But we must know that CHRIST build only one church through His Apostle Simon Peter only, not even to His 11 Apostle dare to build their own church and the popes are the successors right from His Apostle Simon Peter. But now there are thousand of people dare to build their own church with their own authority and they were reject and protest against HIS CHURCH. Mathew 10:22 - Jesus told to His 12 Apostle "and you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved". Mathew 12:30 - Jesus said "he who is not with Me is against Me and he who does not gather with Me scatters". Mathew 12:35-36-37 - Jesus said "the good man out of his good treasure bring forth good and evil treasure bring forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgement, men will render account for every careless word they utter, for by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned". Luke 9:25 - Jesus said "for what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?". Luke 10:21 - Jesus rejoiced in the HOLY SPIRIT and said "I thank thee, FATHER, LORD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH that thou hast hidden these things from wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, FATHER, for such was thy gracious will". Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus Christ He prayed for OUR CHURCH which He build through His Apostle Simon Peter only "Simon, Simon, behold, satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again strengthen your brethren". John 5:44 - Jesus warned us "how can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only GOD?". John 7:18 - Jesus said "he who on his own authority seek his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent Him is true and in Him there is no falsehood". John 10:25-26 - Jesus said "I told you and you do not believe. The WORKS that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness to Me; BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO MY SHEEP". John 12:48-49-50 - Jesus said "he who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. FOR I HAVE NOT SPOKEN ON MY OWN AUTHORITY; THE FATHER WHO SENT ME HAS HIMSELF GIVEN ME COMMANDMENT WHAT TO SAY AND WHAT TO SPEAK. And I know that His commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I SAY AS THE FATHER HAS BIDDEN ME". John 21:17 - Jesus said to Simon Peter "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the third time "do you love Me?". And He said to Him "LORD, you know everything; you know that I love you" Jesus said to Peter "FEED MY SHEEP". Mark 13:5-6 - Jesus warned us "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in My name, saying I am he and they will leads many astray". Mark 13:22-23 - Jesus warned us "FALSE CHRISTS AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL ARISE AND SHOW SIGNS AND WONDERS TO LEAD ASTRAY, IF POSSIBLE THE ELECT. BUT TAKE HEED, I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND".
I really enjoyed this. As an Anglican I can really relate with his journey. Many are starting to realize that there is a third way from the RC vs. low church Protestants sides.
@@marymargarette4289same lame story... But but but Jesus only started 1 Roman Catholic church... Its just lame... Thats simply not true in anyway... For 1 THE apostle Paul started more churches then Peter, wrote more of the new testament then Peter, and had to rebuke Peter to his face for hypocrisy.. In revalation there are 7 different churches with different problems... Yet all part of the body of Christ . also using the olivet discourse to try to support the RCC is rediculous. The only reason Catholics latch on to Peter is because they are misinterpreting mathew 16 on purpose...JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK, JESUS IS THE CHEIF CORNER STONE, JESUS IS PERFECT AND SINLESS, JESUS IS GOD. JESUS BUILT THE CHURCH, not Peter the pebble, who is a sinner , who is imperfect and reliant on JESUS for salvation... JESUS is the head of the church , not Peter and definitely no always fallible pope. Now don't get me started on some of the out right blaphamous dogmas of the RCC either.
Fantastic conversation! Javier Perdomo, thank you for these very important videos, you have exposed me to so many great discussions from interesting and well studied witnesses of the gospel. Bless you brother!
Great interview as always. I love listening to Issues Etc and Dr. Park's responses to Roman proof texts there. I'm LCMS, (was WELS for awhile too) but went through this same journey in the early 2000's. I toyed with being Anglican for awhile but found too much disunity there over women's ordination and many other subjects like inerrancy and evolution where I felt the tent had gotten a little too big. I don't judge those in countries like Australia or New Zealand or England where there isn't a confessional Lutheran option who become conservative Anglicans, but here in the USA I found the LCMS to be the best option because it does retain it's catholicity like conservative Anglicans do while also providing a little more theological muscle and precision which is needed in our relativistic age. I do pray Javier that you and your wife find a place to land. It's good you're taking your time and studying it, you're already a believer that's the most important thing. I hope you land in the LCMS (you'd make a good pastor) but I won't try to pressure you on that. You're already are doing your due diligence in studying the various traditions. Regardless of where you end up I hope you keep doing this channel, it's much needed. I've thought of offering to be interviewed, but I'm not as articulate as your guests. Just a layman who has never made a video in his life, so I'm not sure if I'd make a good guest. I have been on this journey though and much of this resonates with me deeply. I will have to pray on whether to reach out to you on the matter.
Wow, what an amazing interview! This is definitely my favorite video on the channel thus far. Dr. Parks’ background, being confronted with Catholic claims, deep dive into Reformation teaching, conversion to Lutheranism, and his subsequent credentials and ministry is truly astounding. A very thoughtful and thorough man. Thanks, Javier, for hosting this conversation!
Thanks Javier for this in-depth discussion. The Lord's Supper brought me to the Lutheran Church out of an Anabaptist tradition. If more Protestants served the Lord's Supper on a weekly basis with the Preaching of the Word, the Roman Catholic Church would lose members. Its taking God's Word as truth, exactly as He says "This is my Body, this is my Blood" and leave it at that. It is as Christ Jesus says. When we try to explain it beyond what He says, our finite minds get into trouble. Stop starving the faith with only monthly or longer with administrating the Lord's Supper.
I was very in love with the romance of prereformation theology. It all changed with the classes they make you attend. I was told that we sin we don't feel Worthy to go before Jesus for forgiveness that Mary intercedes on our behalf. I couldn't get on board.
@@aspengaldamez3352 at the end of the day you have to pay attention to how people are living out the faith regardless of poor theology I don't believe I need any Saints to intercede for me my mom is a Catholic and my dad is orthodox and I still have icon since I was a little girl I have no problem with praying and asking the Saints to intercede for us and having icons of Jesus that I kiss. But both the Catholic and Orthodox Church have made Mary far bigger than she should be there is no denying this at the end of the day I would rather be Protestant and ask Saint Raphael to intercede for me if need be I need Jesus to be first place not Mary not any saint
I enjoyed very much this conversation with rev.Parks. I agree with overall assessment of the RC. One area I woud disagree is his assertion that unless you totally agree you should not be in communion with one another. But that is not taking Unity serious enough. I am not saying that we can just “paper over it”. I do believe having a similar liturgy, The creed, and sharing in the Eucharist is a means of being unity inspite of differences. Differences do not have be synonymous with division. This would be a difference between an Anglican and Confessional Lutheran approach.
Thx for doing this video. I've listened to Dr Parks on Issues Etc. I think it would be cool if one of you guys sat down with a Catholic apologist like Joe Heschmeyer and had a dialogue rather than just talking about him amongst yourselves or whatever. Dr Jordan Cooper did this with Jimmy Akin and I found it productive and in keeping with Christian charity. I definitely have my personal bias as a former Lutheran and current Catholic but I don't feel as though anyone on either side of these ongoing debates is just some "bad actor." Sometimes this "competitive sectarian Christianity" is just confusing and we could use more dialogue.
Hello there, I'm a Trinitarian Pentecostal myself (Assemblies of God) and when I hear any Romish bloke who claims so confidently that "all" Protestants believe this one or that one, I know he's doing a caricature and misleading good meaning folks. For example when they accuse us of "Nestorianism", they should know that Protestants like Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed do not hold to that. I, for one, despite not belonging to any of these classical Protestants, reject Nestorianism acknowledging that Mary, the Blessed Virgin is the Theotokos. It is also disappointing that they even accuse us of "Montanism", again, not practiced by classical Protestants but I do have the feeling this is directed towards Charismatics and Pentecostals, which still is a caricature, as a Pentecostal, while we may be known for everything concerning the Holy Ghost, we however, unlike Montanists, do not place direct revelations above the Word of God, we subject them to and judge them by Scripture before accepting them as from the Holy Ghost. Thank you for your patience and God bless you
@@georgepierson4920The problem is that we would all be Catholic if the RCC's unbiblical dogmas were not forced upon people.. Yes unbiblical dogmas.... The RCC went off the rails, and if they were not going off the rails with unbiblical things like indulgences to name 1 there wouldn't of had to be a reformation. This division is ultimately the RCC's fault... In the book of revelation their are 7 different churches with 7 different problems, but all were part of Christ's body... None of those churches were the RCC either. There is 1 invisible church and JESUS CHRIST himself is the head, with many visible earthly institutions... Yet still one true church... That is definitely not only the RCC .... The real church is bigger then just Rome. Always has been and always will. JESUS is bigger and saves people all over the world without the help of the RCC...
@@jmh7977 I happened to befriend two eminent Lutheran theologians who became Catholic - Reinhard Huetter, now serving on the International Theological Commission, and Michael Root, formerly one of the Lutheran experts who worked on the celebrated Joint Declaration.
There is some serious confusion on the nature of the magisterium in this discussion, especially surrounding ideas of infallibility and the living magisterium vs. Tradition. Plenty of good questions were asked, but the actual viewpoints of the Catholic Church on how the magisterium works, levels of authority, nature of infallibility, etc. were not presented as answers to these questions. Micheal Lofton's Reason and Theology RUclips channel is one of the better places to get overviews on these topics. Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium from Vatican II are a good written primers on the nature of the magisterium and DONUM VERITATIS is a good primer on levels of authority. For a deeper dive, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser or books by Dr. John Joy are good resources, as well. There are, of course, many, many others out there. God bless!
I listened to the whole conversation. Very enjoyable. However, I was kind of disappointed that literally 97% of the time was used to make a negative argument (Rome has the same or even more problems than we do) and literally 5 minutes were dedicated to cover a positive argument for Lutheranism. The quick 4 reasons given for Lutheranism were: 1. It tries to be biblical (who doesn’t?) 2. It’s gospel centered (who isn’t?) 3. It’s confessional (who isn’t?) 4. It’s catholic in the true sense of the word Since the first 3 points can be found easily in Catholicism, the only real differentiation presented seems to be the following: Lutheranism is superior to Catholicism because it’s more faithful to the “purity of the ancient church.” This statement, based on the myth of an “ancient church” that somehow held different beliefs than the Catholic Church, is of course a totally arbitrary, gratuitous, and easily falsifiable claim. What is this “pure ancient church”? Which church fathers adhered to it? When did it stop existing? Who and how perverted it? Which church fathers adhered to a perversion of such a pure church? These are the questions that I would have pressed Reverend to respond to. Because this would expose the total arbitrariness of Lutheranism, as of any other Protestant tradition, deeply rooted in the weakness of “historical retrieval”.
As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that lead me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification through out the different eras of the Church. I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions. After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis) 4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. **I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace". Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification: "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point." (McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.) The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126* These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135* I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186) God bless!
It is sad to know that you left Augsburg Catholicism for Rome. Don't understand how you could suddenly embrace things such as Marian apparitions (Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe etc.), witholding the cup from the laity, celibacy of the priests, the papacy, Mary as the gentle one who has to appease her choleric son not to destroy the world. That is quite shocking to me.
@@Skanderbeg_777 Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, I also found out what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching. It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with an open mind. I then found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching. I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach. God bless!
@@Skanderbeg_777 Hello! Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, it then seemed to me what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching. It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with a much more open mind. I subsequently found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching. I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach. God bless!
@@Skanderbeg_777 Hello! Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, it then seemed to me what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching. It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with a much more open mind. I subsequently found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching. I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach. God bless!
@@Skanderbeg_777 Hello! Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, it then seemed to me what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching. It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with a much more open mind. I subsequently found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching. I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach. God bless!
Following the TULIP Doctrine of Calvin & Co......suppose that YOU two were predestined to damnation? And there wasn't anything you could do about it because it's God's Sovereign Will at work? The first time I ever heard of this fantasy of a diseased mind was in Freshman World History.....the class roared with laughter. The next time was in college in an AP European history class. The last time was when I taught a Comparative Christian Denominations class in college for 20 years.....with guest priests/pastors speaking to the class during the denominations we were studying. Calvin was NEVER anybody's favorite.
@uncatila This is a quote that people love to take out of context. In case you care about the context... 1. A short article addressing this quote: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/08/shocking-beliefs-of-martin-luther-sin.html?m=1 2. Another short article addressing this quote: www.1517.org/articles/sin-boldly 3. Yet another short article addressing this quote: www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-luther-really-tell-us-to-love-god-and-sin-boldly/
I listened to the whole conversation. Very enjoyable. However, I was kind of disappointed that literally 97% of the time was used to make a negative argument (Rome has the same or even more problems than we do) and literally 5 minutes were dedicated to cover a positive argument for Lutheranism. The quick 4 reasons given for Lutheranism were: 1. It tries to be biblical (who doesn’t?) 2. It’s gospel centered (who isn’t?) 3. It’s confessional (who isn’t?) 4. It’s catholic in the true sense of the word Since the first 3 points can be found easily in Catholicism, the only real differentiation presented seems to be the following: Lutheranism is superior to Catholicism because it’s more faithful to the “purity of the ancient church.” This statement, based on the myth of an “ancient church” that somehow held different beliefs than the Catholic Church, is of course a totally arbitrary, gratuitous, and easily falsifiable claim. What is this “pure ancient church”? Which church fathers adhered to it? When did it stop existing? Who and how perverted it? Which church fathers adhered to a perversion of such a pure church? These are the questions that I would have pressed Reverend to respond to. Because this would expose the total arbitrariness of Lutheranism, as of any other Protestant tradition, deeply rooted in the weakness of “historical retrieval”.
Thanks, Javier., for having me on the channel. I enjoyed our discussion.
@@Reformation1580 It was a pleasure having you on the channel, brother 😁
But we must know that CHRIST build only one church through His Apostle Simon Peter only, not even to His 11 Apostle dare to build their own church and the popes are the successors right from His Apostle Simon Peter.
But now there are thousand of people dare to build their own church with their own authority and they were reject and protest against HIS CHURCH.
Mathew 10:22 - Jesus told to His 12 Apostle "and you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved".
Mathew 12:30 - Jesus said "he who is not with Me is against Me and he who does not gather with Me scatters".
Mathew 12:35-36-37 - Jesus said "the good man out of his good treasure bring forth good and evil treasure bring forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgement, men will render account for every careless word they utter, for by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned".
Luke 9:25 - Jesus said "for what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?".
Luke 10:21 - Jesus rejoiced in the HOLY SPIRIT and said "I thank thee, FATHER, LORD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH that thou hast hidden these things from wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, FATHER, for such was thy gracious will".
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus Christ He prayed for OUR CHURCH which He build through His Apostle Simon Peter only "Simon, Simon, behold, satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again strengthen your brethren".
John 5:44 - Jesus warned us "how can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only GOD?".
John 7:18 - Jesus said "he who on his own authority seek his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent Him is true and in Him there is no falsehood".
John 10:25-26 - Jesus said "I told you and you do not believe. The WORKS that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness to Me; BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO MY SHEEP".
John 12:48-49-50 - Jesus said "he who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. FOR I HAVE NOT SPOKEN ON MY OWN AUTHORITY; THE FATHER WHO SENT ME HAS HIMSELF GIVEN ME COMMANDMENT WHAT TO SAY AND WHAT TO SPEAK. And I know that His commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I SAY AS THE FATHER HAS BIDDEN ME".
John 21:17 - Jesus said to Simon Peter "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the third time "do you love Me?". And He said to Him "LORD, you know everything; you know that I love you" Jesus said to Peter "FEED MY SHEEP".
Mark 13:5-6 - Jesus warned us "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in My name, saying I am he and they will leads many astray".
Mark 13:22-23 - Jesus warned us "FALSE CHRISTS AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL ARISE AND SHOW SIGNS AND WONDERS TO LEAD ASTRAY, IF POSSIBLE THE ELECT. BUT TAKE HEED, I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND".
I really enjoyed this. As an Anglican I can really relate with his journey. Many are starting to realize that there is a third way from the RC vs. low church Protestants sides.
@@marymargarette4289what
@@marymargarette4289same lame story... But but but Jesus only started 1 Roman Catholic church... Its just lame... Thats simply not true in anyway... For 1 THE apostle Paul started more churches then Peter, wrote more of the new testament then Peter, and had to rebuke Peter to his face for hypocrisy.. In revalation there are 7 different churches with different problems... Yet all part of the body of Christ . also using the olivet discourse to try to support the RCC is rediculous. The only reason Catholics latch on to Peter is because they are misinterpreting mathew 16 on purpose...JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK, JESUS IS THE CHEIF CORNER STONE, JESUS IS PERFECT AND SINLESS, JESUS IS GOD. JESUS BUILT THE CHURCH, not Peter the pebble, who is a sinner , who is imperfect and reliant on JESUS for salvation... JESUS is the head of the church , not Peter and definitely no always fallible pope. Now don't get me started on some of the out right blaphamous dogmas of the RCC either.
This was great. Dr. Parks is extremely knowledgeable and I found this very enlightening. I’m looking forward to watching the second video with him.
A very helpful discussion that cut through the Catholic Answers apologetic to get at reality.
Fantastic conversation! Javier Perdomo, thank you for these very important videos, you have exposed me to so many great discussions from interesting and well studied witnesses of the gospel. Bless you brother!
@brianwhite8735 Thank you for the words of encouragement. I'm happy to hear the videos have been a blessing 🙂
Great interview as always. I love listening to Issues Etc and Dr. Park's responses to Roman proof texts there. I'm LCMS, (was WELS for awhile too) but went through this same journey in the early 2000's. I toyed with being Anglican for awhile but found too much disunity there over women's ordination and many other subjects like inerrancy and evolution where I felt the tent had gotten a little too big. I don't judge those in countries like Australia or New Zealand or England where there isn't a confessional Lutheran option who become conservative Anglicans, but here in the USA I found the LCMS to be the best option because it does retain it's catholicity like conservative Anglicans do while also providing a little more theological muscle and precision which is needed in our relativistic age. I do pray Javier that you and your wife find a place to land. It's good you're taking your time and studying it, you're already a believer that's the most important thing. I hope you land in the LCMS (you'd make a good pastor) but I won't try to pressure you on that. You're already are doing your due diligence in studying the various traditions. Regardless of where you end up I hope you keep doing this channel, it's much needed. I've thought of offering to be interviewed, but I'm not as articulate as your guests. Just a layman who has never made a video in his life, so I'm not sure if I'd make a good guest. I have been on this journey though and much of this resonates with me deeply. I will have to pray on whether to reach out to you on the matter.
Im bias. Im a LCMS member but this is only second to Rev Murphy episode. Rev Parks was a great blessing.
Javier turning lutheran any time now 😄🦬😎
Great episode! Glad you had Rev. Parks on your show.
Dr. Parks is a gem! Great interview!
Wow, what an amazing interview! This is definitely my favorite video on the channel thus far. Dr. Parks’ background, being confronted with Catholic claims, deep dive into Reformation teaching, conversion to Lutheranism, and his subsequent credentials and ministry is truly astounding. A very thoughtful and thorough man. Thanks, Javier, for hosting this conversation!
@@Steadfast-Lutheran Thank you for the encouraging comment! I'm glad you enjoyed the episode 🙂
Great interview.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Thank you! Your own videos on your channel on why you left Rome and the East are great also 😁
This was SUCH a great video!
LCMS and WELS schism should be healed as soon as possible!
We want to all to be at the Lord’s table as Brothers and Sisters!
Pray for Christian Unity!
Typical Protestant behavior constant schism over dumb stuff. Join the one true Church
Thanks Javier for this in-depth discussion. The Lord's Supper brought me to the Lutheran Church out of an Anabaptist tradition. If more Protestants served the Lord's Supper on a weekly basis with the Preaching of the Word, the Roman Catholic Church would lose members. Its taking God's Word as truth, exactly as He says "This is my Body, this is my Blood" and leave it at that. It is as Christ Jesus says. When we try to explain it beyond what He says, our finite minds get into trouble. Stop starving the faith with only monthly or longer with administrating the Lord's Supper.
I was very in love with the romance of prereformation theology. It all changed with the classes they make you attend. I was told that we sin we don't feel Worthy to go before Jesus for forgiveness that Mary intercedes on our behalf. I couldn't get on board.
Im sorry if this is what you were taught that is poor theology that does not align with Roman Catholicism
@@aspengaldamez3352 at the end of the day you have to pay attention to how people are living out the faith regardless of poor theology I don't believe I need any Saints to intercede for me my mom is a Catholic and my dad is orthodox and I still have icon since I was a little girl I have no problem with praying and asking the Saints to intercede for us and having icons of Jesus that I kiss. But both the Catholic and Orthodox Church have made Mary far bigger than she should be there is no denying this at the end of the day I would rather be Protestant and ask Saint Raphael to intercede for me if need be I need Jesus to be first place not Mary not any saint
@@OilofmercyJesus, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is first place in Catholicism.
@@Oilofmercy typical protestant that doesn't understand the grand importance of the Blessed Virgin
One of your best guests so far!
@@julesgomes2922 I agree!
Excelente
I really like this interviewee, he was great.
JAVIER THE BRO
I enjoyed very much this conversation with rev.Parks. I agree with overall assessment of the RC. One area I woud disagree is his assertion that unless you totally agree you should not be in communion with one another. But that is not taking
Unity serious enough. I am not saying that we can just “paper over it”. I do believe having a similar liturgy,
The creed, and sharing in the Eucharist is a means of being unity inspite of differences.
Differences do not have be synonymous with division.
This would be a difference between an Anglican and Confessional Lutheran approach.
Thx for doing this video. I've listened to Dr Parks on Issues Etc. I think it would be cool if one of you guys sat down with a Catholic apologist like Joe Heschmeyer and had a dialogue rather than just talking about him amongst yourselves or whatever. Dr Jordan Cooper did this with Jimmy Akin and I found it productive and in keeping with Christian charity. I definitely have my personal bias as a former Lutheran and current Catholic but I don't feel as though anyone on either side of these ongoing debates is just some "bad actor." Sometimes this "competitive sectarian Christianity" is just confusing and we could use more dialogue.
If you don't look into this video, you will go to hell.
Hello there,
I'm a Trinitarian Pentecostal myself (Assemblies of God) and when I hear any Romish bloke who claims so confidently that "all" Protestants believe this one or that one, I know he's doing a caricature and misleading good meaning folks. For example when they accuse us of "Nestorianism", they should know that Protestants like Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed do not hold to that. I, for one, despite not belonging to any of these classical Protestants, reject Nestorianism acknowledging that Mary, the Blessed Virgin is the Theotokos. It is also disappointing that they even accuse us of "Montanism", again, not practiced by classical Protestants but I do have the feeling this is directed towards Charismatics and Pentecostals, which still is a caricature, as a Pentecostal, while we may be known for everything concerning the Holy Ghost, we however, unlike Montanists, do not place direct revelations above the Word of God, we subject them to and judge them by Scripture before accepting them as from the Holy Ghost.
Thank you for your patience and God bless you
Funny how you Protestants have no problem lying about us Catholics, but get butthurt when anybody says anything about you.
@@georgepierson4920The problem is that we would all be Catholic if the RCC's unbiblical dogmas were not forced upon people.. Yes unbiblical dogmas.... The RCC went off the rails, and if they were not going off the rails with unbiblical things like indulgences to name 1 there wouldn't of had to be a reformation. This division is ultimately the RCC's fault... In the book of revelation their are 7 different churches with 7 different problems, but all were part of Christ's body... None of those churches were the RCC either. There is 1 invisible church and JESUS CHRIST himself is the head, with many visible earthly institutions... Yet still one true church... That is definitely not only the RCC .... The real church is bigger then just Rome. Always has been and always will. JESUS is bigger and saves people all over the world without the help of the RCC...
As an ex-Lutheran, becoming Catholic was one of the best decisions I’ve made 🇻🇦
Oof. Many are enticed and enthralled by paper tigers. What a colossal downgrade.
@@jmh7977 I happened to befriend two eminent Lutheran theologians who became Catholic - Reinhard Huetter, now serving on the International Theological Commission, and Michael Root, formerly one of the Lutheran experts who worked on the celebrated Joint Declaration.
@@jmh7977 “Paper tigers” bro what are you yapping about 😭
Burger King or McDonald's
Just converted to Rome because of this comment. Woohoo!
There is some serious confusion on the nature of the magisterium in this discussion, especially surrounding ideas of infallibility and the living magisterium vs. Tradition. Plenty of good questions were asked, but the actual viewpoints of the Catholic Church on how the magisterium works, levels of authority, nature of infallibility, etc. were not presented as answers to these questions.
Micheal Lofton's Reason and Theology RUclips channel is one of the better places to get overviews on these topics. Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium from Vatican II are a good written primers on the nature of the magisterium and DONUM VERITATIS is a good primer on levels of authority.
For a deeper dive, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser or books by Dr. John Joy are good resources, as well. There are, of course, many, many others out there.
God bless!
I listened to the whole conversation. Very enjoyable.
However, I was kind of disappointed that literally 97% of the time was used to make a negative argument (Rome has the same or even more problems than we do) and literally 5 minutes were dedicated to cover a positive argument for Lutheranism.
The quick 4 reasons given for Lutheranism were:
1. It tries to be biblical (who doesn’t?)
2. It’s gospel centered (who isn’t?)
3. It’s confessional (who isn’t?)
4. It’s catholic in the true sense of the word
Since the first 3 points can be found easily in Catholicism, the only real differentiation presented seems to be the following:
Lutheranism is superior to Catholicism because it’s more faithful to the “purity of the ancient church.”
This statement, based on the myth of an “ancient church” that somehow held different beliefs than the Catholic Church, is of course a totally arbitrary, gratuitous, and easily falsifiable claim.
What is this “pure ancient church”? Which church fathers adhered to it? When did it stop existing? Who and how perverted it? Which church fathers adhered to a perversion of such a pure church?
These are the questions that I would have pressed Reverend to respond to. Because this would expose the total arbitrariness of Lutheranism, as of any other Protestant tradition, deeply rooted in the weakness of “historical retrieval”.
You listened, but you didn’t hear.
As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that lead me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification through out the different eras of the Church.
I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions.
After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories:
1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis)
4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.
**I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace".
Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification:
"A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point."
(McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.)
The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126*
These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on .
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct.
Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135*
I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him.
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186)
God bless!
It is sad to know that you left Augsburg Catholicism for Rome. Don't understand how you could suddenly embrace things such as Marian apparitions (Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe etc.), witholding the cup from the laity, celibacy of the priests, the papacy, Mary as the gentle one who has to appease her choleric son not to destroy the world. That is quite shocking to me.
@@Skanderbeg_777 Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, I also found out what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching.
It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with an open mind. I then found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching.
I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach.
God bless!
@@Skanderbeg_777 Hello! Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, it then seemed to me what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching.
It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with a much more open mind. I subsequently found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching.
I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach.
God bless!
@@Skanderbeg_777 Hello! Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, it then seemed to me what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching.
It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with a much more open mind. I subsequently found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching.
I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach.
God bless!
@@Skanderbeg_777 Hello! Once I found out what Lutherans said the Catholic Church officially taught about justification was wrong and they were gravely mistaken saying Rome taught works righteousness, it made me want to find out what the Church actually teaches. I then found out in my research that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification is very biblical, rational, and historical. Unfortunately, it then seemed to me what Lutherans taught, while on a surface level seemed biblical and rational, was in fact a theological novum and does not explain the totality of scripture as well as Catholic teaching.
It then made it possible for me to approach all the other topics you mention with a much more open mind. I subsequently found that everything the Church teaches has very reasonable explanations and many biblical reasons to back up their teaching.
I pray that more Protestants will look at Rome's teaching with an open mind as they will likely find many things they think the Church teaches is not at all what they actual teach.
God bless!
Following the TULIP Doctrine of Calvin & Co......suppose that YOU two were predestined to damnation? And there wasn't anything
you could do about it because it's God's Sovereign Will at work? The first time I ever heard of this fantasy of a diseased mind was
in Freshman World History.....the class roared with laughter. The next time was in college in an AP European history class.
The last time was when I taught a Comparative Christian Denominations class in college for 20 years.....with guest priests/pastors
speaking to the class during the denominations we were studying. Calvin was NEVER anybody's favorite.
oops, I guess you don't want the true 7 sacraments?
You did it Joe
@garyworth6046 The live premiere hasn't even finished its run-time, and you're commenting this.
Bad faith, much? Lol
@@javierperd2604 True, not over, but it is a bit much.
@@garyworth6046when did seven sacraments become official number in the Catholic Church?
Listen to truth unites Dr. Ortlund video on 7 Sacraments.
i can't give up tbat good old luther galon of wine each day. "sin boldly"
@uncatila This is a quote that people love to take out of context.
In case you care about the context...
1. A short article addressing this quote: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/08/shocking-beliefs-of-martin-luther-sin.html?m=1
2. Another short article addressing this quote: www.1517.org/articles/sin-boldly
3. Yet another short article addressing this quote: www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-luther-really-tell-us-to-love-god-and-sin-boldly/
I listened to the whole conversation. Very enjoyable.
However, I was kind of disappointed that literally 97% of the time was used to make a negative argument (Rome has the same or even more problems than we do) and literally 5 minutes were dedicated to cover a positive argument for Lutheranism.
The quick 4 reasons given for Lutheranism were:
1. It tries to be biblical (who doesn’t?)
2. It’s gospel centered (who isn’t?)
3. It’s confessional (who isn’t?)
4. It’s catholic in the true sense of the word
Since the first 3 points can be found easily in Catholicism, the only real differentiation presented seems to be the following:
Lutheranism is superior to Catholicism because it’s more faithful to the “purity of the ancient church.”
This statement, based on the myth of an “ancient church” that somehow held different beliefs than the Catholic Church, is of course a totally arbitrary, gratuitous, and easily falsifiable claim.
What is this “pure ancient church”? Which church fathers adhered to it? When did it stop existing? Who and how perverted it? Which church fathers adhered to a perversion of such a pure church?
These are the questions that I would have pressed Reverend to respond to. Because this would expose the total arbitrariness of Lutheranism, as of any other Protestant tradition, deeply rooted in the weakness of “historical retrieval”.