I have been looking into catholicism and considering converting, and after asking a question on Catholic answers, they offered to send me a book on the pre-nicean church fathers. (What a kind gesture from them ❤) Pray for me that I may come to the truth on the matter.
I was born and raised Protestant and looked into Catholicism in 2019. I discovered the fullness of the Catholic faith that just doesn’t exist in Protestantism. John 6:53 and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was the final thing that clinched it for me . I’ll pray for you. 🙏 ⛪️
I love how you and Catholic Answers do this certain tactic for your videos. The full interview/video and then have great short clips that address specific topics from the full video.
I was taught by Dominican sisters in the 1960s. We learned all these truths. Why did our Protestant brothers and sisters not know these things? We were taught the Bible and church history front to back. I am so grateful to these good sisters!
Agreed. Its a great shame that not enough Christians are educated on church history and the church fathers. Im grateful I have the resources that I do in order to learn these things. God bless ✝️
@@Apostola33 Reading one part of church history to cherry-pick and sanction false dogma . When other parts of history do not paint such a Rosie picture. John Foxe's book of Martyrs does paint a Christianity that does not resemble the teaching of Jesus Christ or the apostles. That evidence is irrefutable on so many levels. That brings into question what the truth the CC seems so desperate to subjugate people to with false claims of Christian Truth.
@UCMLza8LXUyvw5XFreTaUSWg Do you think when people read the church fathers they only take one of their interpretations or understandings of Christianity and just go with it? No! That would be stupid! The whole point of reading the Church Fathers is that it is the Church Fathers with an S, not the Church Father. The whole reason why you would study them is to get a FEEL of how they understood Christianity in its beginnings, not to cherry pick 1 person’s erroneous understanding and then to call everyone back then invalid. You don’t get Dogma in the Catholic Christian faith from just one person’s understanding, rather, many people’s understandings in conjunction, and through Ecumenical Councils. It’s also really important to trust the successors of the apostles, because Jesus specifically gave the Apostles special graces to be able to uphold, defend, and spread proper church teaching throughout time. Sorry if I came off kind of harsh, I really just want you to understand that early church tradition is what has made Christianity what it is today, regardless of denomination. God bless you
A few years ago, I read Dennis Prager’s Bible commentaries of Genesis and Exodus. Then in Sunday School we were covering the Church Fathers and seeing videos shot in Israel with explanations of Jewish culture and habits in ancient times. I kept telling the Sunday School class about all the echos I was hearing in the New Testament of things I had read in the Old Testament. It was exciting to hear Dr. Hahn having similar discoveries!
@@NuanceOverDogmaI find that a lot of Protestants just blurt out these rude statements not out of ill intent but out of fear because deep in their heart, they know there is something missing anytime they go to a Protestant church. (I should know, I used to be Protestant for 5 years). And they genuinely do not want to commit idolatry but come to find out (myself included) I didn’t even know what idolatry truly was. I didn’t even know what worship truly is. Did you know to worship something/someone requires to sacrifice something to them ? We don’t do that for Mary or any Saint. If you attend our mass, the priest and the music actually rarely even mentions Mary and the saints. Cause the whole focus is Jesus Christ. I recommend checking out a traditional Latin mass if you ever check it out. I think people need to understand the difference between devotion and worship. Worship: The term “worship” in its Catholic etymology is derived from the Old English word “weorþscipe,” which combines “worth” and “ship,” indicating the worthiness or honor due to God alone. In Catholic theology, worship is the highest form of reverence, adoration, and homage given to God, acknowledging God’s supreme worth, majesty, and glory. It involves acts of praise, thanksgiving, and obedience offered to God alone, recognizing God’s greatness and sovereignty over all creation. Devotion: The term “devotion” in its Catholic etymology is derived from the Latin word “devotio,” which signifies profound dedication or commitment. In Catholic spirituality, devotion refers to the personal or communal expression of love, reverence, and loyalty towards God, Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the saints. It involves cultivating a deep relationship with holy figures through prayer, meditation, study, and imitation of their virtues, seeking their intercession and guidance in one’s spiritual life. Devotion reflects a heartfelt commitment to living out one’s faith and growing in holiness. You can be devoted to the Virgin Mary and saints in a similar way a husband would be devoted to his wife and vice versa. Is that to worship your spouse? No. I get where you’re coming from brother. And you don’t have to take my advice. You’re your own man, but it’s wise to research the problems you have with Catholicism from a Catholic perspective in order to better understand why they do the things we do. Pray for God to protect you if you are worried that you will fall into idolatry (I prayed that before I found out enough about Catholicism to know it wasn’t idol worship). If you really have faith in God, take a leap of faith and ask yourself “how has this religion lasted for 2,000 years? My denomination existed for a max of 500 years, so how did they follow God before that?” I found you can even start out with simply looking at the relationship between Christ and his Church and then A husband and his wife. You will find Protestantism as a whole doesn’t TRULY believe the man is the head of the home. It’s been infiltrated by feminism for the most part. (I have a friend who’s Protestant but he doesn’t believe in the feminism crap as well). Traditional Catholicism as a whole knows feminism is wrong, there’s still pockets of it in Catholicism but that’s just satan being satan. There’s going to be wolves in sheep’s clothing. But even then there’s still wrong theology my friend holds, and I’m not saying in any way I’m somehow better, believe me I know I’m not. He’s actually quite smarter than me. But not all ideas are equal and not all religions are equal. Therefore not all denominations are equal. You can’t put your identity in your denomination but be objective in pursuing the truth. Catholicism is the truth. Everybody is equal yes, but there is a hierarchy in terms of order. God is a man, he is masculine, which is why we call him Father. Masculinity embodies order. Order involves hierarchy. God appointed Moses, Aaron and the levites in a hierarchical order that resembles the New Testament priesthood as Catholicism has had and still has. Jesus never abolished the law. He just fulfilled it. So the priesthood wouldn’t be disregarded. Just the way they operate is a bit different. Lastly, again I say you can arrive at these conclusions by looking at traditionally how a man is the leader of the home. As Christ is the head of his church. You only really find that fully in Catholicism. Cause even when it comes to the pope, he isn’t perfect but it’s the hierarchical structure Jesus put in place. And what does the Bible say when a husband is disobedient to the word that a wife should do? Peter 3:1-2, which states: “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.” (1 Peter 3:1-2, NIV) This is the same thing for the pope. He’s the leader of the church on earth. Christ is the ultimate Head ofcourse. But if the Pope were to be disobedient, we as a church submit to him still (that doesn’t mean follow him to sin if he’s trying to lead us to sin) but it means to respect the authority He has because God appointed him there. The same way you would still want to be respected and honored by your wife if you were disobedient is the same thing. Because God appointed you there. God bless, hope this helps
Agree. People are not aware that the Saints that wrote the New Testament only knew the Old Testament in their lifetime that is why it’s called Typology.
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
Very thankful for SH. However, I am an evangelical Anglican priest and can say that I definitely was taught the richness of typology whilst at theological college. My sermon last Sunday included the typology of Jesus and Moses. Jesus is king 🙌✝️🙌
Christ picked 12 men. Reading the Bible by yourself is dangerous according to the Bible. “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16
12 men… not 266 Popes. Joshua 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous.
What 12 princes are you referring to that Moses chose? In context of being at Mt Sinai he only chose 70 men thereafter after called the elders of Israel He also brought the 70 elders and Joshua with him on the mountain not just Aaron and his two sons.
One question no one ever answers for me is if being Catholic is heretical or at last bad theology, then why would The Father allow it to exist for thousand years, make it the ruling church for centuries just to say sorry you are going to hell for idolatry etc? Doesn't make sense. I'm protestant and have been stepping closer to joining the Catholic church or at least Orthodox. Someone please answer..
Because the same would apply to every religion, muslims for instance. They have been around 1400 years why would God leave them worship a false God, it must be true using this logic. Bottom line is, jesus needed history to affirm who he was. OT was needed to prove jesus lineage and prophecy fulfilment. Where is the protestant history to prove who they are?
@@justanotheryoutubewarrior8396 but it literally couldn't exist without catholicism... Catholic monks are the ones that made copies of the bible. The Protestant Bible even still had all of the books in it until 1528 when they removed some.
My most serious objection to the necessity of the so called 'apostlic fathers' is summed up the the definitive book 'The earth Christian Fathers' By the renouned theological scholar Henry bettenson ( 1908-1979 ) He sums up his intro "It is a period in which the church is seen defending and explaining its teaching and practice...Coming to terms for good, it maybe, for bad with its environment in the world. working out the implications of the apostolic faith and devotion and translating the faith in the language of HELLENISTIC THOUGHT and consolidating its organisation and its forms of worship." ( Part of intro page 1) What would Paul have thought? ( Col 2:8 )
Almost any Catholic would hold the Protestant in high regard for their knowledge of the bible, quoting chapter and verse. Their apologetics are well practiced. And they MUST be considered our brothers and sisters in Christ. But to deny the validity of the Eucharist, the tradition of prayer, the spiritual richness of the Apostasy of the Catholic Church, this would be bordering on heresy. These are irrefutable components of Christ's presence, the avenues of our saving grace.
I like going back to the early church fathers, they are the closest link to the origin of Catholicism and the life of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Because people that are just born now only have the Bible as reference for what they know. They don’t know to look at from 2000 years ago, patristics or from the Apostles. They don’t even know that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church 300 years after Jesus has died and resurrected. They don’t know those writings existed.
@YAJUN YUAN Or maybe he had to deal with this accusation so many times from our Protestant brothers that he slip. Who knows? Hehehe. God bless Dr Hahn for his rich and faithful ministry!
I am a member of the Methodist Church. I am in college majoring in Biblical studies. I have begun to understand that the more I learn, the more I am drawn to Catholicism. I agree with the Catholic Church, I just don't agree with their lack of ownership when it comes to abusive priests and clergy.
The Church is for the poor and sick. We are all sick of sin. As a member of the Church, we are encourage to pray and live in one mind and one heart intent upon God. 🙏🙏🙏
The writings of/about the biblical 'Church fathers' Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Titus, Philemon, James, Paul, Timothy, or Jude do/will help anyone to become Born-Again.
I have a question..... it's pretty obvious that Dr. Hahn is very smart. People like him and people like Jimmy Akin. What is the difference between them and people like Dr. Gavin Ortlund. Dr. Ortlund has also studied the fathers just like Hahn and Akin. Why isn't Ortlund a catholic?
Gavin Ortland studies the Fathers in the same way that a Catholic would study Protestant scholars. He may gain some insights from them, but he doesn't really care about following the same faith as them. He will cherry pick this insight, that doctrine, blend them together for his own thing. Consider, for example, what he says about Baptismal Regeneration. Essentially, he doesn't dispute that this was essentially the universal belief of every single early Christian that speaks of it, and he doesn't care, he doesn't believe it, and comes up with reasons for what he believes an erroneous belief became so pervasive. To him, it's like a Catholic noting that all the early Reformers believed in Sola Scriptura. Or when he was disputing clerical hierarchy. He basically read every pre-Nicene father that mentions this as ambiguously as he could, then when he gets to St. Ignatius, who he can't do that with, he says "Well that's just one guy." Then he says "There was no agreed upon clerical structure," with the implication that it can be what he wants, even though none of them spoke of congregationalism which he, a Baptist, holds. Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to he Protestant. That's not quite true. When deep in history, you have one of three options: 1) cease to be Protestant 2) affirm a Great Apostasy, which occured almost immediately 3) Obfuscate and relativize everything, then say you can do what you want with what you've obfuscated. But if you want the faith of the Fathers, the best a Protestant can do is become Anglican, and even that has its challenges.
It what you don't see sometime which open your mind. Just to give you something else to think about you could Google . The project Gutenberg from the first century till 1830. that a spoiler alert. Why there is a why.
I think a bigger thing then theology is actually the "form" of worship. Catholic faith is very "traditional" and quite rigid and fixed in what's allowed. It really models everything on the fathers.This has both strengths (preventing rogue churches that go off the rails) and keeping a safe doctrine but also negatives. It restricts leaders from doing many many things that would help to make the practice of faith more engaging and relevant to younger audiences. I'm part of a Catholic parish at the moment which is really studying what Protestant evangelical churches have done to be effective in reaching younger audiences and trying to learn from and encorporate some of that. We even have a school and church called "Unity" which is collaboration co-run by Catholic and Protestant (Uniting) church together. They hold school masses which are co presided by our Catholic priest and Protestant pasture. My prayer is for less division and fighting on denomination lines and more unity fraternity friendship and love between denominations. One faith with a unity of purpose but a diversity of expression. Both sides have strengths and weakness and much to learn from each other
@@David-_-_- That is a sellout, sounds OK but manmade religions have a way of doing that. Too many people were shoved into bonfires by the CC to defend it Dogma proves the foundation is and was false.
Ortlund is so shockingly wrong about the Church Fathers. NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS. I suggest watching Willian Albrechts responses to him, Ortlund is either the most biased person ever or a liar. He even ended up quoting from some antitrinitarian mormon website as a supposed scholarly authority. Or he claimed that St. Augustine didnt believe in ecumenical councils, what an embarrassment.
Here one of many Early Church Fathers writings And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
Doctrine obviously matters but I think a bigger thing is to observe how much of the teaching a church is "living". Are they loving each other, serving and helping the community, discipling people and perhaps even bigger is there any evidence of the holy spirit's power working in the church. There is a lot of talk about the early church fathers one of the biggest things they had is power.
Are you serious? Christianity was illegal for 300 years…and uncountable early Christian’s (CATHOLICS) were tortured and killed for their faith. What power did the early church fathers have then?
Reading the "EARLIEST" church fathers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Paul) help me be truly saved, in Christ, and free from all false religions and false denominations.
if the bible (inspired by the Holy Spirit) doesn't convince you, and the (selected works) of the "early church fathers", not inspired by the Holy Spirit does???
So the bishop is the ultimate authority T not the scripture so they say that if you disobey the bishop, you are disobeying Christ this makes sense to you?
@chesterroj3008 Jesus tells his disciples "He who DOES NOT receive you DOES NOT RECEIVE Me". Christ did give his Apostles authority to lead his church after his Ascension. God bless 🙏✝️
Mattew 23:8-10 8 But be not ye called teachers. for one is your Teacher, even Christ. 9 You are all brothers. And call no man father upon the earth. for one is Father, which is in heaven.10 And be not ye called masters. for one is your Master, even Christ.
If it was forbidden, how do you call your biological father or your school teachers? And if it was a restriction only for _spiritual_ fathers, why does Paul tell believers to call him their "father through the gospel"? Except he doesn't, he simply assumes the name as a given: "Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." -- 1 Corinthians 4:15
It's always Convenient for Roman's to Use the Bible when it Supports your Romanology!!! Church of Satan in 7 Letters to the Churches in Revelation but your a Roman!!! Be Praying for All of That's been Misled by Roman BS!!! Jesus from the Holy City of Jerusalem & Israel Don't Have NOTHING to do with rome!!!
I think the reformist first motivation is not separation but rather a reconstruction for better church but got neglected and antagonized by then church fathers
Hahn has fallen into the same hole that catholic church has fallen. Jesus clearly taught that " all men are evil." The so called " catholic church fathers " were not taught by Jesus and He did not pick them. They did not receive the Holy Spirit as did the chosen Apostles of Jesus. This is important and explains why they began changing the Commands of Jesus as well as the teachings of The Apostles of Jesus. The fruits of the catholic church testify against any connection between the so called catholic church fathers and Jesus. The antichrist spirit entered the catholic church sometime before 325 AD.
@@Dienekes678 for starters, look at my comment n try to give answers. If U cannot then go to your priest or bishop. If they also fail, then scott will back off. I am not afraid to discuss catholic matters with any Cath theologian or apologist. So get started.
@@Dienekes678 I hv already destroyed scott hahn bc step by step I hv said to him tht his conversion to the RCC was not of god. He did not seek the holy spirit n instead consulted only friends n his own reasoning. He was deceived. He was not born again n he was not in the spirit. When I was born again I sincerely gave up all unrighteousness n I had an awesome visitation from the lord. N this I won't forget. The holy spirit led me to the bible n to god. N he led me out of the RCC. The holy spirit will not lead me out but lead scott in. Never. He teaches me n speaks to me even until today. But when I view Scott's conversion it's clear tht he was not born again before n after his conversion. NO BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN WILL JOIN THE RCC bc ITS WATER N OIL. Fact is, it's not of god. Normally I will trash people like scott for misleading other Catholics. But he has chosen that path. Jesus established his church with the apostles. They were born again Christians n they died as Christians. N we hv this line until today.u Jesus did not established another church known as the RCC. If u or scott have some proof of this, let's hear it Btw I also want proof tht Mary was conceived sinless. Pls provide the proof. Bible says ALL HAVE SINNED...... So if Mary was conceived sinless, then the bible is wrong. Scott should know tht this is a lie of the Vatican n this lie is celebrated every year. Happy hunting
Jesus is the Rock on whom he build his church.Catholicism build their church(visible structure)on Peter(1st.pope?)Peter is in heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ,has nothing to do here on earth bodily.There can't be two Churches Christ build on the Rock. Ephesians5:23-32...even as Christ is the Head of the church:and he is the Saviour of the body.Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ(not to the pope),...even as Christ also loved the church(all born again believers),and gave himself for it;that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.That he might present it to himself a glorious church,not having spot,or wrinkle,or any such thing;but that it should be holy and without blemish.For no man ever yet hated his own flesh;but nourisheth and cherisheth it,even as the Lord the Church:For we are members of his body,of his flesh,and of his bones.This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the Church(all born again believers).CLEARLY...CLEARLY IT IS JESUS CHURCH BUILD ON HIMSELF THE ROCK!PSALMS18:2...THE LORD IS MY ROCK.
I grew up as Catholic and totally respect the beliefs of the church. Having said that, I have a MAJOR issue with the catholic church that can be summed up as follows: The belief of Papal Infallibility says that "the pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition". That's all well and good, but when the pope then goes out and says something like this, I see a really big problem: "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!"'-Pope Francis This totally conflicts with scripture; how does one reconcile the absolutely incorrect statement he made with the concept of his infallibility? I know this statement wasnt made ex cathedra, but it brings into question his ability to lead the church given his frankly heretical statement. Scripture is very clear that only through Christ can one be saved, so atheists do not apply here, nor do any other beliefs that reject Christ Jesus. If you reject Christ, then by definition you are refusing his sacrifice, so how can one refuse Christ and also be saved? How does one trust someone to be the "leader of the church" when they come out and say statements that contradict the very faith that he supposedly leads?
He said that Christ “redeemed” all of us. Which he did. That was the entire point of the sacrifice on the cross. I would encourage you to reread the gospels.
@@flamingdragon3861 I did. "“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me". So how then do atheists apply here? They reject Christ. You can't be redeemed if you don't admit that you were in error and refuse to accept the truth. Ask yourself the question, "redeemed from what?". Why do we need redemption? It's because we've all sinned and fallen short. So if you reject the sacrifice and continue to sin, you are not saved. The sacrifice was meant for everyone, yes, but it only applies to a person who accepts it and decides to follow God. Atheists by definition don't do either of those things. Like, take Anakin Skywalker. If he had chosen to continue living as Vader, he would not have been redeemed even if Luke had forgiven him for what he'd done. It's a choice you have to make. You can't just have someone tell you "you are forgiven" and then continue to do exactly the opposite of what they asked you to do. It means you never believed in them, and you never accepted that forgiveness because you never admitted wrongdoing. There is no "I didn't know". Everyone knows what they believe and the choices they make. They can try to justify any action they take but before God those justifications burn away and their true beliefs are exposed. Someone who rejects that sacrifice is saying "I don't need your sacrifice, I'll live how I want to live" and therefore is in opposition to God, who put rules in place for people who choose to follow him. It cannot and does not apply to them. Otherwise, nothing means anything, and anyone can live however they choose to live with no consequence. There would be no purpose for the church if that was the case, because nobody would need to strive for a Christian life. Why would anyone try to choose the difficult path when all roads lead to the kingdom of Heaven? That's not to say atheists can't decide to follow him at some point and be saved, but living as an atheist and willfully rejecting him means you are not redeemed because you have chosen to not be.
@@crossbearer6453 that’s what I’m trying to say. If you’re an atheist, then by definition you are choosing to not follow him. You can choose to follow God, but as long as you call yourself an atheist you don’t accept him. Literally, by definition, atheists cannot be saved until they become not atheists.
The fact that he claims to have taken graduate courses where he never saw old in new explains this whole video how he missed protestant theology. I have Carson and Beals massive technical academic commentary on the old in the new and Han endorses this in the dust jacket it is not genuine to say that Augustine knew better old in the new than the whole discipline of Protestant biblical theology emphasizes this
Man shall not live by bread alone but by the every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. Depart from the way that seemeth right unto you because it leads to death. You shall not make a graven image of anything above, on, or bellow the earth. You shall not add or take away from the word of God. For you nullify the word of God for your tradition. Catholicism has sent many into hell. Satan is glad at this. He loves the Catholicism. May the one living God guide us. Amen
We never read of the trinity in the earliest church fathers. Of course, we don’t read of the trinity in the Bible either, but…that’s too much truth for some.
The concept of the Trinity is all over the Bible. In fact, God's plurality or multi personal nature is already alluded to in Genesis chapter 1, and in other parts of the Old Testament. The New Testament further alludes to the Trinity.
@@leechrec It is mentioned nowhere except where it is forcibly implied by those who are more interested in philosophizing than in discovering truth itself. Did Jesus die for you? Is he the Son of God? Are we not to pray in his name? Is baptism not in his name? Is the Holy Ghost not sent in his name? If all these things concern Jesus Christ expressly, then why look for other gods? Jesus alone is enough, because Jesus alone is God! Search the scriptures and you will not find any other save Christ and him crucified.
First, Marian adoration and prayers to the saints was not really seen until the third century, neither was it prominent until much later. Secondly, neither Ambrose nor Augustine mentioned any kind of veneration toward the saints/Mary. And finally, early church fathers were by no means unique in their emphasis of the old testament. My current denomination (Calvary Chapel) has a deep love for the Old Testament and the parallels between that and the New Testament. And other denominations do it well.
Saint Augustine of Hippo refers to the orthodox practice of praying to saints and martyrs in Sermon 159, 1 where explains: ‘There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended.” Saint Augustine says something similar in his Homilies on St. John’s Gospel 84: “At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.”
The very word "trinity" didn't appear until the late second century. It wasn't described in its modern form until tertullian in the third. What's your point?
@@somnathganapa5789 the early church did believe saints prayed for us, but that is a whole nother step from us venerating them, hanging pictures of them over our doors, and praying to them.
And besides that, therw is not one example of anyone praying to anyone but God in the Bible. No the 24 elders carrying incense does not come close to counting.
Jesus says it is better to have one hand and be born into life than have two and be cast into fire. Having a bunch of bishops and a pope and all of these things means nothing, because Jesus teaches to cut off anything that would offend him, and also teaches that if you would offend any little one who believes in him it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the sea. Forcing a child to call a priest father could definitely offend a little one who believes in God (Jesus) *Mark 9* 38-50 “And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part. 41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. 42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. 50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another”
@@radekofficial2919, that's true. I should ask the Holy Spirit to show me where the Holy Fathers taught that it was okay to perform same-sex blessings, so long as the Pope gives his okay. Very Patristic. You're delusional, my guy. Wake up.
if the holy bible and the teachings of Jesus didn't draw you to Christianity, but the writings of church "fathers" drew you to catholicism, you are in serious trouble.
Then sorry to disillusion you, you got a very distored version of true Christianity! These were the very interllectuals and clever philosophers, influenced by plato & other greek thinkers that Paul spoke of when he said "God chose the foolish men of the world to put the wise men to shame" ( 1 Cor 1:27) And told the 'bishops' of Ephesus " From amoung you yourseves men will arise and speak TWISTED things". ( Acts 20:30). Dont be influenced by the 'church fathers' my friend, they were mostly worng.
Early church fathers were mostly 'wrong' I guess st John had no idea what he was writing about. OR st Ignatius or Irienaus or Polycarp of st John chrystom or Clement of the second pope or third ..... According to you the holy spirit was guiding the church from error even with the wolves coming out from among the faithful in every generation including the 16th century.
Your Bible was safeguarded by that false church from the start until Luther. It was that false church that told Luther that the bible was the inspired Word of God. If that church was the Whore of Babylon instead of the Bride if Christ, what makes you think that the whore didn't add error or take out truths and then falsely told Luther that this is inspired scripture? In fact a false church would invariably insert falsehood and distort the truth because it is in its nature to deceive. And remember, the Catholic Church and the Popes had ABSOLUTE POWER and were the sole custodians of the Bible for 1300 years before Luther. It was those "pagan" church fathers and the Popes who approved and finalized your Bible. In fact that is what Muslims claim, that the Christian bible has been corrupted. Maybe you should be a Muslim instead.
Why were they wrong? They were the immediate (or almost immediate) successors of the Apostles. We could at least glance at the teachings that were universal in the Early Church, in the same generation the gospels were written (or the one right after). Unless you mean not being from the actual time of Jesus demerits their words, in which case, oh Lord, our Bible is severely corrupted, my friend. Paul technically did see Jesus (though the resurrected one, and didn't engage in many words) but we also have so many others. Like Luke, quite the big name. Writer of Acts and one whole gospel, that reads: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." Luke 1:1-2 Oh no! Luke was not there??? He did what?? _Interview people?_ And then all those letters, darn our Bible just got cut in more than half.
@@crusaderACR Thanks for your comment. Please dont get me wrong during the years after the 1st century there were many, many faithful Christians. My poin is that the reputation of most of the so called 'church fathers' was due to their interllect, education and ability to write, often prolifically. (Today, most bishops & archbishops in the anglican union are the same. Degrees in uni, often not on religious subjects e.t.c ge. Rowan Williams, Swelbey e.t.c). Paul said "Not many wise were chosen, for God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame" ( I Cor 1: 19-29) What about the many faithful Christians who just lived their daily lives as ordinary people with little education but much faith and love for Christ? we dont call them 'saints' e.t.c! Remember too that th Apostles were "unlettered & ordinary men". Also amoung Jesus disciples, what was the background of the one who betrayed him? I can give you details of the philosophic and greek hellenist influence in the writings of most of these 'church fathers'. PS; Polycarp, Clement of Rome & Igantious of Antioch lived the closest to John rhe surviving apostle. Their writings contain less philosophy and focus on the supermacy of the Father and the subordination of the Son. From around the middle of the 2nd century ( around 100 years AFTER Christ the introduction of philosophical views regarding the nature of God and Christ came to the fore.
@@crusaderACR They were not all wrong. I didnt say that. Its just I feel a false impression is given calling them 'church fathers'. They were in the main well educated philosophers who mostly. later in life tried to combine Christianity with greek hellenistic ideas. Remembering Paul's comment that "God chose the foolish things of the world t put the wise man to shame" ( 1 Cor 1:20-30 )On the other hand what about the unnamed thousands of faithful men & women who were true Christians? They have a name with God & not man which is more important!
@@johnbrowne2170 baptists deny the true gospel because they deny peters words in acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. They believe you only have to repent to receive the forgiveness of sins.
Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it”
It is amazing how these men who sound so intelligent speak so highly of the early church fathers of the second, third centuries and beyond. Yet at the same time, these men deny the holy inspired scriptures (bible) as being the sole authority for the church. They have problems with Sola Scriptura, but take in the "interpolated" non-inspired writings of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers. Is this wise, of course not! These men are far from being intelligent. Worse still, they are basing their trust on corrupted manuscripts.
@@justanotheryoutubewarrior8396 Time did! Most disciples of the Lord can discern inspired books. Let me ask you, Who reads and studies the bible? Who preaches the bible more directly? Believing in the bible is known as Sola Scriptura. What Church does not believe in Sola Scriptura?
@@r.e.jr.1152 time didnt compile the bible thats just plain ignorance lol, as a protestant studying the church fathers my self i have to admit when you look at the history you have to ask what did they believe in that we dont. History is important, the OT is needed to prove jesus is the messiah, prove his lineage. So tell me whats your church history? Well back to the bible you must believe it was compiled by men inspired by God? Surely God wudnt give what is holy to the dogs? To compile his actual holy scripture and choose which books should be in and which should be out. So the next question is if the bible was compiled around 325-400ad, what did those same christians that had the holy spirit believe in? Read the council of niceae canons, read the pre nicaea and nicaea time church father letters. At the council of nicaea which every christian has to believe otherwise you put doubt on the bible, they actually celebrated easter,lent and called them self catholic(universal) in there creed? What does this tell you.. Now furthermore if you believe in just the bible, show me where jesus 12 discples was baptised. Give me the verse Also tell me how old was jesus when he died and where do you see this in the bible?
@@justanotheryoutubewarrior8396 You said the bible was compiled around 325 to 400. What do you think the church communities or local churches were using before that? Please explain. Some of your questions are not right. Where the bible is silent we must be silent. Example, the baptism of the disciples. As for Jesus' age before he died is asserted by the year they teach he was born in Bethlehem.
@@r.e.jr.1152 oral teachings, like paul said; these things you have HEARD.. if you are bible alone (sola scriptura) tell me was the 12 apostles baptised or not?
If you just read Scott Hahn you’d be shocked when you come across a Protestant because of his habit of straw manning Protestants, not to mention that he uses Protestants like Goppelt in his scholarship on typology
He doesn’t straw man Protestants. He was one for decades even becoming a Pastor He is debunking views Protestants held against the church It’s not his fault there are thousands of denominations
I find the title fascinating. It wasn't the BIBLE that converted him to Roman Catholicism, it was the church fathers. I agree, if you only read the bible, none of the nonsense of the Roman church is even brought up. You have to go to outside, uninspired sources to bend your mind into a Roman Catholic pretzel.
Twisted way of saying it. The earliest Christians observed the Eucharist and had bishops, priests and deacons and so do the Catholics of today. Please stop spreading misinformation
@@mjeezyca ''and had bishops, priests and deacons '' Show me the verse about the priests in the Early church. Good luck. Please don't tell me elder is the Greek word for priest. Spare me. ''The earliest Christians observed the Eucharist '' You mean the Mass. WE have only the Church Father's word for it. Nothing in scripture. Christ was sacrificed ONCE, not over and over. Christ dies ONLY ONCE, not over and over again. His sacrifice is not like those of lambs and goats. What blasphemy you support, which is a bit more serious than misinformation, wouldn't you say?
@@danielcristancho3524 no, you are presenting misconceptions and spreading hate which is not Christ like. get close with Jesus and learn from the Apostles. There is no support for sola scriptura
@@mjeezyca spreading hate which is not Christ like'' Oh, you're one of those. 'If you disagree with me, you're being hateful'. MJ, you need to grow a pair. Yea, believe it or not, lots of people are going to disagree with Papist doctrine. And Christ disagreed with the religious leaders of His day over and over again. Was that hate speech? ''learn from the Apostles'' That's a confusing statement coming from a papist. Are you talking about the Apostles being martyred for DISAGREEING WITH PAGAN DOCTRINES, or are you saying the Apostles led an Inquisition and tortured, took possessions, jailed and murdered all those who disagree with the...Oh, wait, no they didn't do that. That's your church's way of dealing with 'hate speech'.
Jimmy Akin's The Fathers Know Best has made me want to stay protestant right at the start. Some fathers held heretical views but weren't considered heretics because in their day they weren't considered heretical teaching yet. 😒 🤔 Then Cyprian of Alexandria dealing cruelly with his enemies and a mob of his followers brutally murdered the female pagan philosopher Hypatia? Don't know if he played a part? 😒 🤔
Then the inquisitions done by the Protestants , many more witch trials than executed by the Catholic Church, indiscriminate execution of Catholics should make you an atheist then??? No??? Or maybe a Muslim??? I really don’t like how people especially Protestants don’t speak truth holistically when discussing history.
There is no evidence that Cyril had anything to do with Hypatia’s death. This claim is often brought up along side the claim that Christians destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria. No real evidence for these claims. Please stop helping spread these falsehoods.
Have u heard of King David ? He was a murderer. The New Testament introduces Jesus by saying “Jesus, Son of David.” So Jesus introduced as the son of a murderer
@@flamingdragon3861 I was knew I was rattling the cage with the comment. Btw the one I'm replying to (since the comment seems to have been deleted) said "as useless as you?" Which I thought was hilarious.
I have been looking into catholicism and considering converting, and after asking a question on Catholic answers, they offered to send me a book on the pre-nicean church fathers. (What a kind gesture from them ❤) Pray for me that I may come to the truth on the matter.
We already are.
@@youvilleatzebugs Probably this one: The Fathers Know Best
Tony Palmer said the protest is over but last time I heard Rome hasn't changed so why return the protest isn't over. Despite what they tell you.
I was born and raised Protestant and looked into Catholicism in 2019. I discovered the fullness of the Catholic faith that just doesn’t exist in Protestantism. John 6:53 and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was the final thing that clinched it for me . I’ll pray for you. 🙏 ⛪️
Hey, Dylan....How is it going? Have you been able to go to Mass? How is your faithwalk journey going?
Scott Hahn is one of my favorite catholic apolologists.
I love how you and Catholic Answers do this certain tactic for your videos. The full interview/video and then have great short clips that address specific topics from the full video.
I love that too 👍
I love it too!
I was taught by Dominican sisters in the 1960s. We learned all these truths. Why did our Protestant brothers and sisters not know these things? We were taught the Bible and church history front to back. I am so grateful to these good sisters!
Agreed. Its a great shame that not enough Christians are educated on church history and the church fathers. Im grateful I have the resources that I do in order to learn these things.
God bless ✝️
@@Apostola33 Reading one part of church history to cherry-pick and sanction false dogma . When other parts of history do not paint such a Rosie picture.
John Foxe's book of Martyrs does paint a Christianity that does not resemble the teaching of Jesus Christ or the apostles. That evidence is irrefutable on so many levels. That brings into question what the truth the CC seems so desperate to subjugate people to with false claims of Christian Truth.
Protestants do know this. That’s nothing new. Scholars have been getting deeper in Scripture for centuries.
Probably because they believe in sola scriptura which erases about 1500 years a church history.
Sola Scriptura is an invention on Martin Luther. It appears nowhere in Scripture. @@Lukebarca
God Bless Dr. Scott Hahn. I wish it was easier for more people to have an understanding of the early church fathers
Reading the early Church Fathers help me return to the faith.
@@Angel268201 that’s awesome! Thank you for sharing that!! What books did you read in particular?
@YAJUN YUAN ok? And? What are you trying to tell me lol
@UCMLza8LXUyvw5XFreTaUSWg Do you think when people read the church fathers they only take one of their interpretations or understandings of Christianity and just go with it? No! That would be stupid! The whole point of reading the Church Fathers is that it is the Church Fathers with an S, not the Church Father. The whole reason why you would study them is to get a FEEL of how they understood Christianity in its beginnings, not to cherry pick 1 person’s erroneous understanding and then to call everyone back then invalid. You don’t get Dogma in the Catholic Christian faith from just one person’s understanding, rather, many people’s understandings in conjunction, and through Ecumenical Councils. It’s also really important to trust the successors of the apostles, because Jesus specifically gave the Apostles special graces to be able to uphold, defend, and spread proper church teaching throughout time. Sorry if I came off kind of harsh, I really just want you to understand that early church tradition is what has made Christianity what it is today, regardless of denomination. God bless you
@YAJUN YUAN Give me an example where majority consensus of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is contradictory to the teaching of the magisterium
A few years ago, I read Dennis Prager’s Bible commentaries of Genesis and Exodus. Then in Sunday School we were covering the Church Fathers and seeing videos shot in Israel with explanations of Jewish culture and habits in ancient times. I kept telling the Sunday School class about all the echos I was hearing in the New Testament of things I had read in the Old Testament. It was exciting to hear Dr. Hahn having similar discoveries!
Catholic typology is so beautiful and mindblowing
Mary worship is idolatry.
@@NuanceOverDogma
Who said anything about worshipping Mary?
@@NuanceOverDogmaI find that a lot of Protestants just blurt out these rude statements not out of ill intent but out of fear because deep in their heart, they know there is something missing anytime they go to a Protestant church. (I should know, I used to be Protestant for 5 years). And they genuinely do not want to commit idolatry but come to find out (myself included) I didn’t even know what idolatry truly was. I didn’t even know what worship truly is.
Did you know to worship something/someone requires to sacrifice something to them ?
We don’t do that for Mary or any Saint.
If you attend our mass, the priest and the music actually rarely even mentions Mary and the saints. Cause the whole focus is Jesus Christ. I recommend checking out a traditional Latin mass if you ever check it out.
I think people need to understand the difference between devotion and worship.
Worship: The term “worship” in its Catholic etymology is derived from the Old English word “weorþscipe,” which combines “worth” and “ship,” indicating the worthiness or honor due to God alone. In Catholic theology, worship is the highest form of reverence, adoration, and homage given to God, acknowledging God’s supreme worth, majesty, and glory. It involves acts of praise, thanksgiving, and obedience offered to God alone, recognizing God’s greatness and sovereignty over all creation.
Devotion: The term “devotion” in its Catholic etymology is derived from the Latin word “devotio,” which signifies profound dedication or commitment. In Catholic spirituality, devotion refers to the personal or communal expression of love, reverence, and loyalty towards God, Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the saints. It involves cultivating a deep relationship with holy figures through prayer, meditation, study, and imitation of their virtues, seeking their intercession and guidance in one’s spiritual life. Devotion reflects a heartfelt commitment to living out one’s faith and growing in holiness.
You can be devoted to the Virgin Mary and saints in a similar way a husband would be devoted to his wife and vice versa. Is that to worship your spouse? No.
I get where you’re coming from brother. And you don’t have to take my advice. You’re your own man, but it’s wise to research the problems you have with Catholicism from a Catholic perspective in order to better understand why they do the things we do. Pray for God to protect you if you are worried that you will fall into idolatry (I prayed that before I found out enough about Catholicism to know it wasn’t idol worship). If you really have faith in God, take a leap of faith and ask yourself “how has this religion lasted for 2,000 years? My denomination existed for a max of 500 years, so how did they follow God before that?”
I found you can even start out with simply looking at the relationship between Christ and his Church and then A husband and his wife. You will find Protestantism as a whole doesn’t TRULY believe the man is the head of the home. It’s been infiltrated by feminism for the most part. (I have a friend who’s Protestant but he doesn’t believe in the feminism crap as well). Traditional Catholicism as a whole knows feminism is wrong, there’s still pockets of it in Catholicism but that’s just satan being satan. There’s going to be wolves in sheep’s clothing. But even then there’s still wrong theology my friend holds, and I’m not saying in any way I’m somehow better, believe me I know I’m not. He’s actually quite smarter than me. But not all ideas are equal and not all religions are equal. Therefore not all denominations are equal. You can’t put your identity in your denomination but be objective in pursuing the truth.
Catholicism is the truth. Everybody is equal yes, but there is a hierarchy in terms of order. God is a man, he is masculine, which is why we call him Father. Masculinity embodies order. Order involves hierarchy. God appointed Moses, Aaron and the levites in a hierarchical order that resembles the New Testament priesthood as Catholicism has had and still has.
Jesus never abolished the law. He just fulfilled it. So the priesthood wouldn’t be disregarded. Just the way they operate is a bit different.
Lastly, again I say you can arrive at these conclusions by looking at traditionally how a man is the leader of the home. As Christ is the head of his church. You only really find that fully in Catholicism.
Cause even when it comes to the pope, he isn’t perfect but it’s the hierarchical structure Jesus put in place. And what does the Bible say when a husband is disobedient to the word that a wife should do?
Peter 3:1-2, which states:
“Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.” (1 Peter 3:1-2, NIV)
This is the same thing for the pope. He’s the leader of the church on earth. Christ is the ultimate Head ofcourse. But if the Pope were to be disobedient, we as a church submit to him still (that doesn’t mean follow him to sin if he’s trying to lead us to sin) but it means to respect the authority He has because God appointed him there.
The same way you would still want to be respected and honored by your wife if you were disobedient is the same thing. Because God appointed you there.
God bless, hope this helps
Agree. People are not aware that the Saints that wrote the New Testament only knew the Old Testament in their lifetime that is why it’s called Typology.
@@Jo3K1n6 👍I read the whole thing. lol 😃👍
God bless Scott Hahn, you are the work of the Holy spirit🙏🙏🙏😊😊😊
Wow! I couldn't hold back the tears. This was so touching, so amazing!
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)
What a wonderful gem. Thank you.
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
Very thankful for SH. However, I am an evangelical Anglican priest and can say that I definitely was taught the richness of typology whilst at theological college. My sermon last Sunday included the typology of Jesus and Moses. Jesus is king 🙌✝️🙌
This is very enlighting. Is there a book or collection someone can start reading with?
I'd would like to know as well.
Did you ever find out?
Can you recommend books regarding the Early Church Fathers?
“The Fathers Know Best” from Jimmy Akin. God bless!
@@AlejandroOjedaN"The project Gutenberg form the first century until 1830". Just google that should take there.
Wow ❤
I was just sitting into typology. Glory to God. So beautiful.
And reading the Bible helped me convert to Christ. Beginning and end of story. Praise God forevermore. And his Son.
Reading the Bible turned me catholic.
Christ picked 12 men.
Reading the Bible by yourself is dangerous according to the Bible.
“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
2 Peter 3:16
12 men… not 266 Popes.
Joshua 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous.
What 12 princes are you referring to that Moses chose? In context of being at Mt Sinai he only chose 70 men thereafter after called the elders of Israel
He also brought the 70 elders and Joshua with him on the mountain not just Aaron and his two sons.
“There was no debate.” Wow ! Comparison of Old Testament with the Gospels.
One question no one ever answers for me is if being Catholic is heretical or at last bad theology, then why would The Father allow it to exist for thousand years, make it the ruling church for centuries just to say sorry you are going to hell for idolatry etc? Doesn't make sense. I'm protestant and have been stepping closer to joining the Catholic church or at least Orthodox. Someone please answer..
Because the same would apply to every religion, muslims for instance. They have been around 1400 years why would God leave them worship a false God, it must be true using this logic.
Bottom line is, jesus needed history to affirm who he was. OT was needed to prove jesus lineage and prophecy fulfilment.
Where is the protestant history to prove who they are?
Choose the Catholic Church.
Protestantism branched off of Catholicism.
@@KH-vp4ni no it broke away from catholicism.
@@justanotheryoutubewarrior8396 but it literally couldn't exist without catholicism... Catholic monks are the ones that made copies of the bible. The Protestant Bible even still had all of the books in it until 1528 when they removed some.
My most serious objection to the necessity of the so called 'apostlic fathers' is summed up the the definitive book 'The earth Christian Fathers' By the renouned theological scholar Henry bettenson ( 1908-1979 ) He sums up his intro "It is a period in which the church is seen defending and explaining its teaching and practice...Coming to terms for good, it maybe, for bad with its environment in the world. working out the implications of the apostolic faith and devotion and translating the faith in the language of HELLENISTIC THOUGHT and consolidating its organisation and its forms of worship." ( Part of intro page 1) What would Paul have thought? ( Col 2:8 )
Thanks for the sharing of the true words of the true Church history of the Holy Church of our Lord Jesus Christ called Catholic Church 👏♥️🙌🙏👍
Almost any Catholic would hold the Protestant in high regard for their knowledge of the bible, quoting chapter and verse. Their apologetics are well practiced. And they MUST be considered our brothers and sisters in Christ. But to deny the validity of the Eucharist, the tradition of prayer, the spiritual richness of the Apostasy of the Catholic Church, this would be bordering on heresy. These are irrefutable components of Christ's presence, the avenues of our saving grace.
This complements my tantric studies well. Thank you!
Where can I read letters and writings of church fathers?
I like going back to the early church fathers, they are the closest link to the origin of Catholicism and the life of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
"Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
- Saint Ignatius of Antioch
Because people that are just born now only have the Bible as reference for what they know. They don’t know to look at from 2000 years ago, patristics or from the Apostles. They don’t even know that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church 300 years after Jesus has died and resurrected. They don’t know those writings existed.
"Adoring" the BVM? Venerating, right?
@YAJUN YUAN that's why I pointed it out. Slip of the tongue on Dr. Hahn's part maybe.
@YAJUN YUAN Or maybe he had to deal with this accusation so many times from our Protestant brothers that he slip. Who knows? Hehehe. God bless Dr Hahn for his rich and faithful ministry!
The terms are usually interchangeable. Especially when you go back in history. This is why the terms Latria, hyperdulia and dukia were defined.
I am a member of the Methodist Church. I am in college majoring in Biblical studies. I have begun to understand that the more I learn, the more I am drawn to Catholicism. I agree with the Catholic Church, I just don't agree with their lack of ownership when it comes to abusive priests and clergy.
That isn't a reason to not be a Catholic.
There are weeds among the wheat
The Church is for the poor and sick. We are all sick of sin. As a member of the Church, we are encourage to pray and live in one mind and one heart intent upon God. 🙏🙏🙏
@@realtime7009 Amen
That's like jumping off Noah's ark because you don't like the crew
The writings of/about the biblical 'Church fathers' Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Titus, Philemon, James, Paul, Timothy, or Jude do/will help anyone to become Born-Again.
I have a question..... it's pretty obvious that Dr. Hahn is very smart. People like him and people like Jimmy Akin. What is the difference between them and people like Dr. Gavin Ortlund. Dr. Ortlund has also studied the fathers just like Hahn and Akin. Why isn't Ortlund a catholic?
Gavin Ortland studies the Fathers in the same way that a Catholic would study Protestant scholars. He may gain some insights from them, but he doesn't really care about following the same faith as them. He will cherry pick this insight, that doctrine, blend them together for his own thing. Consider, for example, what he says about Baptismal Regeneration. Essentially, he doesn't dispute that this was essentially the universal belief of every single early Christian that speaks of it, and he doesn't care, he doesn't believe it, and comes up with reasons for what he believes an erroneous belief became so pervasive. To him, it's like a Catholic noting that all the early Reformers believed in Sola Scriptura. Or when he was disputing clerical hierarchy. He basically read every pre-Nicene father that mentions this as ambiguously as he could, then when he gets to St. Ignatius, who he can't do that with, he says "Well that's just one guy." Then he says "There was no agreed upon clerical structure," with the implication that it can be what he wants, even though none of them spoke of congregationalism which he, a Baptist, holds.
Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to he Protestant. That's not quite true. When deep in history, you have one of three options:
1) cease to be Protestant
2) affirm a Great Apostasy, which occured almost immediately
3) Obfuscate and relativize everything, then say you can do what you want with what you've obfuscated.
But if you want the faith of the Fathers, the best a Protestant can do is become Anglican, and even that has its challenges.
It what you don't see sometime which open your mind. Just to give you something else to think about you could Google . The project Gutenberg from the first century till 1830. that a spoiler alert. Why there is a why.
I think a bigger thing then theology is actually the "form" of worship. Catholic faith is very "traditional" and quite rigid and fixed in what's allowed. It really models everything on the fathers.This has both strengths (preventing rogue churches that go off the rails) and keeping a safe doctrine but also negatives. It restricts leaders from doing many many things that would help to make the practice of faith more engaging and relevant to younger audiences. I'm part of a Catholic parish at the moment which is really studying what Protestant evangelical churches have done to be effective in reaching younger audiences and trying to learn from and encorporate some of that. We even have a school and church called "Unity" which is collaboration co-run by Catholic and Protestant (Uniting) church together. They hold school masses which are co presided by our Catholic priest and Protestant pasture. My prayer is for less division and fighting on denomination lines and more unity fraternity friendship and love between denominations. One faith with a unity of purpose but a diversity of expression. Both sides have strengths and weakness and much to learn from each other
@@David-_-_- That is a sellout, sounds OK but manmade religions have a way of doing that. Too many people were shoved into bonfires by the CC to defend it Dogma proves the foundation is and was false.
Ortlund is so shockingly wrong about the Church Fathers.
NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS.
I suggest watching Willian Albrechts responses to him, Ortlund is either the most biased person ever or a liar. He even ended up quoting from some antitrinitarian mormon website as a supposed scholarly authority.
Or he claimed that St. Augustine didnt believe in ecumenical councils, what an embarrassment.
Matthew 23:9
Here one of many Early Church Fathers writings
And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
Good
Doctrine obviously matters but I think a bigger thing is to observe how much of the teaching a church is "living". Are they loving each other, serving and helping the community, discipling people and perhaps even bigger is there any evidence of the holy spirit's power working in the church. There is a lot of talk about the early church fathers one of the biggest things they had is power.
Are you serious? Christianity was illegal for 300 years…and uncountable early Christian’s (CATHOLICS) were tortured and killed for their faith. What power did the early church fathers have then?
Read the Dead Sea scrolls, they explain a lot of the theology of the time.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
Reading the "EARLIEST" church fathers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Paul) help me be truly saved, in Christ, and free from all false religions and false denominations.
Amazing
I found with biblical Christianity that there are no 'early church Fathers'.
Interesting.
if the bible (inspired by the Holy Spirit) doesn't convince you, and the (selected works) of the "early church fathers", not inspired by the Holy Spirit does???
So the bishop is the ultimate authority T not the scripture so they say that if you disobey the bishop, you are disobeying Christ this makes sense to you?
@chesterroj3008 Jesus tells his disciples "He who DOES NOT receive you DOES NOT RECEIVE Me". Christ did give his Apostles authority to lead his church after his Ascension. God bless 🙏✝️
The only authority that you have is to build people up through the gospel
what you should read is MHFM material
Mattew 23:8-10
8 But be not ye called teachers. for one is your Teacher, even Christ. 9 You are all brothers. And call no man father upon the earth. for one is Father, which is in heaven.10 And be not ye called masters. for one is your Master, even Christ.
Same boring crap, what do they do give you a book to on things to whine on catholic pages about. Father deal with it.
Dont call your daddy father than call him hey you, fool who helped mommy birth me
If it was forbidden, how do you call your biological father or your school teachers?
And if it was a restriction only for _spiritual_ fathers, why does Paul tell believers to call him their "father through the gospel"? Except he doesn't, he simply assumes the name as a given:
"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." -- 1 Corinthians 4:15
It's always Convenient for Roman's to Use the Bible when it Supports your Romanology!!! Church of Satan in 7 Letters to the Churches in Revelation but your a Roman!!! Be Praying for All of That's been Misled by Roman BS!!! Jesus from the Holy City of Jerusalem & Israel Don't Have NOTHING to do with rome!!!
Why not Orthodox?
@@wakeupandsmellthelies7728 they broke up with rome. And Rome must be followed because Peter was the leader of the church
Calvin and Luther read the fathers and still made up their own churches? I'm trying not to judge, but that takes their Pride to another level.
I think the reformist first motivation is not separation but rather a reconstruction for better church but got neglected and antagonized by then church fathers
@@Jak-5was definitely a pride issue. If you read their writings and biography you will realise how wicked they were
Money and fame period
Some people just can't hack the narrow road. God bless them.
Jesus taught " Call no man on earth father for you have one Father who is in heaven ."
Which is metaphorical because Jesus calls Abraham "Father" and Paul calls himself a spiritual Father in Acts.
Hahn has fallen into the same hole that catholic church has fallen. Jesus clearly taught that " all men are evil." The so called " catholic church fathers " were not taught by Jesus and He did not pick them. They did not receive the Holy Spirit as did the chosen Apostles of Jesus. This is important and explains why they began changing the Commands of Jesus as well as the teachings of The Apostles of Jesus. The fruits of the catholic church testify against any connection between the so called catholic church fathers and Jesus. The antichrist spirit entered the catholic church sometime before 325 AD.
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 You will find out soon that the words of Jesus are not " metaphorical." For Jesus is The Word of God.
I told u once Scott, I will look u in the eye n debate u. I won't run away like the catholics did.
Debate about what? The Church fathers? Lol
You would get utterly destroyed in a debate with the good Dr.Hahn. Be careful what you wish for!
@@Dienekes678 there are more than 10 persons n websites who cannot reply to some of my comments n questions regarding the rcc. Scott is one of them.
@@Dienekes678 for starters, look at my comment n try to give answers. If U cannot then go to your priest or bishop. If they also fail, then scott will back off.
I am not afraid to discuss catholic matters with any Cath theologian or apologist. So get started.
@@Dienekes678 I hv already destroyed scott hahn bc step by step I hv said to him tht his conversion to the RCC was not of god. He did not seek the holy spirit n instead consulted only friends n his own reasoning. He was deceived. He was not born again n he was not in the spirit.
When I was born again I sincerely gave up all unrighteousness n I had an awesome visitation from the lord. N this I won't forget. The holy spirit led me to the bible n to god. N he led me out of the RCC.
The holy spirit will not lead me out but lead scott in. Never. He teaches me n speaks to me even until today. But when I view Scott's conversion it's clear tht he was not born again before n after his conversion. NO BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN WILL JOIN THE RCC bc ITS WATER N OIL. Fact is, it's not of god.
Normally I will trash people like scott for misleading other Catholics. But he has chosen that path.
Jesus established his church with the apostles. They were born again Christians n they died as Christians. N we hv this line until today.u Jesus did not established another church known as the RCC. If u or scott have some proof of this, let's hear it
Btw I also want proof tht Mary was conceived sinless. Pls provide the proof. Bible says ALL HAVE SINNED...... So if Mary was conceived sinless, then the bible is wrong. Scott should know tht this is a lie of the Vatican n this lie is celebrated every year. Happy hunting
The problem with that is the Church Fathers did not live in the Second Temple period.
Jesus is the Rock on whom he build his church.Catholicism build their church(visible structure)on Peter(1st.pope?)Peter is in heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ,has nothing to do here on earth bodily.There can't be two Churches Christ build on the Rock. Ephesians5:23-32...even as Christ is the Head of the church:and he is the Saviour of the body.Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ(not to the pope),...even as Christ also loved the church(all born again believers),and gave himself for it;that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.That he might present it to himself a glorious church,not having spot,or wrinkle,or any such thing;but that it should be holy and without blemish.For no man ever yet hated his own flesh;but nourisheth and cherisheth it,even as the Lord the Church:For we are members of his body,of his flesh,and of his bones.This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the Church(all born again believers).CLEARLY...CLEARLY IT IS JESUS CHURCH BUILD ON HIMSELF THE ROCK!PSALMS18:2...THE LORD IS MY ROCK.
You need to read deeper
I grew up as Catholic and totally respect the beliefs of the church.
Having said that, I have a MAJOR issue with the catholic church that can be summed up as follows:
The belief of Papal Infallibility says that "the pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition". That's all well and good, but when the pope then goes out and says something like this, I see a really big problem:
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!"'-Pope Francis
This totally conflicts with scripture; how does one reconcile the absolutely incorrect statement he made with the concept of his infallibility? I know this statement wasnt made ex cathedra, but it brings into question his ability to lead the church given his frankly heretical statement. Scripture is very clear that only through Christ can one be saved, so atheists do not apply here, nor do any other beliefs that reject Christ Jesus. If you reject Christ, then by definition you are refusing his sacrifice, so how can one refuse Christ and also be saved? How does one trust someone to be the "leader of the church" when they come out and say statements that contradict the very faith that he supposedly leads?
He said that Christ “redeemed” all of us. Which he did. That was the entire point of the sacrifice on the cross. I would encourage you to reread the gospels.
@@flamingdragon3861 I did. "“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me". So how then do atheists apply here? They reject Christ.
You can't be redeemed if you don't admit that you were in error and refuse to accept the truth. Ask yourself the question, "redeemed from what?". Why do we need redemption? It's because we've all sinned and fallen short. So if you reject the sacrifice and continue to sin, you are not saved. The sacrifice was meant for everyone, yes, but it only applies to a person who accepts it and decides to follow God. Atheists by definition don't do either of those things.
Like, take Anakin Skywalker. If he had chosen to continue living as Vader, he would not have been redeemed even if Luke had forgiven him for what he'd done. It's a choice you have to make. You can't just have someone tell you "you are forgiven" and then continue to do exactly the opposite of what they asked you to do. It means you never believed in them, and you never accepted that forgiveness because you never admitted wrongdoing.
There is no "I didn't know". Everyone knows what they believe and the choices they make. They can try to justify any action they take but before God those justifications burn away and their true beliefs are exposed. Someone who rejects that sacrifice is saying "I don't need your sacrifice, I'll live how I want to live" and therefore is in opposition to God, who put rules in place for people who choose to follow him. It cannot and does not apply to them. Otherwise, nothing means anything, and anyone can live however they choose to live with no consequence. There would be no purpose for the church if that was the case, because nobody would need to strive for a Christian life. Why would anyone try to choose the difficult path when all roads lead to the kingdom of Heaven?
That's not to say atheists can't decide to follow him at some point and be saved, but living as an atheist and willfully rejecting him means you are not redeemed because you have chosen to not be.
@@Helljumper91 yes Jesus is the way and accepts all. As in those who choose to come to Him. That’s the point
Atheists or whoever else
@@crossbearer6453 that’s what I’m trying to say. If you’re an atheist, then by definition you are choosing to not follow him. You can choose to follow God, but as long as you call yourself an atheist you don’t accept him.
Literally, by definition, atheists cannot be saved until they become not atheists.
@@Helljumper91 Yh. So He is saying anyone can come to the faith.
Even the devil has an opportunity to be saved
I think Jimmy and Scott would be better suited in Lutheranism.
Read your Bible again and it will help you convert back and leave Popery behind.
The fact that he claims to have taken graduate courses where he never saw old in new explains this whole video how he missed protestant theology. I have Carson and Beals massive technical academic commentary on the old in the new and Han endorses this in the dust jacket it is not genuine to say that Augustine knew better old in the new than the whole discipline of Protestant biblical theology emphasizes this
For me it did the opposite.
Wonder which ones u read??
Man shall not live by bread alone but by the every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
Depart from the way that seemeth right unto you because it leads to death.
You shall not make a graven image of anything above, on, or bellow the earth.
You shall not add or take away from the word of God. For you nullify the word of God for your tradition.
Catholicism has sent many into hell. Satan is glad at this. He loves the Catholicism.
May the one living God guide us. Amen
We never read of the trinity in the earliest church fathers.
Of course, we don’t read of the trinity in the Bible either, but…that’s too much truth for some.
The concept of the Trinity is all over the Bible. In fact, God's plurality or multi personal nature is already alluded to in Genesis chapter 1, and in other parts of the Old Testament. The New Testament further alludes to the Trinity.
@@leechrec It is mentioned nowhere except where it is forcibly implied by those who are more interested in philosophizing than in discovering truth itself.
Did Jesus die for you? Is he the Son of God? Are we not to pray in his name? Is baptism not in his name? Is the Holy Ghost not sent in his name? If all these things concern Jesus Christ expressly, then why look for other gods? Jesus alone is enough, because Jesus alone is God!
Search the scriptures and you will not find any other save Christ and him crucified.
First, Marian adoration and prayers to the saints was not really seen until the third century, neither was it prominent until much later. Secondly, neither Ambrose nor Augustine mentioned any kind of veneration toward the saints/Mary. And finally, early church fathers were by no means unique in their emphasis of the old testament. My current denomination (Calvary Chapel) has a deep love for the Old Testament and the parallels between that and the New Testament. And other denominations do it well.
Saint Augustine of Hippo refers to the orthodox practice of praying to saints and martyrs in Sermon 159, 1 where explains:
‘There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended.”
Saint Augustine says something similar in his Homilies on St. John’s Gospel 84:
“At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.”
While I do agree with you on your last point, you may want to do more research on your fist two
The very word "trinity" didn't appear until the late second century. It wasn't described in its modern form until tertullian in the third. What's your point?
@@somnathganapa5789 the early church did believe saints prayed for us, but that is a whole nother step from us venerating them, hanging pictures of them over our doors, and praying to them.
And besides that, therw is not one example of anyone praying to anyone but God in the Bible. No the 24 elders carrying incense does not come close to counting.
It is obvious what really drove you to the dark side.
Jesus says it is better to have one hand and be born into life than have two and be cast into fire. Having a bunch of bishops and a pope and all of these things means nothing, because Jesus teaches to cut off anything that would offend him, and also teaches that if you would offend any little one who believes in him it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the sea. Forcing a child to call a priest father could definitely offend a little one who believes in God (Jesus)
*Mark 9* 38-50
“And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another”
Weird. The Fathers brought me back to the Orthodox Church.
You sure you just didn’t have an orthodox bias when you read them? Read them again with an open heart and pray to the Holy Spirit for the truth amen
@@radekofficial2919, that's true. I should ask the Holy Spirit to show me where the Holy Fathers taught that it was okay to perform same-sex blessings, so long as the Pope gives his okay.
Very Patristic. You're delusional, my guy. Wake up.
@@radekofficial2919 , I'll try to find proof for same-sex blessings, too.
Rather read the Bible instead of the Church fathers. The original church was : PENTECOSTAL ! Just read Acts chapter 2, please be honest !
if the holy bible and the teachings of Jesus didn't draw you to Christianity, but the writings of church "fathers" drew you to catholicism, you are in serious trouble.
Then sorry to disillusion you, you got a very distored version of true Christianity! These were the very interllectuals and clever philosophers, influenced by plato & other greek thinkers that Paul spoke of when he said "God chose the foolish men of the world to put the wise men to shame" ( 1 Cor 1:27) And told the 'bishops' of Ephesus " From amoung you yourseves men will arise and speak TWISTED things". ( Acts 20:30). Dont be influenced by the 'church fathers' my friend, they were mostly worng.
Early church fathers were mostly 'wrong' I guess st John had no idea what he was writing about.
OR st Ignatius or Irienaus or Polycarp of st John chrystom or Clement of the second pope or third .....
According to you the holy spirit was guiding the church from error even with the wolves coming out from among the faithful in every generation including the 16th century.
Your Bible was safeguarded by that false church from the start until Luther.
It was that false church that told Luther that the bible was the inspired Word of God.
If that church was the Whore of Babylon instead of the Bride if Christ, what makes you think that the whore didn't add error or take out truths and then falsely told Luther that this is inspired scripture?
In fact a false church would invariably insert falsehood and distort the truth because it is in its nature to deceive.
And remember, the Catholic Church and the Popes had ABSOLUTE POWER and were the sole custodians of the Bible for 1300 years before Luther.
It was those "pagan" church fathers and the Popes who approved and finalized your Bible.
In fact that is what Muslims claim, that the Christian bible has been corrupted.
Maybe you should be a Muslim instead.
Why were they wrong? They were the immediate (or almost immediate) successors of the Apostles. We could at least glance at the teachings that were universal in the Early Church, in the same generation the gospels were written (or the one right after).
Unless you mean not being from the actual time of Jesus demerits their words, in which case, oh Lord, our Bible is severely corrupted, my friend. Paul technically did see Jesus (though the resurrected one, and didn't engage in many words) but we also have so many others. Like Luke, quite the big name. Writer of Acts and one whole gospel, that reads:
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." Luke 1:1-2
Oh no! Luke was not there??? He did what?? _Interview people?_
And then all those letters, darn our Bible just got cut in more than half.
@@crusaderACR Thanks for your comment. Please dont get me wrong during the years after the 1st century there were many, many faithful Christians. My poin is that the reputation of most of the so called 'church fathers' was due to their interllect, education and ability to write, often prolifically. (Today, most bishops & archbishops in the anglican union are the same. Degrees in uni, often not on religious subjects e.t.c ge. Rowan Williams, Swelbey e.t.c). Paul said "Not many wise were chosen, for God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame" ( I Cor 1: 19-29) What about the many faithful Christians who just lived their daily lives as ordinary people with little education but much faith and love for Christ? we dont call them 'saints' e.t.c! Remember too that th Apostles were "unlettered & ordinary men". Also amoung Jesus disciples, what was the background of the one who betrayed him? I can give you details of the philosophic and greek hellenist influence in the writings of most of these 'church fathers'. PS; Polycarp, Clement of Rome & Igantious of Antioch lived the closest to John rhe surviving apostle. Their writings contain less philosophy and focus on the supermacy of the Father and the subordination of the Son. From around the middle of the 2nd century ( around 100 years AFTER Christ the introduction of philosophical views regarding the nature of God and Christ came to the fore.
@@crusaderACR They were not all wrong. I didnt say that. Its just I feel a false impression is given calling them 'church fathers'. They were in the main well educated philosophers who mostly. later in life tried to combine Christianity with greek hellenistic ideas. Remembering Paul's comment that "God chose the foolish things of the world t put the wise man to shame" ( 1 Cor 1:20-30 )On the other hand what about the unnamed thousands of faithful men & women who were true Christians? They have a name with God & not man which is more important!
Hopefully reading the Bible will encourage you to leave that religion.
You’re telling an ex-Presbyterian pastor to read the Bible? Have you read any of Hahn’s works?
@@grosty2353 The fact he was once a Presbyterian pastor proves he was susceptible to error.
@@johnbrowne2170 everyone is susceptible to error lol. What denomination are you?
@@grosty2353 Independent fundamentalist Baptist.
@@johnbrowne2170 baptists deny the true gospel because they deny peters words in acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. They believe you only have to repent to receive the forgiveness of sins.
The Early church fathers lead me out of the roman church and into the eatren orthodox
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it”
It is amazing how these men who sound so intelligent speak so highly of the early church fathers of the second, third centuries and beyond. Yet at the same time, these men deny the holy inspired scriptures (bible) as being the sole authority for the church. They have problems with Sola Scriptura, but take in the "interpolated" non-inspired writings of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers. Is this wise, of course not! These men are far from being intelligent. Worse still, they are basing their trust on corrupted manuscripts.
Who gave us the bible compiled?
@@justanotheryoutubewarrior8396
Time did! Most disciples of the Lord can discern inspired books.
Let me ask you, Who reads and studies the bible?
Who preaches the bible more directly?
Believing in the bible is known as Sola Scriptura. What Church does not believe in Sola Scriptura?
@@r.e.jr.1152 time didnt compile the bible thats just plain ignorance lol, as a protestant studying the church fathers my self i have to admit when you look at the history you have to ask what did they believe in that we dont.
History is important, the OT is needed to prove jesus is the messiah, prove his lineage.
So tell me whats your church history?
Well back to the bible you must believe it was compiled by men inspired by God? Surely God wudnt give what is holy to the dogs? To compile his actual holy scripture and choose which books should be in and which should be out.
So the next question is if the bible was compiled around 325-400ad, what did those same christians that had the holy spirit believe in?
Read the council of niceae canons, read the pre nicaea and nicaea time church father letters.
At the council of nicaea which every christian has to believe otherwise you put doubt on the bible, they actually celebrated easter,lent and called them self catholic(universal) in there creed?
What does this tell you..
Now furthermore if you believe in just the bible, show me where jesus 12 discples was baptised. Give me the verse
Also tell me how old was jesus when he died and where do you see this in the bible?
@@justanotheryoutubewarrior8396
You said the bible was compiled around 325 to 400. What do you think the church communities or local churches were using before that? Please explain.
Some of your questions are not right. Where the bible is silent we must be silent. Example, the baptism of the disciples.
As for Jesus' age before he died is asserted by the year they teach he was born in Bethlehem.
@@r.e.jr.1152 oral teachings, like paul said; these things you have HEARD..
if you are bible alone (sola scriptura) tell me was the 12 apostles baptised or not?
If you just read Scott Hahn you’d be shocked when you come across a Protestant because of his habit of straw manning Protestants, not to mention that he uses Protestants like Goppelt in his scholarship on typology
He doesn’t straw man Protestants. He was one for decades even becoming a Pastor
He is debunking views Protestants held against the church
It’s not his fault there are thousands of denominations
I find the title fascinating. It wasn't the BIBLE that converted him to Roman Catholicism, it was the church fathers. I agree, if you only read the bible, none of the nonsense of the Roman church is even brought up. You have to go to outside, uninspired sources to bend your mind into a Roman Catholic pretzel.
Twisted way of saying it. The earliest Christians observed the Eucharist and had bishops, priests and deacons and so do the Catholics of today. Please stop spreading misinformation
@@mjeezyca ''and had bishops, priests and deacons ''
Show me the verse about the priests in the Early church. Good luck. Please don't tell me elder is the Greek word for priest. Spare me.
''The earliest Christians observed the Eucharist ''
You mean the Mass. WE have only the Church Father's word for it. Nothing in scripture. Christ was sacrificed ONCE, not over and over. Christ dies ONLY ONCE, not over and over again. His sacrifice is not like those of lambs and goats. What blasphemy you support, which is a bit more serious than misinformation, wouldn't you say?
@@danielcristancho3524 no, you are presenting misconceptions and spreading hate which is not Christ like. get close with Jesus and learn from the Apostles. There is no support for sola scriptura
@@mjeezyca spreading hate which is not Christ like''
Oh, you're one of those. 'If you disagree with me, you're being hateful'. MJ, you need to grow a pair. Yea, believe it or not, lots of people are going to disagree with Papist doctrine. And Christ disagreed with the religious leaders of His day over and over again. Was that hate speech?
''learn from the Apostles''
That's a confusing statement coming from a papist. Are you talking about the Apostles being martyred for DISAGREEING WITH PAGAN DOCTRINES, or are you saying the Apostles led an Inquisition and tortured, took possessions, jailed and murdered all those who disagree with the...Oh, wait, no they didn't do that. That's your church's way of dealing with 'hate speech'.
@@danielcristancho3524 again with the misinformation. Anyways thank you for loving me enough to care to argue with me. I am praying for you
Try reading the Bible for truth
Jimmy Akin's The Fathers Know Best has made me want to stay protestant right at the start. Some fathers held heretical views but weren't considered heretics because in their day they weren't considered heretical teaching yet. 😒 🤔 Then Cyprian of Alexandria dealing cruelly with his enemies and a mob of his followers brutally murdered the female pagan philosopher Hypatia? Don't know if he played a part? 😒 🤔
Then the inquisitions done by the Protestants , many more witch trials than executed by the Catholic Church, indiscriminate execution of Catholics should make you an atheist then??? No??? Or maybe a Muslim???
I really don’t like how people especially Protestants don’t speak truth holistically when discussing history.
There is no evidence that Cyril had anything to do with Hypatia’s death. This claim is often brought up along side the claim that Christians destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria. No real evidence for these claims. Please stop helping spread these falsehoods.
Have u heard of King David ?
He was a murderer.
The New Testament introduces Jesus by saying
“Jesus, Son of David.”
So Jesus introduced as the son of a murderer
In the bible....Didn't Peter drop dead 2 people for not fully giving their offering to the church?
@@gsearingg it was because they lied about what they got and withheld what they promised.
You know what’s fascinating? Getting a phd and being called Dr. in something as useless as theology.
As useless as you
@@iparipaitegianiparipaitegi4643 🤣🤣🤣
Stunning and brave.
@@flamingdragon3861 I was knew I was rattling the cage with the comment.
Btw the one I'm replying to (since the comment seems to have been deleted) said "as useless as you?" Which I thought was hilarious.
@@g07denslicer is everything alright at home, friend?