatively helpful introduction. My last hang ups were intercessions of the saints, but understanding the Divine Council via The Lord of Spirits (actually. Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick himself who came and did a weekend retreat at my local parish in Canada), and it all finally clicked. I committed to being an inquirer for up to a year before making my decision, and there's no way I can turn back now. Thanks for all that you do!
Too late, I got chrismated into the Orthodox Church two weeks ago! 🙂 (Background: life-long Baptist turned Agnostic turned Atheist and then back to faith).
Hi there, although I usually find your videos gripping, I have to admit I nodded off while watching this one. I heard little of anything mystical, contemplative or meditative here. I'm glad I left protestantism aside as a young man, even though it was a somewhat impulsive decision at the time. As a Catholic, I would recommend you read: 1. St John Henry Newman's Apologia 2. Julian of Norwich's Showings or Revelations of Divine Love 3. St Therese's Story of a Soul 4. St Augustine's Confessions and 5. the main documents of Vatican II like Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes. I hope they lead somewhere for you.
So you thought it was a great idea to comment how you ignored everything he said and recommended but we should entertain your recomendations? How prideful can you be😂😂
Hi@@johnathanl8396 , thanks for your response and for reminding me of the value of humility. As a sinner, I need these nudges. At the end of the video, he asked Catholics and Orthodox Christians to recommend books 📚, which is what I did.
@@Tybourne1991 I appreciate your humility - I have sinful tendencies towards laziness as well. What I was most put off by was your claim to have "heard little of anything mystical, contemplative or meditative". I trust you would also have the humility to realize that to look for those things in a short, informative RUclips video is unfair and odd.
@shobudski6776 Unfortunately, that pride is built in when you have autocephalous national churches and members of each national church is 90+% from a given ethnicity. We are not to be divided by language or ethnic identity in Christ's church. Eastern Orthodoxy is the Tower of Babel all over again. Pentecost ended that. Come home to Rome.
Before doing that pretend that Protestantism or any given denomination has remained the same since it's inception since 500 years ago and that what Calvin and Luther taught is the same that is practiced now.
That same admonition holds equally, if not more so, for Rome and Constantinople. They're both different from what they were 500 or 1000 or 1500 years ago.
@@Orthoindian If by "same" you mean identical, then you are obviously wrong. If by "same" you mean holding to the Creeds, maybe the EO's are on the same page, as to the continuity with the teachings of the Apostles, not so much. EO think that is the case, but history begs to differ. Is it largely within the traditions of the Apostles? Yes. Perfectly adhering to the doctrines of the Apostles? Absolutely not. It's almost as if the EO have never bothered to read anything by St. Paul since about 1200 or so and instead replace him with various later Fathers for their doctrinal cues.
I initially left Catholicism in my teens because I didn’t read books like you said. I left because of the Catholics in my life who seemed to have low view of scriptures/church😞
I just love the saying all roads lead to Rome and they also come from Rome I am so grateful to be a cradle Catholic My prayers are with everyone today I appreciate all the heartfelt, beautiful snd sincere thoughts snd comments I have read here today. God bless
Am Catholic and have huge difficulty in wrapping my head around how protestants can even begin to justity the schism beyond "one pope is bad so let's do our own thing" after 1500 years. I am sure there are a lot of very very clever people who happen to be protestant so there has to be good arguments (even if I do not believe they will pan out), and I want to understand every argument to be able to have more empathy and certainly grow in my own faith God willing. Can you list the books in the description because I found it difficult to pick out some of them! I will at least read the one by john, luther and calvin.
Same. It just doesn’t add up. And the objections pale in comparison to the objections of Protestantism. Especially since it seems the Protestants don’t have guard rails and sink into heresies that are liberal or weird like oneness
The immaculate conception of Mary (which Aquinas could not endorse, it was cooked up by John Duns Scotus, a neo-platonist). The annunciation of Mary (ditto). Purgatory. Papal superiority over the other 6 ancient sees (Rome was the little brother of the 7, so Protestants make the argument that Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc., have more authority than little brother Rome). Catholic historical method (saying Rome is the church Jesus founded with a straight face is so gas lighting....the only church Jesus founded was in Israel, so Jerusalem might make an argument like that, not Rome). I am not anti-Catholic, I am quite pacifist on the conflict between Rome and protestantism, but there are serious problems with Roman theology - thinking they stand in the tradition of the early church fathers when in fact most of the hang ups belong to medieval high clericalism - and its debt to Aristotle, Plato, pseudo-Dionysius. So many problems, where to even start? Indulgences (buying a future in the form of a bond) is the most roman thing of all time, and people like Anthony the Great fled to the desert in the Constantine era because they saw this coming, and wanted NOTHING to do with imperial Italian religion!
I think one of the issues is that Roman Catholicism dogmatizes a lot more doctrines than Protestants or even the Orthodox. As a RC, you are supposed to affirm all the doctrines of the Church. I know many don't but that is between them and the Church. I say this as a former RC who would not be allowed to be confirmed due to not affirming all the dogmas. Historically, if you did not affirm the dogmas, you got kicked out (anathema). It wasn't Luther's preference to leave the RCC. He wanted to reform the abuses of indulgences and withholding of the Eucharist in both kinds to the laity, for example. The RCC kicked Luther out (excommunicated). He didn't walk out. Ironically, many of the reforms he initially sought were adopted by the RCC. You can thank Luther for your weekly Eucharist of bread and wine. Ending of the abusive coercion tactics some were using in regard to indulgences. RCC leadership doesn't like their authority challenged or questioned. Likewise, it was the pope's legate, Humbert, that excommunicated the Partriarch Michael in 1054. RCC initiated the split. Historically, it has been Rome who has initiated the splits based on their view that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) has the ultimate authority over all other Bishops (who is in and who is out). Everyone but Rome disagrees with this position. Rome isn't guilty of all the splits (e.g. King Henry), but they've been the cause and source of many of them over their inflexibility/intolerance over varying views of the Eucharist, Mary, etc. I encourage you to read the Council of Trent which was the RCC counter-reformation. See how many times "Justification by Faith" is mentioned as a response to Luther.
Hey brother! What mic and camera do you use? Do you recommend a particular software to overlay a power point slide onto camera footage (if you’ve ever done that)? Thanks! I like your work and have been considering starting a channel of my own God bless
Calvin's Letter to Sadoleto is a great recommendation for this exercise. Whether you end up agreeing with Calvin or not, it's a great example of how a protestant answers, very detailed and constructively, a call heard from many Catholics today. Listening to Sadoleto, it seemed his words were verbatim what I have heard many Catholic apologists say to Protestants today.
Agreed! When I find out someone I know is wanting to convert to Catholicism. I always tell them to research both for a solid six months to a year. Any book by Peter Kreft and Scott Hahn are the ones I recommend and then I tell them to find a book that coincides with their current faith traditions. I've seen many people convert to Catholicism on a whim or "because I'm marrying a Catholic" (that one drives me nuts btw!)
I would recommend Father John Strickland’s series books 📚 The Age of Utopia: Christendom from the Renaissance to the Russian Revolution , The Age of Nihilism: Christendom from the Great War to the Culture Wars , The Age of Paradise , and The Age of Division: Christendom from the Great Schism to the Protestant Reformation
‘Catholicism’ (ed. George Brantl) ‘Protestantism’ (ed. J. Leslie Dunstan) ‘The Spirituality of the Cross’ (Gene Edward Veith) ‘Biblical Authority After Babel’ (Kevin J. Vanhoozer) ‘Catholicism’ (Henri de Lubac) ‘Called to Communion’ (Joseph Ratzinger) ‘Vatican II: The Essential Texts’
Sorry for all the salty Catholic comments (EO will have to speak for themselves). As a former Lutheran I would have to add for Protestants : The Augsburg Confession The Confutation of the Augsburg Confession (it can be found) The Apology of the Augsburg Confession. As someone who crossed the Tiber about 20 years ago after 7 years of discernment: 1. The letters between Carthage and Rome during the Decian Persecution. Found under Cyprian's Letters. 2. Augustine - "On Faith and Works" (not free in the online collections. Buy as single book or buy electronic copy on Logos) 3. Newman - Essay on Development of Doctrine 4. Newman - Letter to Duke of Norfolk 5. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong (an oldie but still goodie if you don't want a Tome)
i was skeptical of your premise even though i am in your demographic youre talking to. absolutley banger of an intro. your right about it not being fair on comparing the best of Catholicism to what you grew up learning. your also right that nobody (for the most part) is going to go dig through martin luthers original documents. fair play - ill read at least one of these :)
@@outdoorselias4386 Hi, I stuck with my conversion and continue to learn more about both. But i must admit I did not read any of these recommended books as I said I would. Best of luck
In my experience as a Baptist pastor, the people I've seen convert to Catholicism/Orthodoxy have done so in a very rushed and emotionally motivated way. It's important to slow down and make sure you understand the best of protestantism before you leave, and not just run away because of a bad experience you may have had.
And some of those hasty conversions don't stick. A common phenomenon lately in the Catholic Church is those folks end up in radical traditionalism before the end of the first year or so
I myself did not have this experience in Orthodoxy. In fact, we weren’t allowed to rush into it and were required to attend and learn for about a year (more or less for some as it’s different for each person). I found acceptance into the church to be much much more rushed in Protestantism. I would say Orthodoxy required more in terms of understanding what you’re entering into.
@@Demetra719you are unaware that your Orthodox church condemns all who have not joined it by their rituals and condemns those who don't continue in their rituals. The Catholics at least changed their stand and came out in Vatican 2 and called Protestant missionaries like me “separated brethren” - as insulting as that is I am glad their God accepts me. But the official stand of Orthodox church remains - anathema to all who do not do their traditions and rituals supposedly handed down from the apostles. If you understood their condemnation earlier you might of asked them to take more urgency in letting you in, knowing they believe Hell is real and all not officially in the Orthodox church - outside the Ark - will go to hell. What if you died in a car wreck before you were granted Orthodox membership? I really want to know. I don't want to be gaslighted by being told they did not mean their anathema? How can you tolerate such an organization? Help my unbelief in them? I am over here in india 🇮🇳 seeing lives changed by Christ by the bible and the Holy Spirit heart born again. Where do I stand with your church officially ?
@@UpperWingers I appreciate where you are coming from, but I can hear from your answer and questions that you do not understand the mindset of Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, we do not judge or condemn those who are not Orthodox. We believe that Christ works in the hearts of all Christians. And God is the one who will judge the hearts of all men in the end, not the Orthodox Church. We do not know 100% for sure what happens after death, or how God will look at each man. We simply believe that Orthodoxy is the best way to bring human beings closer to God, and is closer to the truth than all other paths (including other Christian paths). But it is not to condemn or do judge. Humility is also of utmost importance, and you can adhere to all the rituals of the Orthodox Church, but if your heart is arrogant and self-assured, in our belief…you will be judged for that by God. It’s not about how well you do the rituals. It’s about how Christ-like your heart is. We simply believe that Otthodoxy is the best way to get there.
@@Demetra719 what you are saying sounds good but it just doesn’t make sense in the context of the anathema ‘s where the Council says anyone who does not kneel down and kiss the icons is damned to hell . That was the original meaning of anathema . I guess the Orthodox Church today is a lot more nice and merciful than they used to be . I am happy they are open to all who are Christlike because of a heart relationship with God by the Bible and not requiring outward traditions anymore to be right with God.
With all do respect, as a Catholic Deacon, what concerns me most is that someone actually change their life (repent) and actually follow Jesus ( discipleship ). If your energy is against- it is not of the Holy Spirit or the Gospel. We need to be promoting the Kingdom not attacking fellow Christians
Love to see John Jewel getting some love here! I’d have to take bit to think about it, but this makes me want to make a list of 5 essential Anglican books.
If we use our own intellect or rely on that of others in our pursuit of God, we will inevitably divide further and be a slave to our own understanding. Where will that lead us? I have found that submission to Christs Church is the only way. ☦️
I am surprised that so many Protestants convert to RC/EO and don't seem to see the "veneration/worship" of Mary, The Queen of Heaven as much of a problem nor do they read the services /prayers dedicated to her. When I looked into the EO, I was told that they didn't pray to Mary, but only asked for her intercessions; this is absolutely not the case. I was also told that I would understand the whole Mary issue once I joined and could be a part of the Church bc trying to explain Mary to a noninitiate wasn't possible. Also, look into the actual words of the Marian feasts and ask, where did this come from? For example, in the E.O. there is a major feast that celebrates how Mary was taken, at 3 years old, to live in the Temple in Jerusalem, where she spent most of her time in the actual Holy of Holies for 9 years, being fed by an Angel. Where did that idea come from? It comes from, The Protovangelium Of James, supposedly written by the same James who wrote the book of James in the Bible. You don't have to be a Bible scholar to see that the same author could not have written both books. The Protevangelium is the oldest of the Apocryphal Gospels and as wacky as it is, the ones written later are clearly Gnostic but are used as the basis for other Feasts, like the Dormition. Read, The Book of Mary's Repose. For more, scholarly information on the use of Gnostic/esoteric writings in Marian feasts, read, Mary in Early Christian Faith And Devotion, by Stephen J Shoemaker.
By the early Church Mary was called the New eve ,and Queen of Heaven , did not Calvin, Martin Luther and Zwingli say Mary was a perpetual virgin also the KJB had all 73 books until 1825 ,yes , also Mary did Not have other children ,God would never contaminate the DNA, Blood of Christ to other children to be buried in the ground , and fully Blessed by God
I haven't read the prayer to Mary that you mentioned, but I've read others that do sound like worship to Mary, saying she is our only hope. The explanations given don't really help either. One explanation is that Paul says he desires that he by whatever means might save some. So that same sense is what they're asking from Mary. It still sounds like worship to me though. That, and icon veneration are the main things that have kept me from converting to Orthodoxy. But I am becoming convinced, I think, of the true presence of Christin the Eucharist though, but the Lutheran Church holds views that I reject, and the only Anglican church around me is a reformed Anglican, and I'm not reformed.
No we don't only ask Mary's intercession, we also venerate her as the mother of God and our mother in faith and as the Ark of the New Covenant. Veneration does not equal worship. Only someone who really doesn't know what worship is can't tell the difference. I doubt many protestants can differentiate between "praise" and "worship". That's probably what they meant when they said you had to join to understand. Otherwise I don't know what they were talking about. Mary, filled with the Holy Spirit, prophesied "all generations shall call me blessed." Just like the ark of the covenant, Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. When the ark was brought to David he leapt for joy. At the sound of Mary's voice, John the baptist leapt in Elizabeth's womb. "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" What's really surprising is how the Protestants don't honour Mary. God struck Uzzah dead on the spot for dishonouring the ark. Mary contained within her something much more precious than the contents of the ark. We call her the queen of heaven because her son is the king of heaven, not because we secretly worship a pagan goddess. No devil is entitled to keep that name. The head of the Canaanite pantheon was also named El. You know, as in Isra-El. The descendants of Abraham used that title correctly, the Canaanites didn't. The Catholics also use the queen of heaven title correctly, the others don't. Just because something is contained in the apocrypha that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Scripture itself quotes the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Again not everything Jesus and the apostles taught were contained in scripture, scripture also testifies to this in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and John the Evangelist said at the end of his gospel that if everything Jesus said or did was written down it would fill many books. Both the Ethiopian and Indian churches, which were severed from the Catholic church fairly early, have also retained the correct teachings of the apostles about the veneration and intercession of Mary.
1. Two Paths Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition by Michael Whelton 2. The way of the Pilgrim translated by Olga Savin 3. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought by John Meyendorff (been borrowing this book for about a year now it's a big read ahaha)
Serious question, but to be fair, if someone should be open to other interpretations of the Bible, should that include reading books from the Watchtower written by Jehovah’s Witnesses? They have numerous books on numerous Bible topics. What about Joyce Meyer? Or Benny Hinn? Is it a good idea to be open to reading books that also don't perfectly fit into a Catholic or Protestant box? If no, what is there to be afraid of in reading them? If yes, how many different views should one be exposed to?
Catholic here. I love some of the ideas behind Anglicanism, but it remains tradition based on the state church/monarchy. For me there really can be no doubt the Council of Trent got it right on justification though. Justification is something that enfolds all three theological virtues not just someone’s attempt to reach out and personally appropriate Christ’s righteousness for yourself. If that’s going to be the bedrock issue I can’t see how others got it right even though they pointed out a lot that was Catholicism at a point . Thanks for the book recommendations
How to Read the Bible for all It's Worth by Gordon Fee, ESV Bible, Pray the Daily Office in The Book of Common Prayer, Knowing God J.I. Packer, and Creeds Confessions and Catechisms by Chad Van Dixhoorn.
This is a great recommendation. I loved The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware, but then again, Kallistos Ware is just a great writer. I also watched catechism videos by some local Orthodox parishes and this reminded me a lot of what you said about pastor Bob.
You can read every single book that was ever printed supporting either side of the argument, but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of how a person gets to go to Heaven, then that comes down to just one single thing, and that is GRACE! For it is certain that the one thing that all believers can agree on is that we are Saved by Grace. No matter how numerous or colorful the arguments are it ALWAYS comes down to this - Protestants believe that Grace is received the moment a person believes, and that is contrasted against the Catholic belief that Grace can only be received in the Sacraments. That's it. That's what the great divide is all about. So the only book that you need to read in order to solve this matter of life or death is the Bible. More specifically just read Acts chapter 2. You will know the answer beyond a shadow of a doubt after reading just that one chapter. In Acts chapter 2 we read about the first Christian Pentecost when the first 3000 converts received Grace. Focus on verses 36-42 and most especially on vs. 37-38. This Day is God's Grand Opening of the Church and details how all people for all time are to be saved. God would not have made any mistakes on this most important of all Days in the history of the Church. There is nothing confusing about the events of this day. The Simplicity of the Gospel is more evident in those two verses than anywhere else in the entire Bible. Ask yourself when those 3000 converts received Saving Grace. Was it by "faith alone", or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? A Sacrament is a visible sign given by Christ to give Grace, and Baptism is the first of Seven Sacraments in the Biblical New Covenant Church.
I have benefitted a ton from Protestant books. My favorite is the Caae for Christ, Jewish Doctors meet the Great Physician, CS Lewis and others. They affirm and do not contradict my Orthodoxy.
It was the opposite for me. I started attending a Presbyterian Church without knowing who Calvin was, but I always heard good and bad things about him. When I started reading what he wrote, everything resolved itself and now i clearly see myself as Reformed. He is an excellent author and theologian.
Started with Luther, read the Fathers, read Catholic apologetes, became fully confirmed that Rome is wrong, EO is incomplete, and Lutheranism is the correct expression of the Western Catholic Church.
@@elKarlo No he did not kill Servetus, but he denounced him to the authorities in Geneva. But before it, he sent a latter to Servetus warning him not to go to Geneva, otherwise he would have to hand him over. Servetus was considered a heretic and was sought after by various city authorities in Europe and by the Catholic Church. At that time when politics and religion mixed, heresy was a crime.
Reccomendations on Orthodoxy: The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kalistos Ware Thinking Orthodox by Jeanie Constanieau St Paisios of Mt. Athos Becoming Orthodox (I think this one is Ware as well) Rock and Sand by Fr. Josiah Trenham
@@goofygrandlouis6296 The Anglican Communion is worldwide and other lands are certainly vibrant. Besides, finding a home in Christ's large family doesn't depend on denominational numbers. It's about finding the people that the Lord wants each of us to be with, to walk in love and good works in our local communities. I have found many people who formerly attended other denominations that have found a quiet home in the Anglican church. Just throwing another option out there for believers hungering for a more meaningful liturgical experience.
I sincerely don't see how any book could really help in that kind of discernment. The main problem I have found when trying to learn more about what Protestant churches teach TODAY, especially regarding Christian morality, is that, no matter what denomination we consider (either Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Reform, etc.), you will find that even churches of the same denomination teach quite different or even opposing things. The Catholic and the Orthodox churches are not immune to controversies, but we still find in them unified/official doctrines and teachings on that respect. This is of course an important aspect when considering conversion. BTW, I am not a Catholic anymore and decided not to convert to Orthodoxy.
5 Books to Read to be Catholic 1. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2. The Case for Catholicism by Trent Horn 3. The Drama of Salvation by Jimmy Akin 4. The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales 5. The Early Church was the Catholic Church by Joe Heschmeyer 4.
Genuine question for anyone that wants to contribute an answer: do a Christian writer’s personal failings (Karl Barth’s longstanding affair for example) discredit the value of their writings at all? Maybe a similar question would be: can we separate a person’s ideas from the person’s life as a whole?
Matt, the same conundrum has rattled around my brain forever, eg, the scandal that beautiful works of art are painted by a scoundrel. I guess it comes down to the mystery of God. How can a creature question the creator on the worth of His creation?
If their personal failings are at odds with their contribution to the world, yes, their failings are a mar on their legacy. And the significance of that mar will vary from person to person in accordance with their own conviction regarding that failing
I mean I feel like in many ways it depends. I don't think anyone is looking to Ravi Zacharias' wirtings these days (although I couldn't even do that before the scandal broke out). Barth in particular is a pretty difficult case to say because he honestly has inspired a lot of good. While his own ideas can be very messy and open to interpretation later thinkers like Thomas Torrance built on Barth's work and by synthesizing it with the patristics, and a deep love of scripture he was able to craft one of the most robust and beautiful theologies Protestantism can offer. You shall know a good tree by its fruit and Barth does seem to be producing good fruit with people he influenced such as Torrance and even Hans Urs Von Balthasar
Excellent point Austin and I agree as on the flip side as a lifelong cradle Catholic, I've researched Protestantism long and hard and have found nothing worth leaving the Eucharist over!
I believe that is really the key issue between protestants and Catholics/Orthodoxy... the Eucharist. Those are the only churches that offer the True Presence (body, blood, soul and divinity) of Jesus in communion. I was raised Catholic but at age 20 started attending non-denominational church. Probably wouldn't have had I really understood the Eucharist and the communion of saints. It's been 45 years and I have only begun to understand these things over the past few years. The one thing I do get weary of is the bashing between the different faith traditions. I'm sure our Lord is not pleased. They will know we are Christians by our love, not our knowledge.
@@deedeeunkefer2270why do you accept all your church’s supposed infallible “anathema’s” against people like me who simply trust Christ and attend a non denominational church that looks to Christ and not their pastor for truth and salvation? Why does your church anathematize Hudson Taylor and George Muller and Jonathan Goforth and Amy Carmical and Mary Slessor because they knowingly knew what your church teaches and rejected it and yet God still poured His Spirit out in them snd they were used by God to reach many and see people transformed by Christ? I am over here in India seeing God change people in Christ and they never follow your “necessary “ ritual sacraments? What is your position on these people? You say you hate bashing, but you don't realize that are gaslighting us if you say your church has not bashed us all in their councils. Jan Huss was burnt at the stake at an infallible council of your church. You hate bashing? Why do you tolerate this from your church ?
Of these I’ve only read Luther’s book, and I read it twice: once when I was getting into apologetics and again just now. The first time, I found myself disagreeing with little as far as his presentation of faith and works and faith within the Christian community are concerned (I’m Catholic), and that held for the second reading. A lot of what he concludes, qualified correctly, can be held by a Catholic. That leads into my issues with the work though. Here are three: If Luther has the Catholic Church in mind as his interlocutor, he spends much of the work beating up a strawman. Maybe the folk Catholicism of his day was as he presented, but the official teachings align much more closely with his arguments. He also speaks very generally, so it can be difficult to get a sense of how Luther is using key terms or who he’s writing to/about. There were a few overly-broad statements in particular that I bookmarked on Kindle, and I can share those if requested, but I’m at work, so it’s not a great time to go grab those. The third is actually the part you mentioned, about Christ giving all of Himself to us as His bride. While I recall agreeing with his conclusion, this is the only passage that made me legitimately angry because he cites Eph 5 as his example. While it’s true that Christ does approach the individual Christian as bridegroom, Ephesians 5 is a metaphor for the sanctifying unity between Christ and His Church, and seeing it pulled out of that context by a man whose work, while well-intentioned, has lead to so much disunity within the Body of Christ just feels gross. That said, thank you for taking the time to make this, and I do plan on reading the rest of these books!
So glad you did this. Want to add: 1. John Webster's Holy Scripture 2. Matthison's Sola Scriptura and Given For You 3. Canon Revisited by Kruger 4. Sean Luke on YT on Sola Apostolica, and Gavin Ortlund on Protestantism on YT Here's a list to consider before you convert: For Catholics 1. Doctrinal development on Petrine patriarchal supremacy to infallibility [Unam Sanctum as not catholic tradition] 2. Epistemological self-contradictions in councils/bulls/catholic traditions [Jerome as doctor, except when he’s talking canon; divergences on eucharistic theology prior to Trent] 3. Misunderstanding of the implications of ontology of Scripture [Dei Verbum as insufficient] 4. Misunderstanding of Nicea II relative to iconic practice in early church [Sean/Ortlund] 5. Dogmatizing of Marian devotion/assumption [Sean/ortlund] For EO 1. Trullo contradicts itself on canonical context [compare affirmation of Laodicea and Carthage, and disagreement on canon lists] 2. Salvation as participation, explicit rejections of Reformed soteriology at Synod of Jerusalem, contradicting the patriarch of *Constantinople (if not a forgery) right before. For Prots consider that it's possible to be Prot and affirm: 1. I reject radical Solo Scriptura, because of needing some foundation of tradition to derive canonical boundaries normatively [agree with Dyer and others on this critique]. 2. I modify with Sean Sola Scriptura to Prima Scriptura as the norming source of apostolic authority within Sola Apostolica/Sola Traditio 3. I think the first seven are binding, insofar as they don’t anathematize or require what’s repugnant to catholicity or I but willingly affirm other post schism sources of secondary authority insofar as they don’t require what’s repugnant to maturity of the apostolic deposit but reflect consistent developments of the rule of faith with what’s been said/practiced before by the church catholic, or mature the deposit in lines consistent with the practices of the early church to preserve the faith once and for all delivered by the saints 4. I think apostolic succession is indeed a catholic and assumed mark of recognizing the visible church normally. 5. Of the communions that exist, right now Anglicans or Lutherans are the ones I’d say maintains that, while Calvinists have great formularies on eucharistic theology and piety 6. For eucharist, seems an altar is normative, and that metaphysically, the church has confessed the goodnesss of creation, and the mysterious hypostatic analogy in the eucharist. 7. I agree that secondary authorities are binding insofar as they express the rule of faith- which requires the use of private judgement, submission to local authorities, personal maturity and righteousness, and a willingness to be teachable by catholic apostolic tradition, in addition to the assumption of the perspicuous nature of Scripture as God’s self-disclosure to be received by individual Christians in the context of worshipping and maturing assemblies of baptized believers. [Baptismal and Apostolic succession, or Apostolic succession in terms of catholicity in confession, visible Western baptisms, and legitimacy of orders/rites].
Hello, I’m a Protestant who has been thinking of converting and after reading through your numbers on the bottom, are you suggesting that Protestant groups other than Anglican and Lutheran aren’t validly Christian?
@@KadenGreen-eg1cz No, just immaturely Christian, and not as clearly visibly communing via the Church. I agree with Sean that the apostolic deposit has two forms, Scripture and tradition, and that the Scripture norms tradition as the aposotlic deposit designed to do so, and with Gavin Ortlund and Webster that the deposit of Scripture is ontologically unique in its place in norming all other real norms. Since the tradition seems to affirm the normalcy/necessity of tracing one's lineage within the apostolic church via a normal tracing of the laying on of hands leading back to the apostoles, both in Scripture (Paul's letters to Timothy, or the necessity of validating Paul's apostleship as grounds for authority over new testament prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:37, alongside the commendation of the Bereans in testing apostolic claims by existing Scripture) and in tradition (Redeemed Zoomer talks about this in a recent video, but apostolic succession as a normed ecclesial assumption for what seems like most of the early church). With Webster, since the Church is a creature of the Word, and simultaneous the liturgical location wherein we encounter the Word and recognize/verify the Word, of course the Church can exist without an explicit apostolic connection that's clearly traceable (like Antioch within Acts) in a way it can't exist without the Word heard, obeyed, and preserved, but, it's normal practice and I think good order for the church to mature in wanting to be part of the visible apostolic succession line. It's not of the essence, but it is part of maturing good order, in my opinion.
If you want to remain Protestant then be a fundamentalist. For all they have wrong at least you won’t have to forego your “traditional” values while being a traditional Protestant.
@@kevinmc62false dichotomy. I’m grateful for fundamentalists for being ethically more consistent with Christian doctrine in their everyday love and sexual ethics than many of us too.
@@georgeluke6382 you’re correct. False dichotomy but there is a noticeable shift in the numbers of Lutherans and Anglicans accepting this cultural revolution. I’m a former fundamentalist and it’s not something you see. If they are a fundamentalist and want to be in an open same sex relationship then they leave to become Lutheran, Episcopalian or Methodist. Who is doing the biggest disservice here in their belief system? A fundamentalist with a sexually moral lifestyle partaking of only a purely symbolic Eucharist or one who claims more of a real spiritual or true presence in communion but is in a same sex relationship as accepted by many in these traditional Protestant churches? I guess at the point you openly condone same sex marriages your concern about taking communion in an unworthy manner is a moot point.
well with both protestantism and catholicism they have some truth in it but not full truth I choose Orthodoxy because its the faith of the apostles and its what Jesus originally taught. You can even see this in the writtings of the apostolic fathers. I didnt create the church this is Jesus who created it. So me saying oh this sounds good or that sounds good is missing the point I need to abide by Jesus Christ fully so that is why i am Orthodox
Catholic, here. I wholeheartedly agree with your approach. One should appeal to the best thinkers of one’s tradition before swimming the Tiber. Your conscience deserves all the care you can muster.
I'm a Lutheran but really appreciate your comment and approach. God bless.
Anglican, here. Bless you for your charity! We all should read the best of one another, and Lord willing be fully one someday.
Agreed! Catholic here myself!
Catholic here. I agree with this. The best protestant arguments make devoted catholics stronger. Thank you for making us dive deeper into our faith
it is critical to challenge one's own faith. aside from challenges, it is wholly beneficial to be exposed to great critical thinkers who we can learn from even if we disagree with their ultimate conclusions- but we should disagree on substance and understand why we disagree or else it's just tribalism.
I'm deeply Catholic and there are things that I believe the Orthodox have a better take on, but these don't outweigh why I am Catholic.
I was Protestant for many years and those traditions formed me and I am forever grateful for that time and those people who truly love God.
1. An apology of the Church of England by John Jewel
2. The freedom of a Christian by Martin Luther
3. A reformation debate letter to Sadoleto by John Calvin
4. Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth
5. The mediation of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance
Thanks for the suggestions.
Although i haven’t read as much as id like to, id recommend these works for anyone looking into Eastern Orthodoxy
1. On the holy spirit by St. Basil the Great
2. On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and two letters to Cledonius
by St. Gregory of Nazianzus
3. On Death and Eternal life by St. Gregory of Nyssa
4. The Triads by St. Gregory Palamas
5. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the future by St. Seraphim Rose
In reality everything written by these guys seems pretty great.
Aside from maybe the last two, those wouldn't be distinct from something Catholics and Orthodox Christians would both share (and it gets a little tricky with Palamas, cause he is venerated in the eastern Catholic Churches, too.)
On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius
I mean you don’t need to be Orthodox to read and appreciate those books
First book made me Catholic because it was pretty clearly filioquist.
Too late! Became Orthodox three years ago and it’s wonderful.
Your loss. As a Protestant who considered orthodoxy, I would absolutely miss out on the treasures of my tradition - which is the best system to derive the treasures out of other traditions.
What did you read before becoming Orthodox?
@@johnathanl8396 The point of Orthodox tradition isn’t to “derive treasures out of other traditions” - it’s to hold fast to the deposit of faith, the traditions handed down to us by the Church from the apostles. This idea of picking and choosing what one likes out of other traditions is not only antithetical to Orthodoxy, to the mind of the Church - it’s also the etymological definition of heresy.
@@nuzzi6620 This is exactly what I got from his comment: it's wrongheaded to begin with.
@@nuzzi6620 As someone who converted to Orthodoxy (in my 70s) after a long and winding journey that included a lot of association with New Age, that is exactly the definition I would give of the otherwise extremely varied currents known as "New Age." That is: the essence of New Age thinking is that you can choose what to believe based on what you LIKE, not on what is true (because everyone has their own truth). It's consumeristic. When I see that attitude among Christians, I see it as New Age influence.
On the flip side, before you commit to staying Protestant, read Fr Stephen De Young's book Religion of the Apostles
And rock and sand by Fr Josiah Trenham
We have been reading this (Religion of the Apostles) in our combined Catechumin/Adult Education class and it is great.
Thanks but nah…
@@merseabless8305Why?
That's a very Protestant answer: read more books! I tried that strategy. I even learnt Greek and Hebrew. Exhausting. In Orthodoxy I found rest. Come taste and see.
True 😄 Very intellectual.
It's like that Simpsons' episode (Protestant heaven vs. Catholic heaven).
I address this at the end :)
True. While books can help, all the books in the world can’t replace God’s grace and the mystical illumination of the heart that occurs when you find out how to become closer to him.
Sort of begging the question...
I love orthodoxy. I hope they will one day come into full communion with Christ’s Church. I pray for unity.
Cradle Catholic here who left the Church during my youth for some years and attended several Protestant denominations. Considered definitively leaving the Catholic Church and joining the last Protestant church I was attending but every time this thought struck me: "I can't leave Mama!" Although I had been neglecting the Virgin Mother Mary for years, nonetheless the thought of actually cutting Her out of my life was too much for me. I'm so glad I have a perfect Mama to love, guide, and comfort me. The best Mama who kept me in the family, the huge extended family of all the saints and angels. Thank you, Mama Mary! ❤💙❤
You have "mama" but you lose Mary's Son, Jesus Christ. I know it feels sweet to be in a place which venerates a woman so much - but it's SO much sweeter to fully embrace the Gospel of Christ - the one that truly frees you from sin and the one that guarantees the sweet fellowship of Christ forever!
"God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:4-7
The kindness of Christ surpasses all other comforts :)
Hi@@johnathanl8396
"Son, behold your mother." In His moment of ultimate self-giving on the cross, Jesus Christ gives us not only His divine nature but also His mother, our Blessed Mother. She becomes our guide and model in the Christian life. Thank you, Lord Jesus. Indeed, Your kindness surpasses all other forms of generous Love. Thank you, Blessed Mother, Theotokos, for leading us to your Son, saying, "Do whatever He tells you."
And? He was asking John to take care of his mom. You were going to take that verse and come to a conclusion that she is your mom?
Hi @@carpediem5526,
It was more than just caring for His mom. Every word Jesus spoke on the cross carries *eternal* significance. Understanding the scriptures needs the support of the Church, like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. You clearly have our (Catholic and Orthodox) scriptures and I hope you're enjoying them! I urge you to keep your ears and heart open. By the way, I like your Latin username! 😊
@@Tybourne1991 thanks! I do love the scriptures.
As a Protestant who seriously considered Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the books thay helped me the most was Roger Olsen's "The Story of Christian Theology." It is a big book, but he presents things in a clear and fair manner.
I haven't read any on this list, but i may check them out for fun.
I had to read this for my church history class in university and it opened the door for me to Orthodoxy a couple years later. I still recommend it as a book to read as an overview of church history from a protestant perspective.
God bless you in your journey.
@EasternChristian333Sorry to burst your bubble but the same “statistics” that started the 30.000+ myth also says there’s 781 Orthodox denominations.
So much for being the One and Only 😂
@EasternChristian333 well, when you put it that way, I guess I must be a madman!
@EasternChristian333 As long as you guys use these types of arguments, i will be certain that you don't know what you are talking about lol.
After becoming Catholic after having been Protestant for 10 years I compare the two as such: Catholicism is like going to a five star Michelin gourmet restaurant 7 nights a week feasting on the most delicious and highest quality food and Protestantism is like Popeyes or McDonald’s. It has some good things but it pales in comparison to the full experience of a 5 star gourmet meal. The fine wine, the perfectly prepared steak, the delicious dessert 🍮. And wonderful service and ambiance. It’s the feast we all long for ❤
As a former cradle Catholic, I can honestly say that attending my Anglican parish's services are like that 5 star gourmet meal also. But the Anglicans teach the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from works, like the Bible teaches. And they don't endorse rendering adoration (worship) toward the image of bread which one sees in the Eucharistic host. I'm home.
@@rexlion4510so a lesser Catholic version ok
@@yvannaa.1102 Actually, Anglican doctrine is more catholic, more similar to the Apostolic church of the First Century, than Roman Catholic doctrine is. So it's all of the catholic faith with less of the later, innovative accretions. For example, you simply don't find any Apostolic writing (or anything prior to the 5th Century!) which suggests that Christians directed worship toward the Eucharistic elements.
@@rexlion4510Ireneus. Ignatius of Antioch.
@@anthonyhulse1248 How about providing some quotes and/or citations, instead of just naming two early churchmen? Where did Irenaeus or Ignatius say that we should render worship toward the images of bread and wine? Give real proof, or it didn't happen.
Most people that I have heard of who converted, converted because of the authority issue. They realized they needed both Scriptures and Tradition in order to have unity of interpretation. So a good list of book that you could propose would be books about why the protestant churches are valid churches even if they don't have apostolic succession, why the papacy is not true, why Sola Scriptura actually work (even if it seems it produced hundreds of church splits and denominations since the reformation). Those are the kind of books I would like to read because I really do believe this is the heart of the matter for most
The books given here address that question a little bit but I understand what you mean.
Correct.
I'm genuinely curious to know why someone would set out to disprove apostolic succession. If someone were to show that the line of succession was broken somewhere in history in either the orthodox or catholic church it would make the choice easy so I get that. But I don't get saying 'okay here are two churches who claim an unbroken line of succession from the apostles, they have significant differences but they agree on a majority of major points despite being in schism for 1000 years...' why would you be like hey that's great let me tell you why this other church is just as valid and we don't need the gifts our Christian father gave their lives for. It seems to me you can't claim an equivalent validity without disproving the claim that these churches have what they say they have.
I should add that I when I say valid I mean it in very specific/technical terms. There are many people in Protestant denominations who are true believers, love the Lord, and are better Christians than I. But we'd love to see them home in the Catholic church, where they can experience the medical power of our God in confession and the eucharist, God willing
@@dailyDorci just am trying to understand. I trusted Christ Himself, believe in the Trinity, serve in India seeing God change lives, and William Carey and Hudson Taylor and AB Simpson CMA missions revival and Jonathan Goforth and the Manchurian revival and Korean revival of 1905 - 1910, George Muller and Amy Carmical and Mary Slessor and Henry Nott in Polynesia and George Paton in Vanuatu - and many more like them saw many transformed in Christ by finished work doctrine people born again in the heart by the Spirit apart from any ritual and saw much legitimate fruit all over the world yet they always took the bread and juice as symbols of Christ “in remembrance of me” and not transubstantiated - and how did they get spiritual strength and grace power? They never confessed to any priest but Jesus the high priest, they never had the last rites. They never had anything from from the Orthodox or Roman Catholic church, they never kissed an icon or the ring of the Pope but as both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox say that these traditions and ritual sacraments are necessary for both salvation and sanctification. You are gaslighting and not reflecting your church anathema when you say Protestants are better Christians than you while sweeping all the former anathema’s under the rug correct? Maybe I am wrong. What did the many anathema on all of what the godly missionaries believe and taught? They knowingly rejected Roman Catholic authority - you say they are right with God anyway? I am trying to understand your position compared to what your church actually has said ?
@TheGraceAdventure hey sorry for the late response. I only just saw your comment. I'm not gaslighting when I say there are Protestants who are better Christians than me. I'm just stating a fact. There are Protestants who have died for Christ, some minister to Muslims knowing it puts their lives at risk, some are less sinful. Personally, I spent 10 years as an unbeliever. Many Protestants have not wavered in their faith.
To clarify my position - I believe that the fullness of the faith can be found in the apostolic churches. I believe that confession, the Eucharist, and sacraments in the Church offer tremendous opportunities for us to encounter God and grow in grace. I also believe that God meets people where they're at and that someone's Baptist grandmother, who never dug through the mire of Christianitys 2000 year history, but had the simple unwavering faith of a child is not going to be condemned for not being in one church or another.
I would also point out that the Church has made many statements about Protestantism and the strong words of a 16th century bishop condemning another 16th century bishop for walking away from the Church are not a standard to be applied to a Protestant lay person 500 years later.
If someone is convicted by the Spirit that the Catholic church is the one true church then they're obligated to come into communion with the Church. If they think it might be true, they are obligated to prayerfully as for guidance and seek answers. But if they're convinced that the Churches teaching is all a lie from the pit of hell, then I would say they are obligated not to join. I've met such people and I don't think they understand the first thing about the Church but I'd only ask them to reconsider or try to understand, I couldn't ask that they go against their conscience
I think anyone is saying people in India who haven't kissed an Orthodox icon, and being unlikely to have encountered one, have missed the boat on salvation. You're the first person I've ever heard say you have to kiss the Pope's ring for salvation, that's simply not the case. If it were idk how the pope would get anything done because it would make his mission to figure out the logistics of giving 8 billion people an opportunity to kiss his ring rather than to spread the gospel to them. That ring, btw, is called the fisherman's ring. The pope is a successor to Peter, he's been made a fisher of men. He could care less about kissing rings
Protestant here who is only becoming more Protestant after I started reading church history. Cardinal Newmans famous line is not necessarily true. Thanks for the video, adding these to my reading list!
Try reading the original works of the Apostolic age, and not commentaries on them.
Even as an already converted Catholic, this is helpful. I am finding that just because someone disagrees with me, doesn't mean they are uninformed. I know it's sad to have to realize that, but judging by youtube comments I see on other videos I know I'm not the only one. Wherever I look, even in atheists, I find at least some people in that group have a good reason to believe what they believe. Learning those reasons can help you appreciate what you believe more if nothing else.
Love this comment and also share your sentiment as a Catholic!
A timely video! Thank you so much, Austin. I believe that at the end of the day, all three Christian traditions can lead a true believer to salvation and a life that pleases the Lord. I want to make the best decision for myself and my family, though...and that might mean considering a conversion. But, then again, maybe not! I feel like I'm in a very similar boat as you, brother! Praying for you, and I ask that you'd pray for me + my family as we don't fully "belong" in our non-denominational church, yet we don't fully "belong" in the Catholic or Orthodox church, either. Somewhere in between is a hard place to be, but I'm praying that it won't last forever, and that the Holy Spirit will give us clear direction.
I'd say 5 traditions, more than 3.
I see some difference between Oriental Orthodoxy (Cooptic, Syrian, Armenian) and Eastern Orthodoxy (Greek, Russian).
And I also see some difference between high-Church Protestants (Anglican, Lutherans) and no-Church Protestants (Baptists, Evangelists)
As a cradle Orthodox, I agree: the Holy Spirit is present among Protestants as among Catholics and the Orthodox.
It is actually fair to compare "pastor Bob" to the saints of the Catholic or Orthodox tradition. The reason for this being that when you enter a traditional communion, that regards the saint's lives as a rule, those saints are more authoritative in the life of the church than the local priest. Pastor Bob, on the other hand, is the final authority for whatever happens in his church.
Also, a lot of the books I found most compelling in Orthodoxy were written in the last few decades. The saints are alive and well in some places!
Pastor Bob as the final authority of whatever happens in the church is not what happens in most protestant denominations. It's not helpful to straw man things.
Substitute “board of elders”, “presbytery”, or whatever you like, but the point remains the same. Evangelical churches (likely the type of church that come to mind when referring to “pastor Bob”) do tend to be centered around the personality of the lead pastor.
@@zasdertu1 That happens some places, it's still not most of protestant Christianity. And in reverse, I don't think it would be fair to compare whatever saintly and revered historical protestant Christian to the local orthodox or catholic "priest Bob", either.
Perhaps fair isn’t the right word. But the comparison is very applicable. If someone reads St Gregory and loves him, he can walk into most any Orthodox Church and find that the church worships the way St Gregory worshipped and accepts his teaching as good. If someone reads John Wesley and loves him, it would be very hard for that same person to walk into a modern Methodist church and find what he loved in Wesley, therefore he must make a local judgement about whether the leadership of that church has that same stuff.
So when comparing a large tradition like Orthodoxy to Evangelicalism you have to really compare an entire tradition to a single church if you’re deciding where to go.
This guys really think that non denominationalism and Pentecostalism, both movements that started in the last century, really preach what the reformers taught. If it was like that, i would not be a protestant either lol.
I really appreciate these recommendations and would like to read them. I have been Orthodox for 17 years now after converting from evangelical Protestant. It would be nice to have sources that provide the best of Protestant thought when speaking to other Orthodox Christians about Protestants.
It does seem that the best of Protestant thought is still a reaction to the worst of Roman Catholic practices. Hence, the protest. The wealth of writings found in the Orthodox Church obviously far surpasses Protestant writings simply because they got a 1500 year head start. But that wealth is why I feel at home and why I feel connected to the early Church.
That is a totally unfair evaluation. The Reformers rightfully NEVER saw themselves as making a new church, and there are VERY good evidences that Reformed/Lutheran Protestantism reflect better the first 5 centuries of Church History than the Catholic/Orthodox Churches. Your interpretation of the "early church" is completely skewed by modern orthodox propaganda. There are things that would get you banned from a modern Orthodox Church that the early Church wouldn't - we have NO evidence of any veneration of icons and NO evidence of aversion to the filioque. To promote the Biblical position on either of these issues is to face excommunication from the so-called "Orthodox".
Also, it is very clear that you have never truly tapped into the Protestant treasury of writings. Come back to me after you have read the Puritans (Thomas Watson, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Owen, etc.) and their prayers (Valley of Vision), the writings of Jonathan Edwards, the commentaries of Luther (who is mentioned here!), the Lutheran scholastic treasures, or the psalms commentary by Spurgeon. I cherish the early church writings, and read them regularly myself - but the Protestant treasures put me most closely to the Christ, Paul and the 12 apostles. And nothing is more valuable than that.
I came to read the comments.
😂
@@GospelSimplicity Homie can't catch a break. These guys are obnoxious
I know you’ve done a video on “Protestantism as default” in America, but it would be really cool to see interviews from people who became Catholic or Orthodox from non-Christian traditions and how they found Christianity and decided on Catholicism or Orthodoxy and why not a Prostestant denomination.
I’m one of two people at my parish who came into Orthodoxy from Norse Paganism, there’s another person who was raised Sikh and their only experience with Christianity is Eastern Orthodoxy. We also have some Jewish converts, and Mormon and Jehovahs Witness (Christian adjacent traditions?) I’m sure there are similar stories in the Catholic church. For me I was already coming from a highly ritualized, participatory, non legalistic, communal, mystery tradition so Orthodoxy made the most sense. I instantly connected with it like I never did when encountering Protestantism or Catholicism. I read a few books before attending Liturgy, and I am very appreciative of Met. Kallistos Ware, but it was the experience and participation that fully solidified it for me. I work in my parish bookstore and when inquirers come in asking for book recommendations I usually just hand them the Way of the Pilgrim, tell them to come to church as often as they can, and converse with the clergy regularly even when catechism classes aren’t going on
Another recommendation: The Spirituality of the Cross by Gene Veith. It’s a book often read by those converting to Lutheranism, which I believe is relevant because Lutheranism contains many of the elements people find attractive in Catholic/Orthodox worship, and sacramental theology. You might not become Lutheran, but at least will know there is a place for that sort of thing in Protestantism.
Great book.
He was my professor and I still became Orthodox.
@@MR1895Cowboy Did you read that book?
@@MR1895CowboyBased.
It wasn't written yet, I don't think. I thoroughly examined Anglicanism and Lutheranism. I was not seeking merely ritual, if that was the case Anglicanism would have done the job. I was seeking Christ and His Church. My study of history and Church history made it impossible to accept protestantism any longer.
Here the book list but watch his video and check the editions he recommended:
From the reformation:
1- An Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel
2 - The Freedom of a Christian by Martin Luther
3 - A Reformation Debate by John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto
Modern:
4 - Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth
5 - The Mediation of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance
Looking at how empty English churches are, I'd say that John Jewel should have apologized more.
as a Catholic I think it is a great idea for future converts to read up on their traditions as you recommend. Some of the coolest converts we have no exactly why they converted and can explain it well. That is a very powerful witness. On the other hand I am just a simple cradle Catholic who probably isn't really going to research Protestantism very deeply at all. Other than maybe for general curiosity or to convert my friends.
So... you're not Protestant... why?
If you've never researched Protestantism, it's very unlikely your answer will be informed.
I don't mean any offense by that, but I'd just recommend reading the books mentioned in this video and some others to see what other traditions have to offer.
@@theepitomeministry i guess you could say that I accept all that thr church has taught me. its seems good and true .
@MrPeach1 Fair enough. I'm a Protestant myself, but I'm not anti-Catholic.
I do encourage you to study some from our tradition, though. I think we have a lot of good to offer to Christianity as a whole.
At-home Bible studies for example began in Lutheranism - that's amazing! That's just one example.
As a Protestant who cherishes reading the best of the opposing sides to explore the truthfulness of their traditions, it's pretty telling that you yourself refuse to engage with researching historical Protestant teachings. Enjoy your internet "likes" while you do the spiritual equivalent of covering your ears.
@@johnathanl8396 Do you read the best study of Buddhism?
Your comment at the end is spot on. I’m reading plenty of books to help me understand the denominations, but actually visiting another church has had a much bigger impact.
Reminds me of our favourite verse in seminary, "of the writing of books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh".
There was a time when I was considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but once I started discovering some of the great Protestant thinkers like Hamann, Torrance, Owen, Mascall, and others I began to realize protestantism has far more to offer than people realize
Protestantism started in the 1500’s a.d. That should be a red flag for you. Don’t be tricked by the devil. Orthodoxy is the True Faith. Ask our Lord and He will guide you.
@SteffieR I mean that’s kind of misleading, Lutherans and Anglicans still have the Eucharist and apostolic tradition and quoted the Church fathers extensively to justify separation from Rome. They didn’t just start over though they very much utilized what they inherited (unlike more mainstream Protestants who are more in line with you’re referring to)
@@bradleymarshall5489Those are good points but they did kind of start over in some ways because Luther’s theology on faith alone really wasn’t how the church thought before him. And the reformation has too many red flags for me like immediate split into different churches, Luther adding “alone” to his Bible translation, and not only taking out the deuterocanical books, but Luther also didn’t consider James, Revelation, Esther to not be equal with scripture. I’m a Protestant who is hoping to convert to Catholicism and I think the arguments against faith alone from the Catholic side really are what ultimately convinced me. That’s just me though:)
@@SteffieR anyone who says they got the true faith is a even bigger red flag. You are tricked by the devi,l let go of your pride.
@matthewodonnell6495 fair but I mean even Lutheranism is way more than Luther. He didn’t even do most of their writings, Melanchthon did. Read some of the later thinkers like Chemnitz and Gerhard and you’ll find men engrossed with the Church fathers and scripture defending Lutheran orthodoxy. Jordan B Cooper also just released a video addressing the faith “alone” thing
I would add St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory (5th Cent AD), extremely short book outlining the early Christian perspective on Ecclesiology and how to determine truth from heresy.
Almost made the jump to Eastern Orthodoxy but then took a class where we covered Martin Luther and it was one of many puzzle pieces that changed everything.
Too late. Became Catholic and it was the best decision of my life.
You mentioned in a past video that you have a certain note-taking process to help you retain and sus through information that you read. Can you please make a video about that process?
For me, the problem lies not really with the argumentation of the doctrines. In fact, I find protestant thinkers and their work to be of great quality and they appeal to my modern western mind. Rather the main issue seems to be the doctrines themselves. The more I read, the clearer they seem to be going in the wrong directon. It doesn't feel like orthodoxy is "pulling me in" as much as protestantism is "pushing me out". I want to follow my local church, but where they go, I cannot in good faith follow.
YOu're one of the people seeking the true church and not what someone claims is the true church.
What is your denomination? Are you Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian or Continental Reformed?
How the heck does Protestantism appeal to your "modern western mind"? And who is informing you about what is or isn't "modern" and "western"?
So much knowledge in a young man. Nice work!
Yeah, he's not really representative of the "average American Protestant from Alabama".
He's "premium Protestant". That's why other traditions watch him.
Starting RCIA this month, though I really do appreciate your soft hearted and kind approach towards all Christians no matter if they are Protestant, Catholic, orthodox or anything in between. You have a warm heart my brother
Thanks! I hope it goes well
Great final comments on not just "getting the math problem right." There's so much more to it than logic, but the mind is important.
The short works that helped me remain Protestant were On the Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus, On the Creed by Athanasius and his Letter 59 to Epictetus, the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Letter to Diognetus.
For something more comprehensive, though a bit longer, I recommend Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures and Book 3 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies.
If those works helped you remain protestant you must be doing some serious mental gymnastics 😂
Great recommendations
Catholic for 8 years and it's the best decision I've ever made! Did not read a ton of books but the Church Fathers cliched everything. I love great Protestant minds and think that Luther and Calvin have very interesting and good things to say. Ultimately, the whole thing is just philosophically unsound. No ill-will towards Protestants, though. Just sharing what the Lord has done in my life.
So you would have read how none of the church fathers advocated for icon veneration?
@@johnathanl8396 Lol. They didnt advocate wedding rings either. Icon veneration does not break the commandment. Two massive Church councils on both sides (east and west) settled this.
@@JohnBoyX570 It's hilariously Orthodox to compare crap like "wedding rings" to bowing in front of a picture of a dead saint and talking to that dead saint through the picture - which both Scripture and the early church would have both identified as idolatrous. Nicaea 2 approved of veneration of the ICON and claimed that the early church agreed with that - which we have only evidence to the contrary. King Hezekiah broke the bronze serpent when the Israelites burned incense to it. It isn't wrong to have beautiful religious art - it's when you venerate the art itself as assisting in your WORSHIP is when it's a problem. Nicaea 2 is also couched by two other very large church councils in both east and west (Council of Hieria and Council of Frankfurt) which were both critical of icon veneration - does it not bother you that an enormous amount of the 8th century Church was just as likely to condemn icon veneration as approve of it?
@@johnathanl8396 Wedding rings are actually an implement of paganism... and Protestants accept the practice with no question whatsoever... Whereas veneration of icons has types in the OT and NT. You are wrong that the bronze serpent was destroyed because it was venerated. It was destroyed because it was worshiped. The word "worship" is clearly used in the text. The bronze serpent is actually one of the best illustrations of the distinction between veneration and worship. It was not wrong to forge a graven image which God acted through and which actually healed people. Put that in your Protestant mind. People walking up to a graven image and gazing on it to be healed of sicknesses. This was good in the eyes of the Lord. The same is true of icon veneration... or of any sacramental. It can only be something for God to work through and it cannot be God itself. With regards to praying to the dead saints... I suppose you have an issue with Christ speaking with Elijah and Moses? The saints are not dead, they are alive. (Revelations). Intercessory prayer is distinct from necromancy. Necromancy is seeking out direct communication for worldly knowledge / benefit / power, etc...(as in the case of King Saul's conjuring of Samuel). I'm not sure why so many Protestants fail over and over again to understand nuance in Scripture . Lastly, Those on the wrong side of the council do not bother me. We can have a discussion about Arianism if you think that we should give credence to bishops on the wrong side of Church councils.
@@johnathanl8396the saints aren't dead. Why do Prots insist that they are?
I became Orthodox from the Evangelical tradition about 12 years ago now. I do agree that it is important to understand what you are leaving as well as what you are going towards. For me, I never could quite shake the feeling that while the Reformers had good intentions, they never really had any more basis for their beliefs than any other person out there. A million people can read the Bible or think about spiritual things and come up with a million different interpretations. Even if they are very well reasoned and rational, it doesn't mean they are correct. I figured that if I was going to read theology, I'd rather it come from as close to the time of Christ as possible. The whole purpose of the Church according to Christ was to carry on His message, so who better to get insight into that than the people who lived within 100 years of him. When I started reading St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and other early writings, I found a completely different way of understanding God and my faith than I ever had before. There was just such a deep well of insight that I don't think anyone could exhaust it and for me, its been a huge benefit. I can certainly understand that it doesn't resonate with everyone. There are people in every Christian tradition that do a much better job of loving Christ and their neighbor than I do, so I'm certainly not going to look down on them. I will say that I don't think that internet Orthodoxy or internet Catholicism is very healthy, because its so full of people who just seem to enjoy being jerks. When I started on my journey, there was much less of that. I cringe now when I see much of the dialogue that goes on now. I think if I was in the process of exploring now, I would probably be turned off by the triumphalism of so many in the historic faith traditions.
00:00 Intro
02:10 An Apology of the Church of England (John Jewel)
02:52 The Freedom of a Christian: A New Translation (Martin Luther)
04:10 A Reformation Debate (John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto)
06:08 Dogmatics in Outline (Karl Barth)
08:06 The Mediation of Christ (Thomas Torrance)
We are all one Christian family. Today it is more urgent than ever.
Good video, sometimes it feels like there’s so many books to read and so little time, so I appreciate the shorter recommendations.
In addition to the good books recommended in the video, I'd recommend:
1. Any of the Crossway Short Classics series by theologians. The video mentioned one of these, The Freedom of the Christian (Martin Luther). But Crossway Short Classics also publishes other short works by theologians like B. B. Warfield, J. I. Packer, and Jonathan Edwards. These are well worth reading and indeed studying assiduously because these theologians pack quite a punch despite their pint-size! And if for no other reasons than for intellectual stimulation and personal edification even if one decides to become Catholic in the end.
2. The essay titled "Transubstantiation" by Antony Kenny in his book Reason and Religion: Essays in Philosophical Theology.
Loved your thoughts, there’s a lot of wisdom in it. I’ll have to give all of those a read.
Great idea for a video, and interesting recommendations! I’ll keep those on my list. I don’t intend to be Catholic or Orthodox, but I would love to read those.
Thanks for the recommendations. I remember looking into the various denominations and theological positions when I was at University. Ultimately for me the books never really reached my heart. It wasn't until I heard theology being preached that I became convinced of reformed theology. RC Sproul and Pastor Jack Glass were the two most influential because they were so passionate for Christ and managed to explain the concepts clearly and their applications
Joshua Schooping is reason enough.
EDIT: For someone considering Orthodoxy, you should understand there are two models for the transmission of the faith, and _people take sides._ Some think you need to receive the faith, complete and unquestioned, directly from a spiritual father. This is a monastic model; for these monks, your spiritual father is responsible for basically everything about your life, because that's what you signed up for. Monks tap into the blessings that come from obedience. It's a real thing, and nobody can take it away from them, but it doesn't mean what they're learning is correct. It means they are submitting themselves to a representative of our tradition _from the generation directly preceeding themselves._ "From generation to generation" is the idea.
The same blessing is available to protestants or whomever else when they find a pastor they are willing to follow. Such a man can be so wrong he leads people away from God, so choose wisely, but the precision and correctness of his understanding is not where the blessing comes from. The blessing comes from obedience, and it is absolutely a real thing. Your conscience has to be on board; you can't just pretend to trust someone, and why would you want to do that anyway? God knows we all have our hang-ups, and we're convinced of this or the other idea. Find a pastor or a spiritual father you agree with enough to trust him when you disagree, is the point.
Anyway, the other model is the "older is better" model. This is the way many of us think; precisely _because_ we trust the Church, we want the best scholarship available for understanding our tradition. Not the bible, nor Orthodoxy, nor the councils - none of it needs _us_ to defend _it._ The Church can take care of herself, and we can contribute best by refining our own understanding of her, not by doggedly insisting on what we think we know. We take refuge in our tradition and explore it freely. We do try to find pastors we can follow, but they won't tell us exactly what to think about everything. Frankly, if they tried that, we'd go somewhere else.
Like with everything, the way forward is somewhere in the middle. In my opinion, you need a pastor / spiritual father you can trust. It should be someone with the appropriate level of education for teaching the faith. There are rural priests (or at least, there were in the past) who were _not allowed to teach._ Their job was to celebrate the Divine Liturgy and other priestly duties, but their sermons were handed to them by the bishop. There's a reason "READER" is a minor office in the Church; education matters.
Here's one more idea though, that leans more in the direction of fundamentalist-style "monastic transmission" of the faith; choose a recent saint and read everything he or she wrote. Again, find someone you agree with enough to trust him when you disagree. For me, it's St. Sophrony of Essex. If instead you try to amalgamate all the recent voices of tradition for yourself, or rely too much on someone else who has done that, you'll end up cherry picking and never confront your blind spots.
Could you expand on what you mean about Joshua Schooping?
@@educationalporpoises9592 Absolutely, thanks for your reply 🙏 He was a protestant who converted to Orthodoxy and became a priest. Later he gave up being Orthodox because he concluded the Church was idolatrously incorrect after all. From my perspective, that means he wasn't prepared well enough, even having gone to St. Vladimir's Seminary (I think, someone correct me if that's not right). People make mistakes, but I just wonder if maybe he never would have converted to Orthodoxy in the first place had he been more familiar with what protestant tradition has to offer.
To be clear, I'm Orthodox, and that means I think Orthodoxy is correct and everyone else is at least somewhat wrong. But when I converted to Orthodoxy, _I was informed and convinced about the differences,_ and I chewed on the differences for like, 20 years before pulling the trigger. This video is in part, a plea for protestants to slow down before they make what should amount to one-time, life-altering changes of religion.
Joshua Schooping is of course, not the only man to have done this. But he is the only one I know of who is now writing books about it and giving interviews all over RUclips. That's a mistake for the well-being of his soul, in my opinion. Lord, have mercy.
Also! Since you asked for book recommendations, I’ve got two for you: "The Mystical Body of Christ" by Ven. Fulton J. Sheen and “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” by Fr. Louis Bouyer.
Both are about 300 pages. The former is a thorough yet accessible dive into the Catholic understanding of "Church", and the latter is by far the most ecumenical book I’ve ever read. The first 200 pages are, I feel, a great steelman of Protestantism, including a detailed dive into the best it has to offer (according to the author) that includes primary sources, followed by 100 pages in which the author digs into how these good things find their fulfillment in Catholicism, and identifies the actual points of divergence between the two parties and their underlying causes. It's very much in the spirit of this video.
you should have added "take a look at the majority of Catholic and Orthodox comments below this video"
There are so many things I have seen from orthodox channels that have blessed me, but comments I see really put them in a bad light. I have seen more grace from catholics.
Gospel Simplicity was so kind and generous in this video, your snark and disrespect is really unnecessary and unchristlike.
@@johnathanl8396 Not snark at all... just an observation and admonition.
The Orthodox faith is incredibly beautiful. However the Orthodox commentators do their faith no great service. They are known on every Christian site as Ortho Bros. Are these "orthodox-bros" bad apples, or are they a fair representation of why a 2000 year old church has utterly failed to evangelize outside a 5mile radius of where they started?
@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 many churches have that issue
My ancestors were forced to become protestants by the king of Denmark. Not sure I owe anyone anything, but I get your point though.
But ultimately this is in itself a very modern and protestant way of doing/thinking. It is the mindset that you can be your own guide.
But, it is much easier than this to decide wether or not to become Catholic. The ONLY question to decide is whether the pope has been given authority by Christ through Peter. If no, then Catholicism is false. If yes, then it’s settled.
Yeah, before going to Orthodoxy, I thoroughly compared all streams of belief from the best theologians in each tradition. Some of your videos actually helped, too, especially with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is such a different way of thinking, and it's difficult to find the same resources for it as you would other traditions. But, I really wanted to understand it before accepting or rejecting it, so it was great that you brought on and interviewed a lot of the top minds of Orthodoxy, which was a relatively helpful introduction. My last hang ups were intercessions of the saints, but understanding the Divine Council via The Lord of Spirits (actually. Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick himself who came and did a weekend retreat at my local parish in Canada), and it all finally clicked. I committed to being an inquirer for up to a year before making my decision, and there's no way I can turn back now. Thanks for all that you do!
It's my pleasure! Glad you found my channel helpful on your journey
Too late, I got chrismated into the Orthodox Church two weeks ago! 🙂
(Background: life-long Baptist turned Agnostic turned Atheist and then back to faith).
Hi there, although I usually find your videos gripping, I have to admit I nodded off while watching this one. I heard little of anything mystical, contemplative or meditative here. I'm glad I left protestantism aside as a young man, even though it was a somewhat impulsive decision at the time.
As a Catholic, I would recommend you read:
1. St John Henry Newman's Apologia
2. Julian of Norwich's Showings or Revelations of Divine Love
3. St Therese's Story of a Soul
4. St Augustine's Confessions and
5. the main documents of Vatican II like Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes.
I hope they lead somewhere for you.
So you thought it was a great idea to comment how you ignored everything he said and recommended but we should entertain your recomendations? How prideful can you be😂😂
Excellent recommendations! Grazie!
Hi@@johnathanl8396 , thanks for your response and for reminding me of the value of humility. As a sinner, I need these nudges. At the end of the video, he asked Catholics and Orthodox Christians to recommend books 📚, which is what I did.
@@Tybourne1991 I appreciate your humility - I have sinful tendencies towards laziness as well. What I was most put off by was your claim to have "heard little of anything mystical, contemplative or meditative". I trust you would also have the humility to realize that to look for those things in a short, informative RUclips video is unfair and odd.
Hi@@johnathanl8396 , that's another fair point, I take it on board.
Orthodox and proud ☦️
There’s no place for pride in Orthodoxy.
Although I do know what you mean.
Yes please as a fellow Orthodox Christian, please put the passion of pride away. Humility please! ☦️
Christ is Risen!
@shobudski6776 Unfortunately, that pride is built in when you have autocephalous national churches and members of each national church is 90+% from a given ethnicity. We are not to be divided by language or ethnic identity in Christ's church. Eastern Orthodoxy is the Tower of Babel all over again. Pentecost ended that. Come home to Rome.
@@jfiglioliWe are united by Christ, not the Pope. Vatican is the Tower of Babel.
Converted to Orthodoxy this year! (I was predestined)
Did you read the book or are you just being stubborn?
Before doing that pretend that Protestantism or any given denomination has remained the same since it's inception since 500 years ago and that what Calvin and Luther taught is the same that is practiced now.
That same admonition holds equally, if not more so, for Rome and Constantinople. They're both different from what they were 500 or 1000 or 1500 years ago.
Not even close.
@@pete3397 yeah it's the "same"
@@Orthoindian If by "same" you mean identical, then you are obviously wrong. If by "same" you mean holding to the Creeds, maybe the EO's are on the same page, as to the continuity with the teachings of the Apostles, not so much. EO think that is the case, but history begs to differ. Is it largely within the traditions of the Apostles? Yes. Perfectly adhering to the doctrines of the Apostles? Absolutely not. It's almost as if the EO have never bothered to read anything by St. Paul since about 1200 or so and instead replace him with various later Fathers for their doctrinal cues.
I initially left Catholicism in my teens because I didn’t read books like you said. I left because of the Catholics in my life who seemed to have low view of scriptures/church😞
I just love the saying all roads lead to Rome and they also come from Rome I am so grateful to be a cradle Catholic
My prayers are with everyone today I appreciate all the heartfelt, beautiful snd sincere
thoughts snd comments I have read here today. God bless
When it comes to Christianity as distinct from empire, all roads lead to Jerusalem and Athens, and back to them.
I don't read many sincere comments, just catholics and orthodox slandering protestants for internet likes
Am Catholic and have huge difficulty in wrapping my head around how protestants can even begin to justity the schism beyond "one pope is bad so let's do our own thing" after 1500 years.
I am sure there are a lot of very very clever people who happen to be protestant so there has to be good arguments (even if I do not believe they will pan out), and I want to understand every argument to be able to have more empathy and certainly grow in my own faith God willing.
Can you list the books in the description because I found it difficult to pick out some of them! I will at least read the one by john, luther and calvin.
Same. It just doesn’t add up. And the objections pale in comparison to the objections of Protestantism. Especially since it seems the Protestants don’t have guard rails and sink into heresies that are liberal or weird like oneness
Maybe there is more reasons than just the pope
The immaculate conception of Mary (which Aquinas could not endorse, it was cooked up by John Duns Scotus, a neo-platonist). The annunciation of Mary (ditto). Purgatory. Papal superiority over the other 6 ancient sees (Rome was the little brother of the 7, so Protestants make the argument that Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc., have more authority than little brother Rome). Catholic historical method (saying Rome is the church Jesus founded with a straight face is so gas lighting....the only church Jesus founded was in Israel, so Jerusalem might make an argument like that, not Rome). I am not anti-Catholic, I am quite pacifist on the conflict between Rome and protestantism, but there are serious problems with Roman theology - thinking they stand in the tradition of the early church fathers when in fact most of the hang ups belong to medieval high clericalism - and its debt to Aristotle, Plato, pseudo-Dionysius. So many problems, where to even start? Indulgences (buying a future in the form of a bond) is the most roman thing of all time, and people like Anthony the Great fled to the desert in the Constantine era because they saw this coming, and wanted NOTHING to do with imperial Italian religion!
Rome is not the church Jesus established: it is the universal catholic church built on not only Jesus as it's head in heaven but on Peter
I think one of the issues is that Roman Catholicism dogmatizes a lot more doctrines than Protestants or even the Orthodox. As a RC, you are supposed to affirm all the doctrines of the Church. I know many don't but that is between them and the Church. I say this as a former RC who would not be allowed to be confirmed due to not affirming all the dogmas. Historically, if you did not affirm the dogmas, you got kicked out (anathema). It wasn't Luther's preference to leave the RCC. He wanted to reform the abuses of indulgences and withholding of the Eucharist in both kinds to the laity, for example. The RCC kicked Luther out (excommunicated). He didn't walk out. Ironically, many of the reforms he initially sought were adopted by the RCC. You can thank Luther for your weekly Eucharist of bread and wine. Ending of the abusive coercion tactics some were using in regard to indulgences. RCC leadership doesn't like their authority challenged or questioned. Likewise, it was the pope's legate, Humbert, that excommunicated the Partriarch Michael in 1054. RCC initiated the split. Historically, it has been Rome who has initiated the splits based on their view that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) has the ultimate authority over all other Bishops (who is in and who is out). Everyone but Rome disagrees with this position. Rome isn't guilty of all the splits (e.g. King Henry), but they've been the cause and source of many of them over their inflexibility/intolerance over varying views of the Eucharist, Mary, etc. I encourage you to read the Council of Trent which was the RCC counter-reformation. See how many times "Justification by Faith" is mentioned as a response to Luther.
Hey brother!
What mic and camera do you use? Do you recommend a particular software to overlay a power point slide onto camera footage (if you’ve ever done that)?
Thanks! I like your work and have been considering starting a channel of my own
God bless
Shure sm87 and Sony a6300. More details in the description :)
Calvin's Letter to Sadoleto is a great recommendation for this exercise. Whether you end up agreeing with Calvin or not, it's a great example of how a protestant answers, very detailed and constructively, a call heard from many Catholics today.
Listening to Sadoleto, it seemed his words were verbatim what I have heard many Catholic apologists say to Protestants today.
Agreed! When I find out someone I know is wanting to convert to Catholicism. I always tell them to research both for a solid six months to a year. Any book by Peter Kreft and Scott Hahn are the ones I recommend and then I tell them to find a book that coincides with their current faith traditions. I've seen many people convert to Catholicism on a whim or "because I'm marrying a Catholic" (that one drives me nuts btw!)
Great video! All serious Protestant students of theology should also read the Book of Concord.
I would recommend Father John Strickland’s series books 📚
The Age of Utopia: Christendom from the Renaissance to the Russian Revolution ,
The Age of Nihilism: Christendom from the Great War to the Culture Wars ,
The Age of Paradise , and The Age of Division: Christendom from the Great Schism to the Protestant Reformation
‘Catholicism’ (ed. George Brantl)
‘Protestantism’ (ed. J. Leslie Dunstan)
‘The Spirituality of the Cross’ (Gene Edward Veith)
‘Biblical Authority After Babel’ (Kevin J. Vanhoozer)
‘Catholicism’ (Henri de Lubac)
‘Called to Communion’ (Joseph Ratzinger)
‘Vatican II: The Essential Texts’
Sorry for all the salty Catholic comments (EO will have to speak for themselves).
As a former Lutheran I would have to add for Protestants :
The Augsburg Confession
The Confutation of the Augsburg Confession (it can be found)
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
As someone who crossed the Tiber about 20 years ago after 7 years of discernment:
1. The letters between Carthage and Rome during the Decian Persecution. Found under Cyprian's Letters.
2. Augustine - "On Faith and Works" (not free in the online collections. Buy as single book or buy electronic copy on Logos)
3. Newman - Essay on Development of Doctrine
4. Newman - Letter to Duke of Norfolk
5. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong (an oldie but still goodie if you don't want a Tome)
i was skeptical of your premise even though i am in your demographic youre talking to.
absolutley banger of an intro. your right about it not being fair on comparing the best of Catholicism to what you grew up learning. your also right that nobody (for the most part) is going to go dig through martin luthers original documents.
fair play - ill read at least one of these :)
Hello did the book convince you of peotestantism? I really want to become Orthodox, but if protestantism is proven to be true I have no choice
@@outdoorselias4386 Hi, I stuck with my conversion and continue to learn more about both. But i must admit I did not read any of these recommended books as I said I would.
Best of luck
@@SamNewman1984 Thanks! But I'm confused are you protestant or catholic?
@@outdoorselias4386 I converted from protestant to Catholic
In my experience as a Baptist pastor, the people I've seen convert to Catholicism/Orthodoxy have done so in a very rushed and emotionally motivated way. It's important to slow down and make sure you understand the best of protestantism before you leave, and not just run away because of a bad experience you may have had.
And some of those hasty conversions don't stick. A common phenomenon lately in the Catholic Church is those folks end up in radical traditionalism before the end of the first year or so
I myself did not have this experience in Orthodoxy. In fact, we weren’t allowed to rush into it and were required to attend and learn for about a year (more or less for some as it’s different for each person). I found acceptance into the church to be much much more rushed in Protestantism. I would say Orthodoxy required more in terms of understanding what you’re entering into.
@@Demetra719you are unaware that your Orthodox church condemns all who have not joined it by their rituals and condemns those who don't continue in their rituals. The Catholics at least changed their stand and came out in Vatican 2 and called Protestant missionaries like me “separated brethren” - as insulting as that is I am glad their God accepts me. But the official stand of Orthodox church remains - anathema to all who do not do their traditions and rituals supposedly handed down from the apostles. If you understood their condemnation earlier you might of asked them to take more urgency in letting you in, knowing they believe Hell is real and all not officially in the Orthodox church - outside the Ark - will go to hell. What if you died in a car wreck before you were granted Orthodox membership? I really want to know. I don't want to be gaslighted by being told they did not mean their anathema? How can you tolerate such an organization? Help my unbelief in them? I am over here in india 🇮🇳 seeing lives changed by Christ by the bible and the Holy Spirit heart born again. Where do I stand with your church officially ?
@@UpperWingers I appreciate where you are coming from, but I can hear from your answer and questions that you do not understand the mindset of Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, we do not judge or condemn those who are not Orthodox. We believe that Christ works in the hearts of all Christians. And God is the one who will judge the hearts of all men in the end, not the Orthodox Church. We do not know 100% for sure what happens after death, or how God will look at each man. We simply believe that Orthodoxy is the best way to bring human beings closer to God, and is closer to the truth than all other paths (including other Christian paths). But it is not to condemn or do judge. Humility is also of utmost importance, and you can adhere to all the rituals of the Orthodox Church, but if your heart is arrogant and self-assured, in our belief…you will be judged for that by God. It’s not about how well you do the rituals. It’s about how Christ-like your heart is. We simply believe that Otthodoxy is the best way to get there.
@@Demetra719 what you are saying sounds good but it just doesn’t make sense in the context of the anathema ‘s where the Council says anyone who does not kneel down and kiss the icons is damned to hell . That was the original meaning of anathema . I guess the Orthodox Church today is a lot more nice and merciful than they used to be . I am happy they are open to all who are Christlike because of a heart relationship with God by the Bible and not requiring outward traditions anymore to be right with God.
Thanks for the recommendations!
Luther believed in prayer to saints and Mary. He also wanted tests books removed from the bible: Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation.
With all do respect, as a Catholic Deacon, what concerns me most is that someone actually change their life (repent) and actually follow Jesus ( discipleship ).
If your energy is against- it is not of the Holy Spirit or the Gospel.
We need to be promoting the Kingdom not attacking fellow Christians
Love to see John Jewel getting some love here! I’d have to take bit to think about it, but this makes me want to make a list of 5 essential Anglican books.
The great William Abraham was my systematic theology professor at SMU and he had good things to say about TF Torrence.
The Catholic Controversy: A Defense of the Faith by Francis of Sales
Thank you! St. Francis de Sales, one of my favorite saints!
If we use our own intellect or rely on that of others in our pursuit of God, we will inevitably divide further and be a slave to our own understanding. Where will that lead us? I have found that submission to Christs Church is the only way. ☦️
I am surprised that so many Protestants convert to RC/EO and don't seem to see the "veneration/worship" of Mary, The Queen of Heaven as much of a problem nor do they read the services /prayers dedicated to her. When I looked into the EO, I was told that they didn't pray to Mary, but only asked for her intercessions; this is absolutely not the case. I was also told that I would understand the whole Mary issue once I joined and could be a part of the Church bc trying to explain Mary to a noninitiate wasn't possible. Also, look into the actual words of the Marian feasts and ask, where did this come from? For example, in the E.O. there is a major feast that celebrates how Mary was taken, at 3 years old, to live in the Temple in Jerusalem, where she spent most of her time in the actual Holy of Holies for 9 years, being fed by an Angel. Where did that idea come from? It comes from, The Protovangelium Of James, supposedly written by the same James who wrote the book of James in the Bible. You don't have to be a Bible scholar to see that the same author could not have written both books. The Protevangelium is the oldest of the Apocryphal Gospels and as wacky as it is, the ones written later are clearly Gnostic but are used as the basis for other Feasts, like the Dormition. Read, The Book of Mary's Repose. For more, scholarly information on the use of Gnostic/esoteric writings in Marian feasts, read, Mary in Early Christian Faith And Devotion, by Stephen J Shoemaker.
Theotokos is a doctrine from the council of Ephasus. She is the queen of heaven written in revelations.
By the early Church Mary was called the New eve ,and Queen of Heaven , did not Calvin, Martin Luther and Zwingli say Mary was a perpetual virgin also the KJB had all 73 books until 1825 ,yes , also Mary did Not have other children ,God would never contaminate the DNA, Blood of Christ to other children to be buried in the ground , and fully Blessed by God
I haven't read the prayer to Mary that you mentioned, but I've read others that do sound like worship to Mary, saying she is our only hope. The explanations given don't really help either. One explanation is that Paul says he desires that he by whatever means might save some. So that same sense is what they're asking from Mary. It still sounds like worship to me though. That, and icon veneration are the main things that have kept me from converting to Orthodoxy. But I am becoming convinced, I think, of the true presence of Christin the Eucharist though, but the Lutheran Church holds views that I reject, and the only Anglican church around me is a reformed Anglican, and I'm not reformed.
No we don't only ask Mary's intercession, we also venerate her as the mother of God and our mother in faith and as the Ark of the New Covenant. Veneration does not equal worship. Only someone who really doesn't know what worship is can't tell the difference. I doubt many protestants can differentiate between "praise" and "worship". That's probably what they meant when they said you had to join to understand. Otherwise I don't know what they were talking about. Mary, filled with the Holy Spirit, prophesied "all generations shall call me blessed." Just like the ark of the covenant, Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. When the ark was brought to David he leapt for joy. At the sound of Mary's voice, John the baptist leapt in Elizabeth's womb. "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" What's really surprising is how the Protestants don't honour Mary. God struck Uzzah dead on the spot for dishonouring the ark. Mary contained within her something much more precious than the contents of the ark.
We call her the queen of heaven because her son is the king of heaven, not because we secretly worship a pagan goddess. No devil is entitled to keep that name. The head of the Canaanite pantheon was also named El. You know, as in Isra-El. The descendants of Abraham used that title correctly, the Canaanites didn't. The Catholics also use the queen of heaven title correctly, the others don't.
Just because something is contained in the apocrypha that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Scripture itself quotes the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Again not everything Jesus and the apostles taught were contained in scripture, scripture also testifies to this in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and John the Evangelist said at the end of his gospel that if everything Jesus said or did was written down it would fill many books. Both the Ethiopian and Indian churches, which were severed from the Catholic church fairly early, have also retained the correct teachings of the apostles about the veneration and intercession of Mary.
@@BlairGordon-g8c what is the Greek word for veneration and is that word used in the Old and New Testament?
1. Two Paths Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition by Michael Whelton
2. The way of the Pilgrim translated by Olga Savin
3. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought by John Meyendorff (been borrowing this book for about a year now it's a big read ahaha)
👋😊
Serious question, but to be fair, if someone should be open to other interpretations of the Bible, should that include reading books from the Watchtower written by Jehovah’s Witnesses? They have numerous books on numerous Bible topics. What about Joyce Meyer? Or Benny Hinn? Is it a good idea to be open to reading books that also don't perfectly fit into a Catholic or Protestant box? If no, what is there to be afraid of in reading them? If yes, how many different views should one be exposed to?
Catholic here. I love some of the ideas behind Anglicanism, but it remains tradition based on the state church/monarchy.
For me there really can be no doubt the Council of Trent got it right on justification though. Justification is something that enfolds all three theological virtues not just someone’s attempt to reach out and personally appropriate Christ’s righteousness for yourself.
If that’s going to be the bedrock issue I can’t see how others got it right even though they pointed out a lot that was Catholicism at a point
. Thanks for the book recommendations
How to Read the Bible for all It's Worth by Gordon Fee, ESV Bible, Pray the Daily Office in The Book of Common Prayer, Knowing God J.I. Packer, and Creeds Confessions and Catechisms by Chad Van Dixhoorn.
This is a great recommendation. I loved The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware, but then again, Kallistos Ware is just a great writer. I also watched catechism videos by some local Orthodox parishes and this reminded me a lot of what you said about pastor Bob.
You can read every single book that was ever printed supporting either side of the argument, but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of how a person gets to go to Heaven, then that comes down to just one single thing, and that is GRACE! For it is certain that the one thing that all believers can agree on is that we are Saved by Grace. No matter how numerous or colorful the arguments are it ALWAYS comes down to this - Protestants believe that Grace is received the moment a person believes, and that is contrasted against the Catholic belief that Grace can only be received in the Sacraments. That's it. That's what the great divide is all about. So the only book that you need to read in order to solve this matter of life or death is the Bible. More specifically just read Acts chapter 2. You will know the answer beyond a shadow of a doubt after reading just that one chapter.
In Acts chapter 2 we read about the first Christian Pentecost when the first 3000 converts received Grace. Focus on verses 36-42 and most especially on vs. 37-38. This Day is God's Grand Opening of the Church and details how all people for all time are to be saved. God would not have made any mistakes on this most important of all Days in the history of the Church. There is nothing confusing about the events of this day. The Simplicity of the Gospel is more evident in those two verses than anywhere else in the entire Bible. Ask yourself when those 3000 converts received Saving Grace. Was it by "faith alone", or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? A Sacrament is a visible sign given by Christ to give Grace, and Baptism is the first of Seven Sacraments in the Biblical New Covenant Church.
I’m Orthodox, but give me Pastor Bob the tomato any day over priest Larry, the cucumber… just saying.
Somebody please help him find his hair brush!
@@JudoTim3891why? He doesn't have any hair... What's he going to groom?
(This is a tasteless joke and I'm fully aware of it)
@@Krehfish534
Yes sir that’s exactly the point…. I was referencing a song that Larry the cucumber sings.
It's not only tasteless, but statistically untrue.
Can you also do a video on longer books to get the more in depth arguments too! Thanks for this video!
Great suggestion!
I have benefitted a ton from Protestant books. My favorite is the Caae for Christ, Jewish Doctors meet the Great Physician, CS Lewis and others. They affirm and do not contradict my Orthodoxy.
Reading Luther and Calvin might make protestant seekers turn to Rome or Orthodox even more.
It was the opposite for me. I started attending a Presbyterian Church without knowing who Calvin was, but I always heard good and bad things about him. When I started reading what he wrote, everything resolved itself and now i clearly see myself as Reformed. He is an excellent author and theologian.
Started with Luther, read the Fathers, read Catholic apologetes, became fully confirmed that Rome is wrong, EO is incomplete, and Lutheranism is the correct expression of the Western Catholic Church.
You’re ok that Calvin had a man slowly burned to death? Dude was a monster.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 What Protestants do in there buildings is Not worshop
@@elKarlo No he did not kill Servetus, but he denounced him to the authorities in Geneva. But before it, he sent a latter to Servetus warning him not to go to Geneva, otherwise he would have to hand him over. Servetus was considered a heretic and was sought after by various city authorities in Europe and by the Catholic Church. At that time when politics and religion mixed, heresy was a crime.
Reccomendations on Orthodoxy:
The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kalistos Ware
Thinking Orthodox by Jeanie Constanieau
St Paisios of Mt. Athos
Becoming Orthodox (I think this one is Ware as well)
Rock and Sand by Fr. Josiah Trenham
The best of both worlds: the Anglican Communion.
Christ's big tent under one roof.
Lol. Oh gross.....lol
Hum. Have you been to England lately ?
The churches are absolutely empty, and England ranks as top 5 amongst countries with the most atheists.
@@goofygrandlouis6296 The Anglican Communion is worldwide and other lands are certainly vibrant.
Besides, finding a home in Christ's large family doesn't depend on denominational numbers.
It's about finding the people that the Lord wants each of us to be with, to walk in love and good works in our local communities.
I have found many people who formerly attended other denominations that have found a quiet home in the Anglican church.
Just throwing another option out there for believers hungering for a more meaningful liturgical experience.
I sincerely don't see how any book could really help in that kind of discernment. The main problem I have found when trying to learn more about what Protestant churches teach TODAY, especially regarding Christian morality, is that, no matter what denomination we consider (either Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Reform, etc.), you will find that even churches of the same denomination teach quite different or even opposing things. The Catholic and the Orthodox churches are not immune to controversies, but we still find in them unified/official doctrines and teachings on that respect. This is of course an important aspect when considering conversion. BTW, I am not a Catholic anymore and decided not to convert to Orthodoxy.
Love your program I think you would have a very good conversation with David Anders of Call to Communion..
My three are Foxes Book of Martyrs, The Pilgrim’s Progress, by John Bunyan, and THE BLOUDY TENENT OF PERSECUTION Roger Williams
5 Books to Read to be Catholic
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church
2. The Case for Catholicism by Trent Horn
3. The Drama of Salvation by Jimmy Akin
4. The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales
5. The Early Church was the Catholic Church by Joe Heschmeyer
4.
I don't think you really understand what's converts to catholicism go through. You should read G. K. Chesterton on his comments on conversion.
Genuine question for anyone that wants to contribute an answer: do a Christian writer’s personal failings (Karl Barth’s longstanding affair for example) discredit the value of their writings at all? Maybe a similar question would be: can we separate a person’s ideas from the person’s life as a whole?
Matt, the same conundrum has rattled around my brain forever, eg, the scandal that beautiful works of art are painted by a scoundrel. I guess it comes down to the mystery of God. How can a creature question the creator on the worth of His creation?
If their personal failings are at odds with their contribution to the world, yes, their failings are a mar on their legacy. And the significance of that mar will vary from person to person in accordance with their own conviction regarding that failing
I mean I feel like in many ways it depends. I don't think anyone is looking to Ravi Zacharias' wirtings these days (although I couldn't even do that before the scandal broke out). Barth in particular is a pretty difficult case to say because he honestly has inspired a lot of good. While his own ideas can be very messy and open to interpretation later thinkers like Thomas Torrance built on Barth's work and by synthesizing it with the patristics, and a deep love of scripture he was able to craft one of the most robust and beautiful theologies Protestantism can offer. You shall know a good tree by its fruit and Barth does seem to be producing good fruit with people he influenced such as Torrance and even Hans Urs Von Balthasar
Excellent point Austin and I agree as on the flip side as a lifelong cradle Catholic, I've researched Protestantism long and hard and have found nothing worth leaving the Eucharist over!
Yes the Eucharist - the Real Presence of Our Lord! And nothing to leave the most perfect loving Mama Mary either!
I believe that is really the key issue between protestants and Catholics/Orthodoxy... the Eucharist. Those are the only churches that offer the True Presence (body, blood, soul and divinity) of Jesus in communion.
I was raised Catholic but at age 20 started attending non-denominational church. Probably wouldn't have had I really understood the Eucharist and the communion of saints. It's been 45 years and I have only begun to understand these things over the past few years. The one thing I do get weary of is the bashing between the different faith traditions. I'm sure our Lord is not pleased. They will know we are Christians by our love, not our knowledge.
Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy! I will never abandon the Lord in the Eurharist. No Prot crap for me.
Were you given the cup growing up?
@@deedeeunkefer2270why do you accept all your church’s supposed infallible “anathema’s” against people like me who simply trust Christ and attend a non denominational church that looks to Christ and not their pastor for truth and salvation? Why does your church anathematize Hudson Taylor and George Muller and Jonathan Goforth and Amy Carmical and Mary Slessor because they knowingly knew what your church teaches and rejected it and yet God still poured His Spirit out in them snd they were used by God to reach many and see people transformed by Christ? I am over here in India seeing God change people in Christ and they never follow your “necessary “ ritual sacraments? What is your position on these people? You say you hate bashing, but you don't realize that are gaslighting us if you say your church has not bashed us all in their councils. Jan Huss was burnt at the stake at an infallible council of your church. You hate bashing? Why do you tolerate this from your church ?
Light from the Christian East is a great book written by Protestants for Protestants.
This is a great approach to this topic. I’d love to chat sometime (RUclips style)
A psychological analysis of Martin Luther should be part of the exploration. Eric Fromm is the author. I forgot the title.
Of these I’ve only read Luther’s book, and I read it twice: once when I was getting into apologetics and again just now. The first time, I found myself disagreeing with little as far as his presentation of faith and works and faith within the Christian community are concerned (I’m Catholic), and that held for the second reading. A lot of what he concludes, qualified correctly, can be held by a Catholic.
That leads into my issues with the work though. Here are three:
If Luther has the Catholic Church in mind as his interlocutor, he spends much of the work beating up a strawman. Maybe the folk Catholicism of his day was as he presented, but the official teachings align much more closely with his arguments.
He also speaks very generally, so it can be difficult to get a sense of how Luther is using key terms or who he’s writing to/about. There were a few overly-broad statements in particular that I bookmarked on Kindle, and I can share those if requested, but I’m at work, so it’s not a great time to go grab those.
The third is actually the part you mentioned, about Christ giving all of Himself to us as His bride. While I recall agreeing with his conclusion, this is the only passage that made me legitimately angry because he cites Eph 5 as his example. While it’s true that Christ does approach the individual Christian as bridegroom, Ephesians 5 is a metaphor for the sanctifying unity between Christ and His Church, and seeing it pulled out of that context by a man whose work, while well-intentioned, has lead to so much disunity within the Body of Christ just feels gross.
That said, thank you for taking the time to make this, and I do plan on reading the rest of these books!
Became Orthodox! ☦️
✨no✨
Austin, any recommendations for a Catholic thinking about coverting to Protestantism? To be fair, that is.
You just need to read one Catholic book that will destroy Protestantism. It is Francis De Sales' "The Catholic Controversy"
I was received by the Greek Orthodox last year!!! E Panagia Theotoke soson eemas !!!
Very good! Keep up the good work.
So glad you did this.
Want to add:
1. John Webster's Holy Scripture
2. Matthison's Sola Scriptura and Given For You
3. Canon Revisited by Kruger
4. Sean Luke on YT on Sola Apostolica, and Gavin Ortlund on Protestantism on YT
Here's a list to consider before you convert:
For Catholics
1. Doctrinal development on Petrine patriarchal supremacy to infallibility [Unam Sanctum as not catholic tradition]
2. Epistemological self-contradictions in councils/bulls/catholic traditions [Jerome as doctor, except when he’s talking canon; divergences on eucharistic theology prior to Trent]
3. Misunderstanding of the implications of ontology of Scripture [Dei Verbum as insufficient]
4. Misunderstanding of Nicea II relative to iconic practice in early church [Sean/Ortlund]
5. Dogmatizing of Marian devotion/assumption [Sean/ortlund]
For EO
1. Trullo contradicts itself on canonical context [compare affirmation of Laodicea and Carthage, and disagreement on canon lists]
2. Salvation as participation, explicit rejections of Reformed soteriology at Synod of Jerusalem, contradicting the patriarch of *Constantinople (if not a forgery) right before.
For Prots consider that it's possible to be Prot and affirm:
1. I reject radical Solo Scriptura, because of needing some foundation of tradition to derive canonical boundaries normatively [agree with Dyer and others on this critique].
2. I modify with Sean Sola Scriptura to Prima Scriptura as the norming source of apostolic authority within Sola Apostolica/Sola Traditio
3. I think the first seven are binding, insofar as they don’t anathematize or require what’s repugnant to catholicity or I but willingly affirm other post schism sources of secondary authority insofar as they don’t require what’s repugnant to maturity of the apostolic deposit but reflect consistent developments of the rule of faith with what’s been said/practiced before by the church catholic, or mature the deposit in lines consistent with the practices of the early church to preserve the faith once and for all delivered by the saints
4. I think apostolic succession is indeed a catholic and assumed mark of recognizing the visible church normally.
5. Of the communions that exist, right now Anglicans or Lutherans are the ones I’d say maintains that, while Calvinists have great formularies on eucharistic theology and piety
6. For eucharist, seems an altar is normative, and that metaphysically, the church has confessed the goodnesss of creation, and the mysterious hypostatic analogy in the eucharist.
7. I agree that secondary authorities are binding insofar as they express the rule of faith- which requires the use of private judgement, submission to local authorities, personal maturity and righteousness, and a willingness to be teachable by catholic apostolic tradition, in addition to the assumption of the perspicuous nature of Scripture as God’s self-disclosure to be received by individual Christians in the context of worshipping and maturing assemblies of baptized believers. [Baptismal and Apostolic succession, or Apostolic succession in terms of catholicity in confession, visible Western baptisms, and legitimacy of orders/rites].
Hello, I’m a Protestant who has been thinking of converting and after reading through your numbers on the bottom, are you suggesting that Protestant groups other than Anglican and Lutheran aren’t validly Christian?
@@KadenGreen-eg1cz No, just immaturely Christian, and not as clearly visibly communing via the Church. I agree with Sean that the apostolic deposit has two forms, Scripture and tradition, and that the Scripture norms tradition as the aposotlic deposit designed to do so, and with Gavin Ortlund and Webster that the deposit of Scripture is ontologically unique in its place in norming all other real norms. Since the tradition seems to affirm the normalcy/necessity of tracing one's lineage within the apostolic church via a normal tracing of the laying on of hands leading back to the apostoles, both in Scripture (Paul's letters to Timothy, or the necessity of validating Paul's apostleship as grounds for authority over new testament prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:37, alongside the commendation of the Bereans in testing apostolic claims by existing Scripture) and in tradition (Redeemed Zoomer talks about this in a recent video, but apostolic succession as a normed ecclesial assumption for what seems like most of the early church).
With Webster, since the Church is a creature of the Word, and simultaneous the liturgical location wherein we encounter the Word and recognize/verify the Word, of course the Church can exist without an explicit apostolic connection that's clearly traceable (like Antioch within Acts) in a way it can't exist without the Word heard, obeyed, and preserved, but, it's normal practice and I think good order for the church to mature in wanting to be part of the visible apostolic succession line.
It's not of the essence, but it is part of maturing good order, in my opinion.
If you want to remain Protestant then be a fundamentalist. For all they have wrong at least you won’t have to forego your “traditional” values while being a traditional Protestant.
@@kevinmc62false dichotomy. I’m grateful for fundamentalists for being ethically more consistent with Christian doctrine in their everyday love and sexual ethics than many of us too.
@@georgeluke6382 you’re correct. False dichotomy but there is a noticeable shift in the numbers of Lutherans and Anglicans accepting this cultural revolution. I’m a former fundamentalist and it’s not something you see. If they are a fundamentalist and want to be in an open same sex relationship then they leave to become Lutheran, Episcopalian or Methodist. Who is doing the biggest disservice here in their belief system? A fundamentalist with a sexually moral lifestyle partaking of only a purely symbolic Eucharist or one who claims more of a real spiritual or true presence in communion but is in a same sex relationship as accepted by many in these traditional Protestant churches? I guess at the point you openly condone same sex marriages your concern about taking communion in an unworthy manner is a moot point.
I can't help but wonder if the roman catholic zeal for converting potestants is matched by their zeal to seek and save the lost.
well with both protestantism and catholicism they have some truth in it but not full truth
I choose Orthodoxy because its the faith of the apostles and its what Jesus originally taught.
You can even see this in the writtings of the apostolic fathers.
I didnt create the church this is Jesus who created it.
So me saying oh this sounds good or that sounds good is missing the point
I need to abide by Jesus Christ fully so that is why i am Orthodox
God bless you brother nice book !