Gavin doesn't debate Orthodox Christians... Father Josiah Trenham, Father Peter Heers, Father Turbo Qualls, would all be an excellent place to start. In any case, Jay Dyer, David Patrick Harry, Deacon Ananais Sorem also would also be great candidates for refitting these claims.
@@snocookies there is too much controversy around some of those guys. These extreme orthobro fringe guys are not representative of typical orthodox. They often disagree and call their own hierarchs heretics as well. I honestly don’t think any of those listed are worth talking to. I’ve heard them all and it’s the same triumphal nonsense that’s popular with the online orthobros bereft of all charity and grace as well as abysmal scripture and historical exegesis. A debate is not going to push the ball forward with any of them IMO.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj you’d be surprised at how many American Roman Catholics don’t either. Though due to the internet and the upsurge of many Protestants going to liturgical traditions many people are learning about Orthodox.
@@glassworks4850 1. Study islam and refute it by showing Muslims it is not the final testament of God because it contradicts the Bible, and show them why and how. 2. From a historical perspective. Show them why the Bible can be trusted and proof that it hasn’t been “corrupted” as they will claim. 3. Pray.
@@lerikaharevic I'm a Reformed Baptist (Calvinistic). Our church is involved in evangelism, discipleship, and missions. The Lord opened doors for us to minister to Indian students in our place. But to muslims, not yet.
That’s just the thing…there has been so many revivals,moves of the Spirit in Protestant churches that doesn’t seem to come to the table in this. For example the Brownsville revival in Pensacola Florida was a powerful move of God where thousands were transformed, saved from drugs and everything else. I got transformed there by the power of God and now serve as a missionary in Mexico. If the RCC is the one true church you would think that you would see more miracles, healings and moves of the Spirit, more spiritual gifts there
But the argument is sound. There is nothing in the Bible *or* the earliest Apostolic Fathers which suggests a centralized church. Unified, yes. A single centralized institution, no.
And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house
Catholic as in Universal Church. That’s what it used to mean and I feel it got twisted. To me any church that follows and teaches scripture is catholic Church. As in part of Body of Christ. Has nothing to do with institutions
This is beautifully done. I find myself drawn toward Catholicism, but 99% of the Christians I know and love are Protestant and I never want to disrespect the tradition that brought me this far, no matter where my personal journey takes me. Thank you for your work 🤍
Keep praying and come fully into full communion with a Church. Remember, he did not address the authority of the church, giving us canon of scripture and how do you rest assured? The answer, is that there is one God given authority on earth on issues of binding morality, and dogma to the church And the more schismatic they get the more the hierarchy and truth gets water down Think about what Protestantism invites, invites the question of whether we actually had the correct canon, and who had the right hierarchy to do so, and Jesus giving us one church did not give us thousands of binding dogmas and different morality.
@@holyhoff8521 Very interesting approach lol! I do appreciate his commitment to easing anxiety. I hope to see Protestant leadership make a serious attempt to become more unified in the future.
Some things to reflect on. Sola Fide ... contradicts scripture; Ja 2 24 Sola Scriptura ... contradicts scripture; 2 Thes 2 15 Once Saved Always Saved ... contradicts scripture; Jn 15 (parable of the vine) Symbolic only baptism ... contradicts scripture; 1 Pet 3 Symbolic only Lords Supper (Eucharist) ... contradicts scripture; (Jn 6 52-55; Lk 22 19) As none of these doctrines came along until the 16th c, we can dismiss them as a distortion of the True Gospel as scripture warns would happen. The foundation stone of protestantism, sola scriptura, has fruit that was and continues to be, chaos and confusion. Who has the TRUTH in protestantism? Gavin? The Church error'ed for the first 1000+ years and didn't even know it? Gavin knows better? _3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths._ (2 Tim 4)
I assume you're reading a Bible that has 66 books. The Bible actually has 73 books and has always had 73 books since its very conception in the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until the 1500s that protestants removed 7 books. I mean, 66 is also a number that hints incompleteness (Remember the number of the beast). Anyway, the basic fact is that God founded the Catholic Church and would never let her fall into doctrinal error. (Human error can easily be found because we are all sinners.) But if you don't believe Holy Mother Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then I guess Luther was right in that the problem is everyone can become their own pope. To quote Luther: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that."
@@TruthHasSpoken Sola Fide, because James 2:24 says justified, not saved. We are saved by faith in Christ. Faith leads to works showing we indeed have faith. But the works is not what saves us as that is the faith in Christ. So still Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is what then was sent by letters or told as eyewitness testimony, aka what is today scripture. Only some protestants say "Once saved always saved". I have never believed that and I am a protestant. Symbolic only Baptism? What do you mean? For me baptism was to show that I ended my earlier life and started a new one in Christ. So yes it symbolized a new birth. Yes, Eucharist is a symbolic act in which we thank Jesus as the atoning lamb for our sins. When Christ was giving the Bread and saying it was His body, He was still sitting there with them and said to do it in remembrance of His act on the Cross. Because we read in 1 Corinthians 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
@@JamesAsp "James 2:24 says justified, not saved". Who is teaching you this??? When one is justified, made right with God, one is absolutely, 100% saved. "We are saved by faith in Christ" We are saved 100% by God Grace, an unmerited gift no one can earn, THROUGH faith, a faith working in love (Gal. 5 v6). The word FAITH though in Greek, _pistis_ ALSO means to be "faithful." We must be faithful to be saved. "Faith leads to works" Scripture says: faith is made COMPLETE by works (Ja 2 22) " the works is not what saves us as that is the faith in Christ" A faith without works (of love, charity) can not save us. God is clear, repeatedly so ... answer is NO. _14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?_ (Ja 2 v14) "So still Sola Fide." More scripture, the ONLY time in all of scripture those two words are side by side: _24 You see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone._ "Only some protestants say "Once saved always saved". I have never believed that and I am a protestant." Indeed that it is a heresy. "For me baptism was to show that I ended my earlier life and started a new one in Christ.So yes it symbolized a new birth." The washing of water is a symbol, but not symbol only, of a greater spiritual reality. You were born again scripturally when you were baptized, having your soul cleansed of sin, having sanctifying grace restored, and the indwelling of God (the Holy Spirit). "Eucharist is a symbolic act" The bread and wine are symbols of a greater spiritual reality : receiving the body and blood of the Resurrected Christ, a means for receiving his Grace. This happens in Orthodox and Catholic Churches as an ordained priest is required.
Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️
@@dreaddshorts - Context of Thessalonians 2:15: Paul is speaking the thing he had writing to the Thessalonians through out his two letters to them. Remember that Paul happend to be with Timothy and Silas, and he only have been to Thessalonicai only for 3 sabbaths days(Acts 17). Also, there's no any letter or writting about the thing that Paul said to the Thessalonians face to face, regardless of the Scriptures, or the book of Acts - Context of Matthew 16:18-19 Christ is speaking about himself. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. " Christ here didn't say "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you i will build my chruch" or "I will build the Orthodox Chruch" Christ is the rock in this verse. If you read 1 Peter 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 10:4, both Peter and Paul refers to Christ as "rock" or in greek; "petra", they use in this same pessages the word "Petra" to refer to Jesus. - Context of James 2:24 You forgot that in this chapter, James started saying: "My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory." James is speaking to believers and encouraging them to do good works, because, if you don't show your faith with your works, you never had faith in Jesus. At the end of the day, all comes to faith alone. For example, Abraham belived in God and thanks to his faith, he trust His word, that's why God spare Abraham's son (Isaac) and make a promise with him. But, his actions were purely for beliving in God. So, my question is: If you are a christian, and you repent from your sins and turn away from sin and belived in Christ, we don't you show off your faith to others?, your good deeds are the fruit of your faith in Christ, and a clear sign of God's work on you to change you to the shape he like the most; like His Son, although, it's impossible to be like Jesus but one can imitate Him. Titus 3:8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. *These things are excellent and profitable for people.* So, if you do good works, you are (obvliously) helping people that are needy of something and this is profitable for that person, and, for your good works, you are gloring God, 'cause you are delivering yourself to God as a instrument to do good; Romans 6:13-14 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. Colossians 3:17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Now, let me, take a look of these passages if you don't belive that you are not saved by faith alone: - Ephesians 2:8-9 - Romans 3:20-30 - Matthew 7:21 + John 6:40 (The Will of the Father) - Romans 1:16-17 - Romans 4:13:25 - Romans:5:16-19 - Galatians 2:16-21 - Galatians 3:6-7 + 3:18+ 3:29 I could keep on going, but that would be really annoying of my part. Before i end this long message, i hope you understand that salvation can be obtain out of the chruch, but not out of Christ. Romans 5:21: so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through *righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.* The chruch of Christ are all the believers, read 1 Corinthians 12-27. I pray to you to understand the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ my brother/sister, i want you with me in heaven alongside the other believers, but i will not judge, because i don't know your heart, but i truly belive that you my brother/sister belive in Jesus Christ and you already save thanks to the sacrifice that He did on the cross.
@Guilherme-np9kn Most people outside the Catholic Church probably have no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.
@Guilherme-np9kn Please check out the work of Erick Ybarra on the Papacy and the Filioque. You will see strong Papal claims being accepted in the first millennium (the Orthodox claim the first millennium was theirs, so why are they accepting papal claims?). And to the Filioque, the Eastern Orthodox church historically condemns anyone who holds to it, so in doing that, she condemns half of the Fathers (the Latins). There is no way to bridge the Orthodox view of the Filioque between the Latins and the Greeks, but there is a way to bridge it between the East and West in the Catholic Church. There is no East and West in Christ. May God bless you and lead you into truth. ~Dylan
I just recently ran across Gavin's channel, and I'm loving it! I'm reminded of Francis Bacon's quote, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." I feel like one could think similarly about historical understanding of the Church. That a little bit of historical study inclines man's mind to Catholicism; but depth of historical study brings men's minds about to Protestantism.
"depth of historical study brings men's minds about to Protestantism." If the early Church believed the below I would be protestant. Which of the countless flavors I do not know. As Cardinal Newman said, "to be deep in history is cease to be protestant." Sola Fide ... contradicts scripture; Ja 2 24 Sola Scriptura ... contradicts scripture; 2 Thes 2 15 Once Saved Always Saved ... contradicts scripture; Jn 15 (parable of the vine) Symbolic only baptism ... contradicts scripture; 1 Pet 3 Symbolic only Lords Supper (Eucharist) ... contradicts scripture; (Jn 6 52-55; Lk 22 19) As none of these doctrines came along until the 16th c, we can dismiss them as a distortion of the True Gospel as scripture warns would happen. The foundation stone of protestantism, sola scriptura, has fruit that was and continues to be, chaos and confusion. Who has the TRUTH in protestantism? Gavin? The Church error'ed for the first 1000+ years and didn't even know it? Gavin knows better? 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Tim 4)
@@TruthHasSpoken1. A common response to your sola fide objection is that works are the fruits of true, living faith. And it clearly says in Romans that salvation is by faith and not by works, just like it was with Abraham. 2. Your seem to miss understand sola scriptura. As explained in the video, sola scriptura means that scripture is the highest and only infallible authority. Your verse talks about the traditions from the apostles, which can mostly or maybe entirely be found in the new testament and anything that isn't is found in the creeds and the fathers, that traditionally are not rejected as authorities. And no Christian rejects the authority of scripture. You however would need to make a case for papal infallibility (not just authority) in the early Church since it is only a dogma since 1870. 3. Many protestants agree with you and me that true apostasy is possible. 4. Reformed, Lutherans, and some others agree that God works through the sacraments. The Reformed and Lutheran denominations agree that they have salvific effects. 5. Reformed agree that you receive the Body and Blood in the sacrament of the altar, Lutherans even agree that it truly is His Body and His Blood (as the Lord said at the last supper). But there is no biblical basis for saying that the bread and wine don't also stay what they were beforehand (though no explicit rejection either). Since I answered your objections, will you stay true to what you said and at least read the relevant confessions? I would recommend the Augsburg Confession and its apology, its the primary confession of Lutheranism. P.S. don't worry, I still consider Catholics Christians
@@TruthHasSpoken The Protestant view is not that the Church errored for the first 1500 years, but rather that error was CONSTANTLY appearing within the Church, from day 1, up until today, and needed to be addressed by the righteous men who God sent. This is why we have the letters of Saint Paul addressing the various errors that had crept in to the Church, right from the earliest times. This is why we had the various councils and synods throughout history. The great questions of the day would be debated by the Christians and a consensus formed, based upon the authorities in the Church, with the foremost authority being Christ Himself and the very writings of the original Apostles, which we today call the Bible. These writings of the original Apostles always held the highest weight, even in an 'Apostolic Succession' supporters mind, because these were the views of the Apostles whom God granted authority, and their authority supersedes any 'successor', especially as the successors were constantly disagreeing with each other, whereas the message from the original Apostles, especially as framed in Scripture, has no contradiction. The great 'reformers' of Protestantism were trying to continue in this duty of care that all Christians have, where they must combat that heresy and error that had crept into the faith. They opposed blatant evils like indulgences and advocated for the Scriptures to be translated into tongues that laymen could understand to ensure that they might not be led astray by false shepherds. The response from the Vatican was wholesale persecution, murder, assassination and large-scale war (to the point of FIVE crusades). There was even an attempted council where Hus was deceived, lured in and then murdered despite his safety being promised. Those five crusades were then sent after his followers to try to wipe them out. This true understanding of history will make you realise why schism happened, and it was very much to do with the fact that the Roman Catholics had done what they were not supposed to, and made any reconciliation or reformation impossible by their un-Christian violence. It was difficult to see Christ among them, and while He no doubt was in the hearts of many good and faithful individuals, it is near impossible to see Him in the leadership, the Vatican or the Papacy. The Church continues on, it never went away, and neither Catholics nor Orthodox had a claim to be the big C Church. They are just small c churches that are a part of God's glorious big C Church. The same as Protestants now. We should all seek to follow God as best we can. Our greatest resource is the Bible, and even according to those who grant exclusive authority to the Apostles, they should venerate the Holy Bible as it was written by those Apostles who have primary authority, which thus sees the Bible outweigh others based on the authority of its writers. Every single one of those five positions you have stated finds support in Scripture, Protestants did not just 'make them up' in the 16th century in the same way that Catholics just 'made up' Mary being assumed into heaven despite there being no evidence for it whatsoever.
@@xyztogrutamamenchi7894 1. "it clearly says in Romans that salvation is by faith and not by works, just like it was with Abraham." We ARE saved : - by Grace an unmerited gift no one can earn - THROUGH faith (we DO come to an initial "I believe") - a Faith working in love (being faithful in love of God and neighbor; we are justified, made right with God) Faith is made complete by works, of charity / love (Ja 2 below). St Paul most frequently speaks of "works" of the Old Testament Law. Those works can not save. One can say we are saved by Faith "alone" if one understands that it is a faith complete by love and charity as James says. The greek word for faith, _pistis,_ means too to be _faithful._ Faith is never separated from love / charity. _21 Was not Abraham our father _*_justified by works,_*_ when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?_ _25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot _*_justified by works_*_ when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?_ "2. Your seem to miss understand sola scriptura." Protestantism itself is divided on the definition. I always have to ask a protestant what do you mean by sola scriptura? The answers vary. "sola scriptura means that scripture is the highest and only infallible authority" This is a definition that I have heard but scripture itself doesn't teach this. Properly speaking, scripture is both inerrant and inspired. Infallibility is a charism of the Church to declare without error what is false and what is true. "3. Many protestants agree with you and me that true apostasy is possible." There have always been apostates, those who reject what the Church believed. This reflects the sin of pride. "4. Reformed, Lutherans, and some others agree that God works through the sacraments" All Sacraments - 7 - are means of receiving God's grace. 16th century heretics (apostates), Catholic men with no authority, rejected some of these Sacraments. "The Reformed and Lutheran denominations agree that they have salvific effects." Right, as an example as Jesus himself said: _3 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day._ "But there is no biblical basis for saying that the bread and wine don't also stay what they were beforehand (though no explicit rejection either)." Disagree. There are Catholic sources that go into more detail but one goes by Christ's words: THIS IS MY BODY. The Church believed it changed. It didn't describe in its theology HOW it changed. That would happen much later with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The early Church used the language repeatedly of the bread and wine: - transforming - transmuting - changing - becoming "will you stay true to what you said and at least read the relevant confessions?" I made that commitment (I am of my word however) ?? " would recommend the Augsburg Confession"" This is an example from the Confession, Article 24, of those who would rebel against the Church, apostates if you will: _Now if the Mass take away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act justification comes of the work of Masses, and not of faith, which Scripture does not allow._ - The men were fallible or infallible who made this statement, this interpretation of scripture? - One should reject a universal belief of the Church, 1500 years after the Church was started, for the (fallible) interpretation of men 1500 years later who disagreed, holding beliefs not found in proceeding 1500 years?? The Christians leading the Church held to scripture, cited scripture and revered scripture. They just did not hold to Sola Scriptura which itself is not in scripture.
@@xyztogrutamamenchi7894 1. "it clearly says in Romans that salvation is by faith and not by works, just like it was with Abraham." We ARE saved : - by Grace an unmerited gift no one can earn - THROUGH faith (we DO come to an initial "I believe") - a Faith working in love (being faithful in love of God and neighbor; we are justified, made right with God) Faith is made complete by works, of charity / love (Ja 2 below). St Paul most frequently speaks of "works" of the Old Testament Law. Those works can not save. One can say we are saved by Faith "alone" if one understands that it is a faith complete by love and charity as James says. The greek word for faith, pistis, means too to be faithful. Faith is never separated from love / charity. _Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?_ _And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?_ "2. Your seem to miss understand sola scriptura." Protestantism itself is divided on the definition. I always have to ask a protestant what do you mean by sola scriptura? The answers vary. "sola scriptura means that scripture is the highest and only infallible authority" This is a definition that I have heard but scripture itself doesn't teach this. Properly speaking, scripture is both inerrant and inspired. Infallibility is a charism of the Church to declare without error what is false and what is true. "3. Many protestants agree with you and me that true apostasy is possible." There have always been apostates, those who reject what the Church believed. This reflects the sin of pride. " "4. Reformed, Lutherans, and some others agree that God works through the sacraments" All Sacraments (7) are means of receiving God's grace. 16th century heretics (apostates), Catholic men with no authority, rejected some of these Sacraments. " "The Reformed and Lutheran denominations agree that they have salvific effects." Right, as an example as Jesus himself said: _“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day._ "But there is no biblical basis for saying that the bread and wine don't also stay what they were beforehand (though no explicit rejection either)." Disagree. There are Catholic sources that go into more detail but one goes by Christ's words: THIS IS MY BODY. The Church believed it changed. It didn't describe in its theology HOW it changed. That would happen much later with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The early Church used the language repeatedly of the bread and wine: - transforming - transmuting - changing - becoming "will you stay true to what you said and at least read the relevant confessions?" I made that commitment (I am of my word however) ?? " would recommend the Augsburg Confession"" This is an example from the Confession, Article 24, of those who would rebel against the Church, apostates if you will: _Now if the Mass take away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act justification comes of the work of Masses, and not of faith, which Scripture does not allow._ - The men were fallible or infallible who made this statement, this interpretation of scripture? - One should reject a universal belief of the Church, 1500 years after the Church was started, for the (fallible) interpretation of men 1500 years later who disagreed, holding beliefs not found in proceeding 1500 years?? The Christians leading the Church held to scripture, cited scripture and revered scripture. However, they did not hold to Sola Scriptura which itself is not in scripture, and came along in the 16th c.
Beautiful. Thank you Gavin. Enjoy your respite! We are all eternally grateful for your faithfulness to our faithful God. We are built up and we pray that you will be built up and encouraged during your break. You are causing us all to love one another more affectionately and more effectively. Thank you! Praise be to God!
Robertstephendon...yes. I am. Amen to all your passages from Paul to Timothy. And from the same book he tells us the foundation of all truth (I Tim 3,:15). You sought truth outside of this command and rejected three tenets of the faith that are absolutely supported in scripture. (Saints in heaven, sinners hell, ect). Church teaching on faith and morals may be hard teaching, but never inconsistent with what our Lord (who is truth) teaches.
@@keith8325 That's a comment loaded with presumptions. If you have no interest in understanding or intellectual honesty then you have no business in these conversations.
@robertstephenson6806 Most people outside the Catholic Church probably have no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.
There was a stretch of time where I was heavily considering becoming Eastern Orthodox (I grew up Baptist), but I ultimately couldn’t bring myself to do it, and my reasons largely fell into those three categories. While I don’t know if I’ll remain a Baptist forever, I think I’ll remain a Protestant for the rest of my life
@@easybeliever7 One thing to point out is that "once saved, always saved" is just one of the two main doctrines of eternal security, the other being "perseverance of the saints." The first affirms that believers can fall away from the faith and still be saved, the second does not.
@@unit2394 I’m feeling pretty strongly pulled toward Anglicanism; I just can’t shake off my credobaptist/baptism via immersion beliefs from my background
@@coopahtroopah1175-I have a similar story. I grew up Southern Baptist. I started questioning some of my long held Baptist beliefs in my late 20s/early 30s. This intensified when I started reading online RCC and EOC apologists and reading the church fathers. I seriously considered Eastern Orthodoxy for a while and was briefly a catechumen. However for a few reasons, I ultimately couldn’t swim the Bosphorus, and I took the Canterbury trail instead. I thus became a traditional Anglican about 15 years ago and haven’t looked back 👍🏻.
Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️
Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️
Very helpful summary. And freeing…. Since I have some catholic friends, I can both learn and appreciate their perspective on many things while at the same time understanding why I am protestant. Thank you!
Recently, after being a lifelong Protestant and having my gripes of what has become of the modern Protestant church, I was intrigued by the historicity of Orthodoxy and began reading materials on their beliefs and even visited an eastern Orthodox church near me. Having devoured every text I could get my hands on and doing a "deep dive", I came away learning much about orthodoxy and early church traditions as a whole that both challenged misconceptions I held and gave me an appreciation for things that are largely unregarded in Protestant circles (in my experience). That being said, it also became clear to me in my studies and reaffirmed in my spirit that there are practices in older traditions like Orthodoxy and Catholicism that are indeed contrary to the message of scripture and has strengthened my resolve as a Protestant. I did however come away with a love for a more reverent approach to worship found in the traditions of Orthodoxy as well as a far less judgemental view of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The overall takeaway was a broader understanding of what or who is the actual Body of Christ, and an appreciation for the simplicity of the gospels core message..Believe and be saved. In as much as Orthodox and Catholics believe in and trust Jesus for their salvation, they are my brothers in Christ, though they may not share the same sentiment. However, in as much as they believe their traditions will save them, Holy Spirit compels me to remain set apart and thus, Protestant. I am grateful for the whole experience, and believe the whole ordeal has only enriched my faith and life as a whole. Your videos helped bring Truth back into focus for me toward the end of that process. Thank you.
@@Shskfjekdnf38587 the ones typically contested within protestantism and for good reason. Prayer to the saints, hyper veneration of Mary to the point of asking her to save us, the veneration of icons, the exclusivity of salvation within a particular faith tradition vs by the atoning blood of Christ by Grace through faith. These practices aren't clearly demonstrated anywhere in scripture and we don't find them practiced within the church until late in the 4th century and into the 5th, yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy hold them as essential practices on pain of anathema if not observed. I truly wanted to find reasons for participating in those practices. I wanted to find "the proof" that they are scriptural and part of God's instruction for His church. I wanted to put my finger on and identify the ever elusive "true church of God" but found that it isn't something that can be defined in the natural or recognized with any particular institution of man. Faith is a spiritual matter, and so the one true faith is one of spirit and not brick and mortar. God's true Church is in Spirit...He calls, saves, sanctifies and leads each flawed individual by His Spirit. This is why "The gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church", because there is no one institution the adversary must corrupt and thus prevail against... Christ's Church is His body, and the requirement for membership is repentance and true faith in Christ Jesus ALONE. Each denomination within Christianity has always had and will continue to have its controversies and problematic dogmas...Because they are temporal institutions and thus, corruptible. Satan will always seek to confuse and divide...But the Church of God will prevail through every generation because Satan cannot overcome it simply by bringing down a single temporal institution. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have both "gotten it wrong" in the past and admittedly so. I believe they still have it wrong in a number of areas. Every Protestant denomination has its own skeletons, some atoned for and some still held. Praise God for His wonderful mercy and grace, apart from which there is no Church, and we are all doomed to damnation. And because of His Mercy and grace, there are many true believers who have it wrong in one area or another in each of the Christian denominations but are still His sheep and they know His voice. We are His Church.
Firstly nobody is reading that whole essay. Secondly its obviously you didn't read any texts because we don't worship saints nor say Mary is above God. If you see Catholics doing this they are usually old or very ignorant
Recently discovered your channel throughout the Reedemed Zoomer and I'm loving your videos and your teachings, plus, you pointed the arguments in the video why I'm Protestant. God bless you!
@@m1cha3l0 Nonsense, and it is not attacking to expose error which believers are supposed to do. The only actual protestor was Luther. All the others were reformers, remember The Reformation.
@@geordiewishart1683 Everyone outside the Catholic Church probably has no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.
This was great! So much easier to spread to friends and family who might not follow a lecture type video. Hope you make more of these for other more specific topics also!
I assume you're reading a Bible that has 66 books. The Bible actually has 73 books and has always had 73 books since its very conception in the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until the 1500s that Protestants removed 7 books. I mean, 66 is also a number that hints incompleteness (Remember the number of the beast). Anyway, the basic fact is that God founded the Catholic Church and would never let her fall into doctrinal error. (Human error can easily be found because we are all sinners.) But if you don't believe Holy Mother Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then I guess Luther was right in that the problem is everyone can become their own pope. To quote Luther: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that." God bless.
That's a nice animated video you got there. I'd sure hate for it to receive a thousand rebuttals! Hehe. As a non-Protestant, I do enjoy your concise and irenic content. Thank you for your work.
Gavin I watch, rewatch, and re watch this video all the time, I share it with everyone I know. This has been one of your most helpful videos to me, and I would LOVE to see more like this. Thank you so much for all your work!!
Catholic here, just wanted to say that I love your channel. I don’t agree with everything you say, but I really enjoy listening your lessons. I’m so thankful that you did the debate with Trent and went on Pints with Aquinas, as it opened me up to visiting your channel more. I really enjoy listening to the Protestant perspective on things.
Not sure why you would not dive further into to her faith? Why would you listen to Protestant theology if you were not interested in learning it? Your Catholic faith is rich in tradition and is the TRUE teaching magisterium. 😊
I find some of the content here a little misleading. While I appreciate the humility in tone I feel it is used as a mechanism to disarm and spread falsehoods
Ive recently been reading "the case for Catholicism " by Trent Horn. It had me thinking, thank you for reminding me what makes me protestant. God bless.
Keep looking, this video doesn’t talk about the Unity in Faith or in Doctrine, which does not exist in protestantism, which goes against the principle of Catholicity and having the entirety of Truth.
Wrong. And little colorful diagrams wont change it. Protestantism is not Catholic. You have zero valid priesthood. You can claim you are the priesthood of all believers and even that is false because you reject the Church Jesus established. His priesthood of all believers are those who are Catholic. You have no ministerial priesthood which the Catholic Church has since it is founded by Jesus.Protestants walked away from the true ministerial priesthood which in the order of Melchizedek and rejected the Church's authority. And then you bring up scripture ? LOL Hilarious you protestants also removed 7 books. So nice try
Absolutely brilliant Gavin. Incredible what you packed into 5 min. Such clear teaching, and so affirming. Amazing animation Ryan. Hope you both work together on some more in the future. Blessings. Jon
I’m not sure what people are saying is so brilliant. I think they did a good job on the video, but how can it be brilliant to say we are more Catholic by telling each congregation you basically have the right to use whichever canon you were led to whichever tradition you are led to? he did not address this issue. Catholicity means there is unity and diversity but we can only have more meaningful and pure diversity when we know what unifies us and just saying the Scriptures unify us is not very helpful per the last 500 years, also even where they do unify us you’re still excusing the principle of who gets to tell us how many books are in the canon and who has to tell us what is morally binding to the universal church on important matters of morality? It is to our peril to think otherwise. If he is right about anything, he is right that even after all of the schisms, there are Catholic elements , I’m not sure how that is news. Instead of continuing to fragment and ask each other if we have the right canon of scripture and which hierarchy gets to tell us, we have the right canon maybe we should stick with the one who gave us the original, and rest assured , we had it right for 1000 years or so.
I am very glad for little primers like this to use as encapsulations and summaries of why we're Protestant. I think this will be a useful way to help show some Catholic Friends of mine what Protestantism sees itself as.
I'm glad you see it that way! As a catholic christian, I respect all my brothers and sisters in christ, however it would be better if both sides refrained from making rash judgements about each other and our respective beliefs.
@@radosawbartoszewicz7247 Yes it would. God asks us to strive for unity and to have love, patience and grace for one another. I've found a place to listen to Catholics and be open to why they believe as they do, w/out needing to tell them that way is wrong. In most cases though, no matter how well the dialogue starts, Catholics tend to get really defensive when I don't ultimately agree w/them. I find we end up in largely the place to accept Christ as savior and ultimate Lord, but we get there through different doctrines, which I find largely peripheral. Our differences in doctrine and administration don't have to be deal breakers.
@@radosawbartoszewicz7247 I very much agree - the more caricature and misunderstanding can be reduced on both sides the better, and the closer of a fellowship we can have together here on Earth. I've been very thankful for the chance to learn about, and from, people who are Roman Catholic and Orthodox and to realize how much we do have in common as well as the ways we can draw closer together. Respectfully disagreeing is an art that may not be often practiced in this age, but it's one that we can revive!
Thanks for making me realize that I should not be ashamed for not converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, unlike many of their members who keep manipulating me into joining.
I must say it’s sad that you say this. It is also sad that there can be so much animosity. Gavin does miss the issue of authority still. He forgets to or leaves out intentionally or the “reformers “in fallible when they changed the Canada scripture? How is it more Catholic to water down the hierarchy and to water down the knowledge of which Canon is correct? God bless you, we were given the sacraments, and the catechism and sacramental’s for the our benefit, and we ought to participate in the life of the church how we were commanded to. But, God is not bound to the sacraments just because He bound us to them.
There a lot I admire about both, but I can’t convert bc they teach things that I think are objectively wrong, and historically innovative but bc they’re institution centric they just deny this and claim they’ve always had the same practices.
Utmost respect here Dr. Ortlund, love your channel and have shared that I wish more Protestants would engage arguments in a likewise manner. That said, purely reading Scripture as a whole as well as the Church Fathers leads me to reject Protestantism as a whole, though I respect the more robust theology behind the older traditions they are still exactly that - other traditions. I can’t help but notice the inconsistencies in the differing traditions, even within Protestantism. For example, would you baptize an infant? There are multiple denominations that answer this in vastly different ways and some that flatly deny it can be done. I love the Body of Christ and take the position of the Church (Catholic) that many are indeed joined to the Body through the genuineness of their faith in Christ - whether they would accept it or not based on what has been presented to them (per Vatican II). Much love brethren. Peace be with you.
THIS IS GREAT! Thank you Gavin for standing firm for the Protestant representation of Christianity. The appeal to the RCC and EOC is heavily on the rise, especially among disgruntled people within evangelical communities that have only a one inch deep understanding of Scripture and Church History (at least that's what I've seen on RUclips). Thank you, your work is an answer to prayer.
Wow.... this is an amazingly well done video. I am a protestant and the more I have travelled the world and studied church history the more I wanted to be united with that. I attended a Russian Orthodox church for some months while I was staying in a city for a year. I really appreciated a lot of tradition they had and I thought we could use more of that in the church, but I don't know how I feel about scriptural interpretation of icon veneration and things like that. I don't understand any scriptural doctrine that says you cannot have salvation outside of the RCC. I feel that studying the church has really been a confusing topic for me in the past year or two and I would love some recommendations on resources for church history and how God would interpret his word today. Like you said, protestants are ok with the messiness
But do you know that there is a for example a grecce catolic church and in romam catolic church we belive that they also can go to haven. And People outside of visible church can go to haven. rome in name of rcc cames from tradicion of liturgy pope is a leader of all catolics. Sory for my english but im not native speaker
@@philagon don’t look now, but the catechism of the Catholic Church has already addressed each of these 5 points. While this 5 minute video does a great job laying out it’s 5 points. Because it’s so brief it glosses over the perspicuity of scripture, historical claims, etc. It claims that Protestantism is more Catholic despite a minimal list of doctrines that are agreed on and shared by the various number of protestant denominations, even managing to disagree on the prominence or importance of Baptism. The is more historical evidence for both the Catholic and Orthodox Church that are more consistent and compelling, which was precisely St. John Henry Newman’s point when he said “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, important to recognize that he put his money where his mouth was!
@@johnmendez3028 There are 3 points not 5. Doesn’t give me confidence you are paying attention. Regardless of what protestantism bases it catholicity on, it is more catholic. That can’t be debated. It is besides the point whether it rests that catholicity on doctrine or something else. All Gavin was establishing was that protestants can admit there are christians outside of protestantism in a more robust way than catholics can admit there are christians outside of catholicism. This is something like an empirical fact, it can’t be refuted. You can say we are wrong for drawing the line of catholicity where we do, but again, that’s a different point and not one Gavin is making. As soon as you admit that EO church has a case for being the “one true [institutional] church” you have hamstrung the RCC claim to fulfill that position uniquely. Better to abandon that silly idea entirely.
The catholicity and unity Gavin presents is an illusion, a deception. Many Protestants will feel reassured by his ideas but this will keep them in error and away from the sacraments.
@@philagon Catholic means universal church, a church for all mankind, that prays and speaks in all languages with more than 200,000 parishes all over the world. Cyril of Jerusalem 350 A.D. “And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is, nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”.
Have to break this reply up... I can't keep to a five minute time limit! Cute video! And as always, I think you do a very good job in presenting your case charitably and without any rancour or insult. Still, I remain unconvinced that Protestantism is a) a viable alternative to Catholicism with respect to doctrine, belief, and practice; and b) that Protestantism as a movement has a real foundation. I hold that I shall always remain convinceable, but the case has to be solid. I say this with all respect. I've listened to very many Protestant and Evangelical preachers, I've read some tracts and other literature from a Protestant perspective, I've read some source materials. Nowhere close to the amount you've read I am certain! I have yet to meet the Protestant apologist that can actually make a sensible case for Protestantism. And that is quite different than making a case *against Catholicism*. 1. Ah, history!! 1517 vs 34ish. Historically we know, as you say, that the Protestant churches date to 1517. This means that there was no Protestantism before 1517. What was before 1517? The Church was before 1517. When was the Church founded? Around 33 or 34 AD. When was the first Protestant church founded? 1517. Who founded the Church? Jesus founded the Church. Who founded the Protestant churches? Did Jesus come back and found them? No, Martin Luther founded them, and others around his time, such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. So, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli did not found the Church in 33ish AD? No, they founded their own churches in 1517 and thereafter. Interesting bit of history that. What are the Five Solas? I've never heard of those! --- I guess that means I'm either Catholic / Orthodox or else was alive before 1517! I looked. They are sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). Interesting. According to Matthew Barrett, a Baptist theologian: "These five statements of the evangelical faith lay at the center of what distinguished the theology of the Reformation from the theology of the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century." Interesting. The statements of the "Evangelical faith" --- so not the Christian faith? I wonder, were there any solas before the 16th century? Indeed there were! The Church has always professed: One God, one faith, one baptism. St. Paul wrote that early on! He wrote that before the 16th century. Also interesting --- so, if there is but one faith, why did Luther and Calvin and Zwingli have to make new churches with new faiths? That kind of defeats Christ's purpose! That's a good question that I think really needs answering! In any event, a couple of the Protestant solas do look familiar: sola gratia, well, yes, salvation does come through God's grace, and we can accept or reject it. So I think we have a point of agreement there at least. And obviously solo deo gratias --- God is the source of all things and it is through his providence that we have our lives and are able to accomplish anything, so there's another agreement. But what about sola scriptura and sola fide? Where do they come from? Did Jesus teach those things? No, of course not! Jesus taught that we are judged by the "works" we do, and he gave loads of examples. Of course, faith is critical, but it is not solitary and can not live without action. As for the scriptures, Jesus taught his apostles orally and commanded them to teach. He didn't give them a book to teach from, but he did give them the office and function of teachers. Eventually, the Church began the work of writing things down. This took a while, but certainly within a hundred years, there were loads of things written down! And within a couple hundred years, hundreds and maybe thousands of gospels and revelations and letters and testaments and books and psalms and sorts of things! Wow, that's a lot of writing. What happened to it all? I know some of it is kind of --- weird? You know, Jesus being married and God not really being God, but being a kind of demon, and there's another God and physical things are evil while spiritual things are good. It's very confusing! How do we keep track of it all! Well, it's a good thing that Jesus founded his Church in 34ish AD and gave its leaders the authority to make determinations of this sort. Jesus may have been buff, but he wasn't stupid! He knew that people would get all confused and argue among themselves and some would lead other astray and loads of people would start writing all kinds of nonsense. Fortunately, he had the solution to building a proper Church --- and Christ was a tekton (a builder & craftsman) after all! He built his Church on a firm foundation --- on Peter, and the other apostles. He gave them authority to teach and hand on the faith that he himself had taught them by his words and his actions. He gave them ministerial & governmental authority over the Church, to make determinations and settle issues. And he promised the eternal assistance of the Holy Spirit in this endeavour. And that God for that, because with all those confusing books out there, what am I supposed to make of it all, 2000 years later? Well, the Church settled on only 73 books! Of course, that only took them 300 years! But at least we don't have to worry about all that other stuff! Wait. I heard there were only 66 books in the Bible. What gives? And what was all that about the Catholics adding books at the Council of Trent? Ah, yes. More history! So yeah, 73 books was the accepted canon, based on a number of earlier lists and based on which of all those hundreds of books were actually orthodox (correct) in teaching and catholic (universal) in acceptance. In other words, everyone everywhere was hearing the Gospel of Mark, but other books like the Shepherd of Hermas and perhaps even the Gospel of Thomas, were not as widely read or somewhat dicey on the orthodoxy of their teaching. Fast forward another thousand years to the 1500s and here is where the confusion arises again! Remember how Luther founded the first Protestant church in 1517? Yes, well, he also decided that there were simply too many books in the Bible, and anyway, some of them did not agree with his own teachings, so they had to be cut out. Or revised. Or disputed. *cough cough* James, you straw epistle you! Wait. Why is James a "straw epistle"? Oh, it teaches contrary to one of the solas. Which sola? God, faith, or baptism? Oh no! James doesn't contradict any of the Church's solas! It contradicts one of the Protestant solas --- sola fide.
2. Protestantism is more Catholic? No -- "catholic"? WHAAAT? Don't worry, it's just more history! Yes, of course, the Catholic Church would claim to be the scary quotes "One True Church". Because, well, that's the history. It is the Church that Jesus founded after all. In 34ish AD, rather than one of the Protestant churches that was founded in 1517 by some bloke who wasn't Jesus. To be fair, the Orthodox Churches share in this claim, and I'd say their claim is equally valid. To use your tree model, I would argue that the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church are "turned apart" from one another, like two parallel branches, with respect to their ancestral and rightful unity. But they are not sundered or cut off from one another because they all continue 98% of the historical tradition. They hand on the same faith that came from the Apostles. Even now, there is far more in common between Orthodoxy and Catholicism than there is, or ever can be, between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. They don't have the Five Solas and the Two Sacraments and the (Protestant version of) the Priesthood of All Believers. No. The Orthodox have the Three Solas, the Seven Sacraments, and the Christian Priesthood. Exactly the same as the Catholics. Did Catholics and Orthodox throw stones at each other? Sure! Whenever there is a separation, there is bound to rise the spectre of tribalism. Whatever. This just means that Catholic and Orthodox people can be stupid and spiteful towards one another. And it's not like the Catholics and Protestants got along any better. They called each other heretics and burned each other at the stake and fought all sorts of religious wars. And even the Protestants smacked each other down. The situation hasn't really gotten any better! Also, it should be noted that "throughout the medieval period" there really were no "non-Catholics". The medieval period is about 476 to 1453 (convenient ends of the Western and Eastern Empire respectively). What non-Catholics were there in 509? 787? 886? 923? 1049? Even in 1054, it's not like people in Russia and people in England suddenly woke up one morning and said "By Jove! The Pope and the Patriarch excommunicated one another!? Well, sod off those lousy Orthodox!" I've heard, and suspect that there is some truth to the claim, that it could very well have been a century or more before ordinary Catholics in the East came to be aware that they were now part of a separate "Orthodox Church". As for the "highest magisterial teachings" of the Catholic Church, here's what the Catechism actually says, far from condemning the Orthodox to damnation: "838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."" They're not heretics. They aren't damned to hell. Heck, we're not even allowed to prosletyse or evanangelise them! Why? Because they are already part of the Church!
3. Phillip Schaff. Organic Renewal Effort? Progress and movement? Catholic union with the past? "If you're opposed to shrinking the church down to one institution..." Again, history! With all due respect, this is not what Protestantism is. Protestantism ceased to be an "organic effort" in 1517 when Luther founded his own church. Organic renewal is nothing new in the life of the Church. We've been in a constant process of reform, literally since Paul rebuked Peter about eating with gentiles. Reform. This is literally what the Ecumenical Councils are all about! Someone comes up with a novel idea, like say, Arius. His ideas get tossed about, people start to question them, other people follow them. The situation comes to a point where the Church has to step in and actually define a dogma. Okay, no, Arius, you're incorrect: Christ is divine, and you deny this. (JWs, looking at you!) Or take St Catherine of Siena. She went down to Avignon and told the pope to get his butt back to Rome. It took a while, but he eventually did so. Or take St Francis of Assisi. He railed against the corruption of the clergy, and reformed the Church by founding orders whose focus was rightly on the poor and dispossessed. So what's the difference between a Protestant reformer and a Catholic reformer? Principally, it's one of obedience to the Church. Catholic reformers understand that you can't truly reform something from the outside. It's true of individuals --- how many women out there have ever actually succeeded in "changing" a man? Seriously! So it is with the Church. Luther may have begun as a reformer, but historically, we can see that he ended up a rebel. He taught his own theories and his own doctrines, he founded his own church in which to teach those doctrines and he edited the scriptures to fit his theories and doctrines. Historically speaking, Christians shouldn't be interested in "opposing shrinking the church down to one institution". Rather, they should be seeking to reduce the number of institutions. Why is this is? Well, again, history! I honestly have no idea how many Protestant churches there are in 2023, but I do know that in 1502 there were effectively zero. Yes, there have always been revolutionaries and people that sought to destroy the unity of the Church, but at that time, they had not done so. But if we look forward from the beginning, we see Jesus instituting the Church. How many Churches did Jesus found? Four? Twelve? Seven? Eight hundred and forty three? No. He founded one Church. In 34ish AD. Not 1517? No, 34ish. And there would be another completely different church until 1517. (Remember, Orthodoxy is not sundered from the Church.) So since Jesus founded exactly one institution, the Church, and since this one institution a) is historically, theologically, ecclesiologically, dogmatically / doctrinally, united through time with itself and b) is not the product of a different person forming a new institution and sundering it from the original institution, why should this make me want to consider Protestantism? Jesus founded one institution, the Church, and as a Catholic, we regularly pray for the unity of old and continually seek to reduce the number of institutions, ideally back to one!
4. The Seven Examples of Accretions. Here I know we're going to agree on several things Gavin! Corrupt indulgences. We agree on this. There was corruption. It needed to be reformed. It got reformed. Next! Seriously, indulgences and meriting for others (masses for the dead, praying for others, etc) --- these are nothing new in the life of the Church. The Church has the authority to make or allow indulgences (binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining). These concepts began in Old Testament times, as we can see in Maccabees. That was the incident where some dead Jewish soldiers were found possessing some idols. They prayed for the soldiers and sent money to Jerusalem for atoning sacrifices to be made on behalf of the dead men. But as far as the corrupt practices of the 16th century, we are in total agreement. Transubstantiation. Well, that wasn't dogmatic in Luther's day. But again, this is how the Church has worked historically. Remember Arius? Remember how he taught his own doctrines (that Jesus was not divine) and it took an Ecumenical Council to define the dogma that Christ is, in fact, both human and divine? People had already believed that universally, except for the Arians, and so the Church had to use its authority to define and impose this dogma on the faithful. So now Luther comes along teaching consubstantiation (admittedly, this is a very old debate in the Church, going back to the 800s or so!), but in stead of seeking to reform and ultimately submitting in obedience to the Church, he broke away from the Church. In order to bring order from his chaos, the question now had to be settled once and for all. Thanks Martin Luther! Clearly, *something* miraculous is going on upon all the altars of Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Something divine. Something transcendent. There is no magic, no science, no technology that can transform, transmute, or transmogrify ordinary bread and wine into something that appears to the lower senses to be bread and wine, yet is not bread and wine. I'm not a theologian or a mysteriologist. I'm not going to try to explain transubstantiation, because I don't understand it at all. All I know is that this is what the Church teaches, so I go with that. Whatever the underlying mechanism is, Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist, the Church has always gathered in liturgy to celebrate the Eucharist (even St Paul writes about it!), so I go with that too! Papal Infallibility. The old favourite of anti-Catholic bashing. This is probably the single most misunderstood dogma by everyone. Protestants, certainly, but some Catholics too. It's really not that difficult to grasp, I think, if we just look at Pope Francis. He goes to visit some country and there's a bunch of reporters on the plane. They ask him questions, and he answers. He likes to teach (and, he actually has the authority and office of teacher). He talks off the cuff to the reporters. And the next day, in the newpapers, all the headlines are like "POPE FRANCIS SAYS GAY MARRIAGE OKAY!!" or "POPE CHANGES CHURCH TEACHING ON WOMEN IN THE PRIESTHOOD!!" And all the officials in the Vatican are face palming, wondering what he said this time! No, that's not how papal infallibility works. Very simply, it's this: "891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." The Pope can not infallibly declare the sky to be green or that Jesus has a divine sister. Clearly, this doctrine rests on Jesus's own instruction to Peter and the Apostles. To Peter he gives the special injunction to "feed the sheep" (that is teach) and to carry "the keys of the kingdom" (governing authority, as of a prime minister). He gives him the authority to bind and loose (when a Pope defines a dogma, that's it! It's bound on Earth and also in Heaven.) He gives him the authority to retain or forgive sins. All bishops share in this authority, but Peter is given a unique role among them. Seven Sacraments vs Two. All seven sacraments are referenced in scripture. Some are more prominent, some are less obvious. Generally, I think Protestants have retained Baptism and Matrimony as sacraments, so we don't really need to address those. Suffice to say that Baptism and Matrimony are found throughout the teachings of Jesus. But to take a look at the others: we have Confirmation or Chrismation, which are role modelled by Jesus and the Father once Jesus is baptised. In the East it is common tradition to chrismate a baby or child right along with baptism and Eucharist. In the West we tend to spread them out a bit. Essentially, this is a sacrament of affirmation. We also see it in Acts when Peter and John went to Samaria to "lay hands on" those who had only been baptised and then the received the Holy Spirit. Admittedly not a lot to go on, but that's the way of it! Reconcilliation is already dealt with. Holy Orders. This is a sacrament you can't actively receive --- you have to be called by the Church. We see this when Jesus chooses the Twelve (those who will go on to become the first bishops), and when Peter declares that a new Apostle must be chosen as a successor to Judas. (Interesting that it should be Peter who does this.) Jesus also role models the things a priest does --- he serves the lowest, he teaches the faith, he performs the sacrifice. Anointing of the Sick. Literally in the Book of James: Is one among you sick? Call for a priest of the Church and he will come and pray over you and anoint you with oil in the name of the Lord. And last but not least, the Eucharist itself. Honestly, this should go without saying. The Eucharist is literally the mighty pillar that runs from Old to New Testament and so central to the life of the Church that Jesus teaches on it in almost uncharacteristically explicit terms and role models it for the Church. It's prefigured in the OT with the sacrifice of the son by the father and fulfilled in the New (Isaac and Abraham / Jesus and Yahweh). "Cultic Practices" (veneration of icons, relics, saints, "worship of Mary") Quite simply, there is no doctrine (let alone a dogma) that instructs Catholics to positively venerate any object such as an icon. Christian art is certainly very old, and Christian art generally is a visual representation of scripture. Icons of the nativity of Christ, the crucifixion, etc. or events and people from the early Church. I think it's fair to say that most Christians, even Protestants, to some degree or other "venerate" or hold in respect their Bibles. It's the word of God after all, and you don't just toss it around or abuse it. In a time when there were no Bibles, no Christian scripture to speak of, the faith was handed on orally and visually. And this was the case well into and beyond the 17th century! A lot of Protestants, it seems to me, read far too much into the printed word of God. Catholics are often accused of intentionally trying to keep people from reading the Bible. Sometime you just have to shake your head in amazement and say, well, no one had Bibles really until the 1600s! A Bible took monks a couple years to copy, and they were always adorned to glorify God and thus costly and precious objects. Most people in the world were illiterate until relatively recently, so the teaching of the faith through images was simply how it was done. I'm sure the actual veneration of icons was not done extremely early, but I would hazard the guess that they were being venerated by the late first or second century. Withholding the Eucharist in Both Kinds. This one is simply untrue. Again, history. The practice of withholding the chalice seems to have gained and lost favour several times over the course of early Church history and was still an issue in the 1400s. I've read that the practice was officially promulgated right before the Council of Constance and also that the English were Not Amused by this abuse of tradition. I've read that one of the first acts of Parliament after the death of Henry VIII (the Church in England still being Catholic at this time, although schismatic) was to restore the chalice to the people. It took a little longer for the Church to concur --- Vatican II permits the reception of Eucharist in both kinds. Done. It should be noted that this is simply a restoration to the people of the West the ancient heritage of their forebears. In the early Church the Eucharist was distributed in both kinds. In the East, Catholics have always partaken of the Eucharist in both kinds because of their tradition of intinction.
4 1/2. Ah! Never mind, "Mary Worship" got its own section. (I know you didn't say the words because of irenicism, but I also know there are loads of people out there who are probably pulling their hair because you didn't call a spade a spade! Everyone knows Catholics worship Mary! She's just the Mother Goddess in disguise!) Even worse than papal infallibility. I'm just going to say it. Catholics do not and have never worshipped Mary. But as for her "elaborate role" --- well, yeah! Her role in the life of the Church is complex and the dogmas surrounding her have taken a while to process. But really, there are only four Marian dogmas, and I do concede that these are often perceived by Protestants as stumbling blocks in their journey towards Rome. Fear not! There are ONLY FOUR Marian dogmas! First is the Motherhood of God, Ephesus 431 and explained further at Chalcedon 451. Keep in mind that this definition comes with the dogmatic statement that Christ has two natures, human and divine: "...begotten from the Father before the ages as regards his godhead, and in the last days, the same, because of us and because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten..." Second is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Lateran 649. Here, we find this dogma in the context of the even earlier baptismal formulas and even the creed itself where we hold that Christ was begotten of the Father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit, in Mary's womb, where he became Man: "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth". It is in this dogma that the mystery of Eve is resolved: from her (and Adam's) sin, the whole history of redemption began, first with the Old Covenant, symbolised by the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant; and now fulfilled in the New Covenant, which is Jesus himself, and his mother the Ark of the New Covenant. This also puts paid to the argument that Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Even in scripture, we can see that they're his cousins! Third is the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854. Here we see how our understanding of Mary's role unfolds, but focusing on the dignity and holiness of the Mother of God, "that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin." The fourth is the Glorious Assumption into heaven, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950. "Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory." This dogma fails the scriptural basis test. Naturally! We don't know when Mary fell asleep, but it must have been some time after the New Testament books had been written because no mention is made. And in any event, the Church has never held sola scriptura as a doctrine. The dormition and assumption are ancient beliefs, found in the East as well as in the West. It has long been a matter of theological consideration as well. Dare we consider the "Fifth Marian Dogma"? No, not this time!
5. Scriptural authority over Church authority. First, this Protestant dogma is not scriptural in and of itself. Yes, scripture is God breathed, oracles of God and carried along by the Holy Spirit. Yet nowhere did Jesus teach that his Church and his faith would be founded on scripture. What is scriptural is: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." No mention of placing scripture above Church authority. As we saw above, the authority Jesus expressly gives is to be found in the teaching office of his ministers. Teaching ministers who had only the Old Testament for scriptures, yet had to teach the faith that completed and fulfilled those scriptures. Also, on Mark 7:8, the context here seems pretty clearly to be the Pharisees sticking to the "letter of the law" rather than the "spirit of the law". "He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."" I'm not saying no Catholic ever let go the commands of God in favour of some tradition of men! (Santa Muerte anyone?) I would argue that this particular verse does not support the Protestant theory that scripture should be placed above the Church as an authority. History! We know that, early on (here we're talking 34ish AD to about 50ish) there were no Christian scriptures at all that we would recognise as such. Certainly no Gospels, no Revelation, no Letters. Not that it matters much to the faith, but I think that textual studies have revealed that the synoptics have some commonalities and differences indicative of there being earlier source materials, so there very well could have been some notes and lists and incidents noted down that would later be collected into proper books. But in this first decade, there really was no scripture to speak of. And certainly nothing to rest a whole dogma of scriptural authority on. That said, in short order, by about 95ish yes, we do have a full Bible's worth of scriptures, OT and NT. And some extra books as well (Hermas, Didache, etc). But the historical argument for scriptural supremacy doesn't bear out. It is obvious that the early Church was a scriptural institution in its faith, its teachings and its practices. But it is also very clearly a hierarchical and structured body. There are clear distinctions of roles, such as the clerical roles, and there are clear records that these clerics, in particular the bishops, played the part of the rulers. Not in a bad sense of jumped up potentates, but rather of regulators of the teaching, monitors (a bishop is literally an overseer), and those who pronounce what is orthodox and what is heterodox. It is these same bishops who periodically met to determine matters of doctrine and dogma. These matters early on were the matter of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the content of the canon of scripture. Ultimately, history teaches us that if we submit to the Church's authority, we can be assured of orthodox faith being transmitted, orthodox practice being done (even if we have wait 500 years for it!); but if we reject the authority of the Church as constituted by Christ, we enter the realm of chaos. If the claim is made that "scripture is the highest authority", my question then is, well, who decides what scripture means? And if you tell me the Bible is the paramount authority and say that this verse means something; and another guy holds up his own Bible as the paramount authority and says that the same verse means something else; and a third guy holds his Bible up as paramount authority and says that both the first guys are totally wrong and will lead you to hell; and then a fourth guy gets up ... Well, you see the point I hope! History bears out that without a real authority, there is no authority. Who actually holds you "accountable to the apostolic deposit" when you can't even agree on what the apostolic deposit even is? When all of your churches are kind of equal and everyone kind of does their own thing and interprets scripture in their own way, how does that even make sense? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Catholics know that if they hold an opinion contrary to Church teaching (sadly it is true that a number of Catholics are unsure about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist for example) they don't have the authority to say "the Church teaches that Christ isn't really present in the Eucharist, simply because I don't believe it".
I will share this with everyone I can. Gavin Ortlund is the invaluable titan of defending Protestantism against the onslaught of Orthodox accusations.
Gavin doesn't debate Orthodox Christians... Father Josiah Trenham, Father Peter Heers, Father Turbo Qualls, would all be an excellent place to start.
In any case, Jay Dyer, David Patrick Harry, Deacon Ananais Sorem also would also be great candidates for refitting these claims.
@@snocookies He has debated Craig Truglia and Fr. Patrick Ramsey, both of whom are eastern orthodox.
@@snocookies there is too much controversy around some of those guys. These extreme orthobro fringe guys are not representative of typical orthodox. They often disagree and call their own hierarchs heretics as well. I honestly don’t think any of those listed are worth talking to. I’ve heard them all and it’s the same triumphal nonsense that’s popular with the online orthobros bereft of all charity and grace as well as abysmal scripture and historical exegesis. A debate is not going to push the ball forward with any of them IMO.
Most protestants in north America don't know what an Eastern Orthodox Christian is
@@Qwerty-jy9mj you’d be surprised at how many American Roman Catholics don’t either. Though due to the internet and the upsurge of many Protestants going to liturgical traditions many people are learning about Orthodox.
Ex muslim here, Protestant Christian now(reformed)
Praise God. How should we witness to muslims?
@@glassworks4850 1. Study islam and refute it by showing Muslims it is not the final testament of God because it contradicts the Bible, and show them why and how.
2. From a historical perspective. Show them why the Bible can be trusted and proof that it hasn’t been “corrupted” as they will claim.
3. Pray.
@@lerikaharevic I'm a Reformed Baptist (Calvinistic). Our church is involved in evangelism, discipleship, and missions. The Lord opened doors for us to minister to Indian students in our place. But to muslims, not yet.
@@lerikaharevicSuch simple but compelling advice. God bless you brother
That’s just the thing…there has been so many revivals,moves of the Spirit in Protestant churches that doesn’t seem to come to the table in this. For example the Brownsville revival in Pensacola Florida was a powerful move of God where thousands were transformed, saved from drugs and everything else. I got transformed there by the power of God and now serve as a missionary in Mexico. If the RCC is the one true church you would think that you would see more miracles, healings and moves of the Spirit, more spiritual gifts there
"Number one, Protestantism is more Catholic."
This one will have a spicy comment section, I can already tell.
Be Catholic then ;)
But the argument is sound. There is nothing in the Bible *or* the earliest Apostolic Fathers which suggests a centralized church. Unified, yes. A single centralized institution, no.
And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house
@@TaehunGrammarwe are, that's the irony.
Catholic as in Universal Church. That’s what it used to mean and I feel it got twisted. To me any church that follows and teaches scripture is catholic Church. As in part of Body of Christ. Has nothing to do with institutions
This is beautifully done. I find myself drawn toward Catholicism, but 99% of the Christians I know and love are Protestant and I never want to disrespect the tradition that brought me this far, no matter where my personal journey takes me. Thank you for your work 🤍
I’m drawn too, which is why I love Gavin’s videos so much. He’s my red stop light!
Keep praying and come fully into full communion with a Church. Remember, he did not address the authority of the church, giving us canon of scripture and how do you rest assured? The answer, is that there is one God given authority on earth on issues of binding morality, and dogma to the church And the more schismatic they get the more the hierarchy and truth gets water down
Think about what Protestantism invites, invites the question of whether we actually had the correct canon, and who had the right hierarchy to do so, and Jesus giving us one church did not give us thousands of binding dogmas and different morality.
@@punstir1292 It was a 5 minute overview my friend......... not a 1 hour lecture
@@catkat740 Thank you!🤍
@@holyhoff8521 Very interesting approach lol! I do appreciate his commitment to easing anxiety. I hope to see Protestant leadership make a serious attempt to become more unified in the future.
This was a compelling argument for Protestantism I haven't heard before. I appreciate it.
Some things to reflect on.
Sola Fide ... contradicts scripture; Ja 2 24
Sola Scriptura ... contradicts scripture; 2 Thes 2 15
Once Saved Always Saved ... contradicts scripture; Jn 15 (parable of the vine)
Symbolic only baptism ... contradicts scripture; 1 Pet 3
Symbolic only Lords Supper (Eucharist) ... contradicts scripture; (Jn 6 52-55; Lk 22 19)
As none of these doctrines came along until the 16th c, we can dismiss them as a distortion of the True Gospel as scripture warns would happen. The foundation stone of protestantism, sola scriptura, has fruit that was and continues to be, chaos and confusion. Who has the TRUTH in protestantism? Gavin? The Church error'ed for the first 1000+ years and didn't even know it? Gavin knows better?
_3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths._ (2 Tim 4)
I assume you're reading a Bible that has 66 books. The Bible actually has 73 books and has always had 73 books since its very conception in the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until the 1500s that protestants removed 7 books. I mean, 66 is also a number that hints incompleteness (Remember the number of the beast). Anyway, the basic fact is that God founded the Catholic Church and would never let her fall into doctrinal error. (Human error can easily be found because we are all sinners.) But if you don't believe Holy Mother Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then I guess Luther was right in that the problem is everyone can become their own pope. To quote Luther: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that."
@@TruthHasSpoken Sola Fide, because James 2:24 says justified, not saved. We are saved by faith in Christ. Faith leads to works showing we indeed have faith. But the works is not what saves us as that is the faith in Christ. So still Sola Fide.
Sola Scriptura because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is what then was sent by letters or told as eyewitness testimony, aka what is today scripture.
Only some protestants say "Once saved always saved". I have never believed that and I am a protestant.
Symbolic only Baptism? What do you mean? For me baptism was to show that I ended my earlier life and started a new one in Christ. So yes it symbolized a new birth.
Yes, Eucharist is a symbolic act in which we thank Jesus as the atoning lamb for our sins. When Christ was giving the Bread and saying it was His body, He was still sitting there with them and said to do it in remembrance of His act on the Cross. Because we read in 1 Corinthians 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
@@JamesAsp "James 2:24 says justified, not saved".
Who is teaching you this??? When one is justified, made right with God, one is absolutely, 100% saved.
"We are saved by faith in Christ"
We are saved 100% by God Grace, an unmerited gift no one can earn, THROUGH faith, a faith working in love (Gal. 5 v6). The word FAITH though in Greek, _pistis_ ALSO means to be "faithful." We must be faithful to be saved.
"Faith leads to works"
Scripture says: faith is made COMPLETE by works (Ja 2 22)
" the works is not what saves us as that is the faith in Christ"
A faith without works (of love, charity) can not save us. God is clear, repeatedly so ... answer is NO.
_14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?_ (Ja 2 v14)
"So still Sola Fide."
More scripture, the ONLY time in all of scripture those two words are side by side: _24 You see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone._
"Only some protestants say "Once saved always saved". I have never believed that and I am a protestant."
Indeed that it is a heresy.
"For me baptism was to show that I ended my earlier life and started a new one in Christ.So yes it symbolized a new birth."
The washing of water is a symbol, but not symbol only, of a greater spiritual reality. You were born again scripturally when you were baptized, having your soul cleansed of sin, having sanctifying grace restored, and the indwelling of God (the Holy Spirit).
"Eucharist is a symbolic act"
The bread and wine are symbols of a greater spiritual reality : receiving the body and blood of the Resurrected Christ, a means for receiving his Grace. This happens in Orthodox and Catholic Churches as an ordained priest is required.
They alll were horrible
I love how youtube is on the 3rd place pedestal after tradition and scripture as potential 'rules of faith" hahah
"Itching ears" want to hear stuff.
Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️
@@dreaddshorts
- Context of Thessalonians 2:15:
Paul is speaking the thing he had writing to the Thessalonians through out his two letters to them. Remember that Paul happend to be with Timothy and Silas, and he only have been to Thessalonicai only for 3 sabbaths days(Acts 17). Also, there's no any letter or writting about the thing that Paul said to the Thessalonians face to face, regardless of the Scriptures, or the book of Acts
- Context of Matthew 16:18-19
Christ is speaking about himself.
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. "
Christ here didn't say "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you i will build my chruch" or "I will build the Orthodox Chruch"
Christ is the rock in this verse. If you read 1 Peter 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 10:4, both Peter and Paul refers to Christ as "rock" or in greek; "petra", they use in this same pessages the word "Petra" to refer to Jesus.
- Context of James 2:24
You forgot that in this chapter, James started saying:
"My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory."
James is speaking to believers and encouraging them to do good works, because, if you don't show your faith with your works, you never had faith in Jesus. At the end of the day, all comes to faith alone.
For example, Abraham belived in God and thanks to his faith, he trust His word, that's why God spare Abraham's son (Isaac) and make a promise with him. But, his actions were purely for beliving in God. So, my question is: If you are a christian, and you repent from your sins and turn away from sin and belived in Christ, we don't you show off your faith to others?, your good deeds are the fruit of your faith in Christ, and a clear sign of God's work on you to change you to the shape he like the most; like His Son, although, it's impossible to be like Jesus but one can imitate Him.
Titus 3:8
The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. *These things are excellent and profitable for people.*
So, if you do good works, you are (obvliously) helping people that are needy of something and this is profitable for that person, and, for your good works, you are gloring God, 'cause you are delivering yourself to God as a instrument to do good;
Romans 6:13-14
Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Colossians 3:17
And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Now, let me, take a look of these passages if you don't belive that you are not saved by faith alone:
- Ephesians 2:8-9
- Romans 3:20-30
- Matthew 7:21 + John 6:40 (The Will of the Father)
- Romans 1:16-17
- Romans 4:13:25
- Romans:5:16-19
- Galatians 2:16-21
- Galatians 3:6-7 + 3:18+ 3:29
I could keep on going, but that would be really annoying of my part.
Before i end this long message, i hope you understand that salvation can be obtain out of the chruch, but not out of Christ.
Romans 5:21:
so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through *righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.*
The chruch of Christ are all the believers, read 1 Corinthians 12-27.
I pray to you to understand the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ my brother/sister, i want you with me in heaven alongside the other believers, but i will not judge, because i don't know your heart, but i truly belive that you my brother/sister belive in Jesus Christ and you already save thanks to the sacrifice that He did on the cross.
@@dreaddshorts Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. As a Protestant who is seriously considering orthodoxy, this helps immensely.
@Guilherme-np9kn Most people outside the Catholic Church probably have no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.
@Guilherme-np9kn Please check out the work of Erick Ybarra on the Papacy and the Filioque. You will see strong Papal claims being accepted in the first millennium (the Orthodox claim the first millennium was theirs, so why are they accepting papal claims?). And to the Filioque, the Eastern Orthodox church historically condemns anyone who holds to it, so in doing that, she condemns half of the Fathers (the Latins). There is no way to bridge the Orthodox view of the Filioque between the Latins and the Greeks, but there is a way to bridge it between the East and West in the Catholic Church. There is no East and West in Christ. May God bless you and lead you into truth. ~Dylan
@@Eternally_Catholic There are dozens of civilizations and thousands of events that made the West as we know it. Your argument doesn't mean anything.
Im a Baptist studying Anglicanism and feel very draw. New Kingdom Media is a great channel.
@Guilherme-np9knI’m ex orthodox… don’t go.
First animated Truth Unites video? !This was stellar Gavin. Really looking forward to reading your upcoming book!
Best 5 min that i've ever spent on RUclips. Thank you so much for this Gavin.
This was of immense help, Gain! Thank you so much!
Great video! The animation was an excellent supplement to your presentation!
I just recently ran across Gavin's channel, and I'm loving it! I'm reminded of Francis Bacon's quote, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
I feel like one could think similarly about historical understanding of the Church. That a little bit of historical study inclines man's mind to Catholicism; but depth of historical study brings men's minds about to Protestantism.
"depth of historical study brings men's minds about to Protestantism."
If the early Church believed the below I would be protestant. Which of the countless flavors I do not know. As Cardinal Newman said, "to be deep in history is cease to be protestant."
Sola Fide ... contradicts scripture; Ja 2 24
Sola Scriptura ... contradicts scripture; 2 Thes 2 15
Once Saved Always Saved ... contradicts scripture; Jn 15 (parable of the vine)
Symbolic only baptism ... contradicts scripture; 1 Pet 3
Symbolic only Lords Supper (Eucharist) ... contradicts scripture; (Jn 6 52-55; Lk 22 19)
As none of these doctrines came along until the 16th c, we can dismiss them as a distortion of the True Gospel as scripture warns would happen. The foundation stone of protestantism, sola scriptura, has fruit that was and continues to be, chaos and confusion. Who has the TRUTH in protestantism? Gavin? The Church error'ed for the first 1000+ years and didn't even know it? Gavin knows better?
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Tim 4)
@@TruthHasSpoken1. A common response to your sola fide objection is that works are the fruits of true, living faith. And it clearly says in Romans that salvation is by faith and not by works, just like it was with Abraham.
2. Your seem to miss understand sola scriptura. As explained in the video, sola scriptura means that scripture is the highest and only infallible authority. Your verse talks about the traditions from the apostles, which can mostly or maybe entirely be found in the new testament and anything that isn't is found in the creeds and the fathers, that traditionally are not rejected as authorities.
And no Christian rejects the authority of scripture. You however would need to make a case for papal infallibility (not just authority) in the early Church since it is only a dogma since 1870.
3. Many protestants agree with you and me that true apostasy is possible.
4. Reformed, Lutherans, and some others agree that God works through the sacraments. The Reformed and Lutheran denominations agree that they have salvific effects.
5. Reformed agree that you receive the Body and Blood in the sacrament of the altar, Lutherans even agree that it truly is His Body and His Blood (as the Lord said at the last supper). But there is no biblical basis for saying that the bread and wine don't also stay what they were beforehand (though no explicit rejection either).
Since I answered your objections, will you stay true to what you said and at least read the relevant confessions? I would recommend the Augsburg Confession and its apology, its the primary confession of Lutheranism.
P.S. don't worry, I still consider Catholics Christians
@@TruthHasSpoken The Protestant view is not that the Church errored for the first 1500 years, but rather that error was CONSTANTLY appearing within the Church, from day 1, up until today, and needed to be addressed by the righteous men who God sent. This is why we have the letters of Saint Paul addressing the various errors that had crept in to the Church, right from the earliest times. This is why we had the various councils and synods throughout history. The great questions of the day would be debated by the Christians and a consensus formed, based upon the authorities in the Church, with the foremost authority being Christ Himself and the very writings of the original Apostles, which we today call the Bible. These writings of the original Apostles always held the highest weight, even in an 'Apostolic Succession' supporters mind, because these were the views of the Apostles whom God granted authority, and their authority supersedes any 'successor', especially as the successors were constantly disagreeing with each other, whereas the message from the original Apostles, especially as framed in Scripture, has no contradiction.
The great 'reformers' of Protestantism were trying to continue in this duty of care that all Christians have, where they must combat that heresy and error that had crept into the faith. They opposed blatant evils like indulgences and advocated for the Scriptures to be translated into tongues that laymen could understand to ensure that they might not be led astray by false shepherds. The response from the Vatican was wholesale persecution, murder, assassination and large-scale war (to the point of FIVE crusades). There was even an attempted council where Hus was deceived, lured in and then murdered despite his safety being promised. Those five crusades were then sent after his followers to try to wipe them out. This true understanding of history will make you realise why schism happened, and it was very much to do with the fact that the Roman Catholics had done what they were not supposed to, and made any reconciliation or reformation impossible by their un-Christian violence. It was difficult to see Christ among them, and while He no doubt was in the hearts of many good and faithful individuals, it is near impossible to see Him in the leadership, the Vatican or the Papacy.
The Church continues on, it never went away, and neither Catholics nor Orthodox had a claim to be the big C Church. They are just small c churches that are a part of God's glorious big C Church. The same as Protestants now. We should all seek to follow God as best we can. Our greatest resource is the Bible, and even according to those who grant exclusive authority to the Apostles, they should venerate the Holy Bible as it was written by those Apostles who have primary authority, which thus sees the Bible outweigh others based on the authority of its writers. Every single one of those five positions you have stated finds support in Scripture, Protestants did not just 'make them up' in the 16th century in the same way that Catholics just 'made up' Mary being assumed into heaven despite there being no evidence for it whatsoever.
@@xyztogrutamamenchi7894 1. "it clearly says in Romans that salvation is by faith and not by works, just like it was with Abraham."
We ARE saved :
- by Grace an unmerited gift no one can earn
- THROUGH faith (we DO come to an initial "I believe")
- a Faith working in love (being faithful in love of God and neighbor; we are justified, made right with God)
Faith is made complete by works, of charity / love (Ja 2 below). St Paul most frequently speaks of "works" of the Old Testament Law. Those works can not save. One can say we are saved by Faith "alone" if one understands that it is a faith complete by love and charity as James says. The greek word for faith, _pistis,_ means too to be _faithful._ Faith is never separated from love / charity.
_21 Was not Abraham our father _*_justified by works,_*_ when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?_
_25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot _*_justified by works_*_ when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?_
"2. Your seem to miss understand sola scriptura."
Protestantism itself is divided on the definition. I always have to ask a protestant what do you mean by sola scriptura? The answers vary.
"sola scriptura means that scripture is the highest and only infallible authority"
This is a definition that I have heard but scripture itself doesn't teach this. Properly speaking, scripture is both inerrant and inspired. Infallibility is a charism of the Church to declare without error what is false and what is true.
"3. Many protestants agree with you and me that true apostasy is possible."
There have always been apostates, those who reject what the Church believed. This reflects the sin of pride.
"4. Reformed, Lutherans, and some others agree that God works through the sacraments"
All Sacraments - 7 - are means of receiving God's grace. 16th century heretics (apostates), Catholic men with no authority, rejected some of these Sacraments.
"The Reformed and Lutheran denominations agree that they have salvific effects."
Right, as an example as Jesus himself said: _3 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day._
"But there is no biblical basis for saying that the bread and wine don't also stay what they were beforehand (though no explicit rejection either)."
Disagree. There are Catholic sources that go into more detail but one goes by Christ's words: THIS IS MY BODY. The Church believed it changed. It didn't describe in its theology HOW it changed. That would happen much later with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The early Church used the language repeatedly of the bread and wine:
- transforming
- transmuting
- changing
- becoming
"will you stay true to what you said and at least read the relevant confessions?"
I made that commitment (I am of my word however) ??
" would recommend the Augsburg Confession""
This is an example from the Confession, Article 24, of those who would rebel against the Church, apostates if you will:
_Now if the Mass take away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act justification comes of the work of Masses, and not of faith, which Scripture does not allow._
- The men were fallible or infallible who made this statement, this interpretation of scripture?
- One should reject a universal belief of the Church, 1500 years after the Church was started, for the (fallible) interpretation of men 1500 years later who disagreed, holding beliefs not found in proceeding 1500 years?? The Christians leading the Church held to scripture, cited scripture and revered scripture. They just did not hold to Sola Scriptura which itself is not in scripture.
@@xyztogrutamamenchi7894 1. "it clearly says in Romans that salvation is by faith and not by works, just like it was with Abraham."
We ARE saved :
- by Grace an unmerited gift no one can earn
- THROUGH faith (we DO come to an initial "I believe")
- a Faith working in love (being faithful in love of God and neighbor; we are justified, made right with God)
Faith is made complete by works, of charity / love (Ja 2 below). St Paul most frequently speaks of "works" of the Old Testament Law. Those works can not save. One can say we are saved by Faith "alone" if one understands that it is a faith complete by love and charity as James says. The greek word for faith, pistis, means too to be faithful. Faith is never separated from love / charity.
_Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?_
_And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?_
"2. Your seem to miss understand sola scriptura."
Protestantism itself is divided on the definition. I always have to ask a protestant what do you mean by sola scriptura? The answers vary.
"sola scriptura means that scripture is the highest and only infallible authority"
This is a definition that I have heard but scripture itself doesn't teach this. Properly speaking, scripture is both inerrant and inspired. Infallibility is a charism of the Church to declare without error what is false and what is true.
"3. Many protestants agree with you and me that true apostasy is possible."
There have always been apostates, those who reject what the Church believed. This reflects the sin of pride. "
"4. Reformed, Lutherans, and some others agree that God works through the sacraments"
All Sacraments (7) are means of receiving God's grace. 16th century heretics (apostates), Catholic men with no authority, rejected some of these Sacraments. "
"The Reformed and Lutheran denominations agree that they have salvific effects."
Right, as an example as Jesus himself said: _“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day._
"But there is no biblical basis for saying that the bread and wine don't also stay what they were beforehand (though no explicit rejection either)."
Disagree. There are Catholic sources that go into more detail but one goes by Christ's words: THIS IS MY BODY. The Church believed it changed. It didn't describe in its theology HOW it changed. That would happen much later with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The early Church used the language repeatedly of the bread and wine:
- transforming
- transmuting
- changing
- becoming
"will you stay true to what you said and at least read the relevant confessions?"
I made that commitment (I am of my word however) ??
" would recommend the Augsburg Confession""
This is an example from the Confession, Article 24, of those who would rebel against the Church, apostates if you will: _Now if the Mass take away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act justification comes of the work of Masses, and not of faith, which Scripture does not allow._
- The men were fallible or infallible who made this statement, this interpretation of scripture?
- One should reject a universal belief of the Church, 1500 years after the Church was started, for the (fallible) interpretation of men 1500 years later who disagreed, holding beliefs not found in proceeding 1500 years?? The Christians leading the Church held to scripture, cited scripture and revered scripture. However, they did not hold to Sola Scriptura which itself is not in scripture, and came along in the 16th c.
Beautiful. Thank you Gavin. Enjoy your respite! We are all eternally grateful for your faithfulness to our faithful God. We are built up and we pray that you will be built up and encouraged during your break. You are causing us all to love one another more affectionately and more effectively. Thank you! Praise be to God!
Great video, both in terms of style and content! Proud to be a patreon of yours, Dr. Ortlund!💙
Thanks to you I have found peace in my protestant beliefs. May the Lord bless your ministry
Sad to find peace in protesting the Church founded by Christ himself. Do you find peace in heresy, really?
Robertstephendon...yes. I am. Amen to all your passages from Paul to Timothy. And from the same book he tells us the foundation of all truth (I Tim 3,:15). You sought truth outside of this command and rejected three tenets of the faith that are absolutely supported in scripture. (Saints in heaven, sinners hell, ect). Church teaching on faith and morals may be hard teaching, but never inconsistent with what our Lord (who is truth) teaches.
@@keith8325 That's a comment loaded with presumptions. If you have no interest in understanding or intellectual honesty then you have no business in these conversations.
@@keith8325The belief is founded by God through Christ, The church is founded by human beings. 😊❤👌😉😎
@robertstephenson6806 Most people outside the Catholic Church probably have no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.
That was phenomenal. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund and Mr.Roark!
Will be sharing it for years to come, probably! Thanks Gavin! Amazing work.
Trent Horn is going to have to hire an awesome animator to rebut this.
Yes! Haha I need my catholic rival 😂
😂😂
What if he hired the same animator. That would be interesting.
Don't worry he doesn't need to decorate his ideas to win, because the Truth makes his way through.
@@nonfecittaliter4361 Wait....you can use stain glass windows to teach but simple animation is "decorating ideas" Okie dokie. Lol
There was a stretch of time where I was heavily considering becoming Eastern Orthodox (I grew up Baptist), but I ultimately couldn’t bring myself to do it, and my reasons largely fell into those three categories. While I don’t know if I’ll remain a Baptist forever, I think I’ll remain a Protestant for the rest of my life
Do you accept the doctrines of “Justification by Faith Alone” and “Eternal Security / Once Saved, Always Saved” ?
@@easybeliever7 One thing to point out is that "once saved, always saved" is just one of the two main doctrines of eternal security, the other being "perseverance of the saints." The first affirms that believers can fall away from the faith and still be saved, the second does not.
I grew up Baptist and for a long time wondered if I would end up becoming Roman Catholic. I found my way to Lutheranism instead.
@@unit2394 I’m feeling pretty strongly pulled toward Anglicanism; I just can’t shake off my credobaptist/baptism via immersion beliefs from my background
@@coopahtroopah1175-I have a similar story. I grew up Southern Baptist. I started questioning some of my long held Baptist beliefs in my late 20s/early 30s. This intensified when I started reading online RCC and EOC apologists and reading the church fathers. I seriously considered Eastern Orthodoxy for a while and was briefly a catechumen. However for a few reasons, I ultimately couldn’t swim the Bosphorus, and I took the Canterbury trail instead. I thus became a traditional Anglican about 15 years ago and haven’t looked back 👍🏻.
This video will have a massive impact. Thanks, Gavin!
Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️
This is beautiful. I found your channel just recently, when I needed to hear this the most. You are doing the Lords work Gavin!
Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️
Very helpful summary. And freeing…. Since I have some catholic friends, I can both learn and appreciate their perspective on many things while at the same time understanding why I am protestant. Thank you!
The best way to refute Catholics is to read the Vatican I and II canons and see how they contradict the early church.
Recently, after being a lifelong Protestant and having my gripes of what has become of the modern Protestant church, I was intrigued by the historicity of Orthodoxy and began reading materials on their beliefs and even visited an eastern Orthodox church near me. Having devoured every text I could get my hands on and doing a "deep dive", I came away learning much about orthodoxy and early church traditions as a whole that both challenged misconceptions I held and gave me an appreciation for things that are largely unregarded in Protestant circles (in my experience).
That being said, it also became clear to me in my studies and reaffirmed in my spirit that there are practices in older traditions like Orthodoxy and Catholicism that are indeed contrary to the message of scripture and has strengthened my resolve as a Protestant. I did however come away with a love for a more reverent approach to worship found in the traditions of Orthodoxy as well as a far less judgemental view of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
The overall takeaway was a broader understanding of what or who is the actual Body of Christ, and an appreciation for the simplicity of the gospels core message..Believe and be saved. In as much as Orthodox and Catholics believe in and trust Jesus for their salvation, they are my brothers in Christ, though they may not share the same sentiment. However, in as much as they believe their traditions will save them, Holy Spirit compels me to remain set apart and thus, Protestant. I am grateful for the whole experience, and believe the whole ordeal has only enriched my faith and life as a whole.
Your videos helped bring Truth back into focus for me toward the end of that process. Thank you.
Which practices in particular?
@@Shskfjekdnf38587 the ones typically contested within protestantism and for good reason. Prayer to the saints, hyper veneration of Mary to the point of asking her to save us, the veneration of icons, the exclusivity of salvation within a particular faith tradition vs by the atoning blood of Christ by Grace through faith. These practices aren't clearly demonstrated anywhere in scripture and we don't find them practiced within the church until late in the 4th century and into the 5th, yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy hold them as essential practices on pain of anathema if not observed.
I truly wanted to find reasons for participating in those practices. I wanted to find "the proof" that they are scriptural and part of God's instruction for His church. I wanted to put my finger on and identify the ever elusive "true church of God" but found that it isn't something that can be defined in the natural or recognized with any particular institution of man. Faith is a spiritual matter, and so the one true faith is one of spirit and not brick and mortar.
God's true Church is in Spirit...He calls, saves, sanctifies and leads each flawed individual by His Spirit. This is why "The gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church", because there is no one institution the adversary must corrupt and thus prevail against... Christ's Church is His body, and the requirement for membership is repentance and true faith in Christ Jesus ALONE.
Each denomination within Christianity has always had and will continue to have its controversies and problematic dogmas...Because they are temporal institutions and thus, corruptible. Satan will always seek to confuse and divide...But the Church of God will prevail through every generation because Satan cannot overcome it simply by bringing down a single temporal institution.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy have both "gotten it wrong" in the past and admittedly so. I believe they still have it wrong in a number of areas. Every Protestant denomination has its own skeletons, some atoned for and some still held. Praise God for His wonderful mercy and grace, apart from which there is no Church, and we are all doomed to damnation. And because of His Mercy and grace, there are many true believers who have it wrong in one area or another in each of the Christian denominations but are still His sheep and they know His voice. We are His Church.
Firstly nobody is reading that whole essay. Secondly its obviously you didn't read any texts because we don't worship saints nor say Mary is above God. If you see Catholics doing this they are usually old or very ignorant
So good. You better believe I’m going to share this.
Really lovely animation. Thank you for the video!
Excellent video! I've already shared it with two of my friends.
Thanks for this nicely done and succinct video, Dr. Ortlund. And thanks for the graphics, Ryan.
Well done! Also, I like the thumbnail. Hopefully these kinds of videos bring in more viewers.
Absolutely beautiful, Gavin. Perfectly put, brother...
Excellent video ❤ I love the animated style - well done!
Really like this format Dr. Ortlund!!
Recently discovered your channel throughout the Reedemed Zoomer and I'm loving your videos and your teachings, plus, you pointed the arguments in the video why I'm Protestant. God bless you!
This was really cool I love the animations 🌟
Wow! Keep these coming please!
Excellent work Gavin! God may continue blessing you and your ministry.
This is such a great overview of Protestantism! Thank you Gavin, always enjoy your videos which are well thought out, balanced, honest, and solid.
This is not a view of protestantism this is just attacking catholics. Hence the name "protest"anism
There is much about which to attack Catholicism
@@m1cha3l0 Nonsense, and it is not attacking to expose error which believers are supposed to do.
The only actual protestor was Luther. All the others were reformers, remember The Reformation.
@@geordiewishart1683 Everyone outside the Catholic Church probably has no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.
Which Protestant? There's like 200 different sects.
Thank you, Gavin! Your ideas are well-expressed, persuasive, and presented with humility.
This is a 5 minute video that gets its point across fully in the first watch, and will take several viewings to fully appreciate.
This was great! So much easier to spread to friends and family who might not follow a lecture type video. Hope you make more of these for other more specific topics also!
I assume you're reading a Bible that has 66 books. The Bible actually has 73 books and has always had 73 books since its very conception in the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until the 1500s that Protestants removed 7 books. I mean, 66 is also a number that hints incompleteness (Remember the number of the beast). Anyway, the basic fact is that God founded the Catholic Church and would never let her fall into doctrinal error. (Human error can easily be found because we are all sinners.) But if you don't believe Holy Mother Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then I guess Luther was right in that the problem is everyone can become their own pope. To quote Luther: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that." God bless.
This was great, Gavin! And Ryan did an awesome job with the animation! I would love to see the two of you guys working together more!
Thank you so much! That means a lot :)
That's a nice animated video you got there. I'd sure hate for it to receive a thousand rebuttals! Hehe. As a non-Protestant, I do enjoy your concise and irenic content. Thank you for your work.
We'll done Dr Ortlund! This is excellent!
Amen! Enjoyed the graphics too. Well done!
That was great! And I love the animation! Very pleasant and fitting addition to a concise and thoughtful analysis.
Gavin I watch, rewatch, and re watch this video all the time, I share it with everyone I know. This has been one of your most helpful videos to me, and I would LOVE to see more like this. Thank you so much for all your work!!
The animation was very well done! Good job Ryan Roark!
Thank you! :) It was a blast to work on.
Appreciate the content and animation.😊❤ Hope there will be more videos like this in the future.
I really enjoyed the editing of this video.
Catholic here, just wanted to say that I love your channel. I don’t agree with everything you say, but I really enjoy listening your lessons. I’m so thankful that you did the debate with Trent and went on Pints with Aquinas, as it opened me up to visiting your channel more. I really enjoy listening to the Protestant perspective on things.
Thanks for sharing, glad to be connected!
I love this! So gracious!
Not sure why you would not dive further into to her faith? Why would you listen to Protestant theology if you were not interested in learning it? Your Catholic faith is rich in tradition and is the TRUE teaching magisterium. 😊
I find some of the content here a little misleading. While I appreciate the humility in tone I feel it is used as a mechanism to disarm and spread falsehoods
which of 40,00 denominational perspectives?
Very well done brother! Congratulations for this and for these kind of videos. Keep doing the good work for Jesus.
Very good arguments, pastor Gavin. I honestly think number 2 and 3 are the most appealing ones.
This was an excellent video. Thank you Gavin!
I regret that I have but one up-doot for this video...amazing summation, Gavin!
Very awesome video! Incredible animation and content. Looking forward to more!
So excited to finally have this up! This was a blast to work on and I am so honored to get to help this channel’s mission.
Did you make the animation?
@@mbts500 Yes!
Great animation! 👍
@@TheRoark Awesome!
@@TheRoark Great Job 👍
This is amazing, well done! 💯
This animated video was fantastic!
You summed up my own beliefs perfectly. Thank you!
Ive recently been reading "the case for Catholicism " by Trent Horn. It had me thinking, thank you for reminding me what makes me protestant. God bless.
oh my that was a wonderful 5 minutes teaching
Great arguments supporting Protestantism and fantastic animation.
Bad history
I've just recently found faith, and it's just so confusing which denomination to choose. This video helps immensely. Thank you so much! ❤
if you recently found christianity also look for other denominations opinions
Keep looking, this video doesn’t talk about the Unity in Faith or in Doctrine, which does not exist in protestantism, which goes against the principle of Catholicity and having the entirety of Truth.
If protesantism was true......there would not be so many denominations to choose from all believing different things.
Try catholicism, I promise you that just giving it a go is not a waste of time and really take the time to research and pray about it
Confusion is a fruit from who?
Fantastic video Gavin! Well done!
Amazing work!! Love being protestant. Thanks brother!😊
Really good video. Definitely one to share. Many thanks.
Very nice summary - on point as always. The animations are also great!
Thank you Sir, and lovely animation!
Very well done Gavin - thanks!
Love this video! Thank you for your Gavin
Fantastic overview in just five minutes. Great work on this, Gavin!
Wrong. And little colorful diagrams wont change it. Protestantism is not Catholic. You have zero valid priesthood. You can claim you are the priesthood of all believers and even that is false because you reject the Church Jesus established. His priesthood of all believers are those who are Catholic. You have no ministerial priesthood which the Catholic Church has since it is founded by Jesus.Protestants walked away from the true ministerial priesthood which in the order of Melchizedek and rejected the Church's authority. And then you bring up scripture ? LOL Hilarious you protestants also removed 7 books. So nice try
Absolutely brilliant Gavin. Incredible what you packed into 5 min. Such clear teaching, and so affirming. Amazing animation Ryan. Hope you both work together on some more in the future. Blessings. Jon
Thanks Jon!! :)
I’m not sure what people are saying is so brilliant. I think they did a good job on the video, but how can it be brilliant to say we are more Catholic by telling each congregation you basically have the right to use whichever canon you were led to whichever tradition you are led to? he did not address this issue. Catholicity means there is unity and diversity but we can only have more meaningful and pure diversity when we know what unifies us and just saying the Scriptures unify us is not very helpful per the last 500 years, also even where they do unify us you’re still excusing the principle of who gets to tell us how many books are in the canon and who has to tell us what is morally binding to the universal church on important matters of morality? It is to our peril to think otherwise. If he is right about anything, he is right that even after all of the schisms, there are Catholic elements , I’m not sure how that is news. Instead of continuing to fragment and ask each other if we have the right canon of scripture and which hierarchy gets to tell us, we have the right canon maybe we should stick with the one who gave us the original, and rest assured , we had it right for 1000 years or so.
I am very glad for little primers like this to use as encapsulations and summaries of why we're Protestant. I think this will be a useful way to help show some Catholic Friends of mine what Protestantism sees itself as.
I'm glad you see it that way! As a catholic christian, I respect all my brothers and sisters in christ, however it would be better if both sides refrained from making rash judgements about each other and our respective beliefs.
@@radosawbartoszewicz7247 Yes it would. God asks us to strive for unity and to have love, patience and grace for one another. I've found a place to listen to Catholics and be open to why they believe as they do, w/out needing to tell them that way is wrong. In most cases though, no matter how well the dialogue starts, Catholics tend to get really defensive when I don't ultimately agree w/them. I find we end up in largely the place to accept Christ as savior and ultimate Lord, but we get there through different doctrines, which I find largely peripheral. Our differences in doctrine and administration don't have to be deal breakers.
@@radosawbartoszewicz7247 I very much agree - the more caricature and misunderstanding can be reduced on both sides the better, and the closer of a fellowship we can have together here on Earth. I've been very thankful for the chance to learn about, and from, people who are Roman Catholic and Orthodox and to realize how much we do have in common as well as the ways we can draw closer together. Respectfully disagreeing is an art that may not be often practiced in this age, but it's one that we can revive!
Any Catholic who knows the basics would not be tempted to fall for this nonsense.
Wow, Gavin, that's rich. Really well done!
This is a really good video, Ex Protestant here.
Excellent summary, amazingly supportive graphics.
Hey Pastor Gavin, That was great Bro. Im using that for catechetical/discipleship purposes and sharing it with some pastor friends..
Sounds great, glad you found use in it!
So good! Well done mate! It's like a perfect summary of all your videos!!!!!
Thanks for making me realize that I should not be ashamed for not converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, unlike many of their members who keep manipulating me into joining.
I must say it’s sad that you say this. It is also sad that there can be so much animosity. Gavin does miss the issue of authority still. He forgets to or leaves out intentionally or the “reformers “in fallible when they changed the Canada scripture? How is it more Catholic to water down the hierarchy and to water down the knowledge of which Canon is correct? God bless you, we were given the sacraments, and the catechism and sacramental’s for the our benefit, and we ought to participate in the life of the church how we were commanded to. But, God is not bound to the sacraments just because He bound us to them.
There a lot I admire about both, but I can’t convert bc they teach things that I think are objectively wrong, and historically innovative but bc they’re institution centric they just deny this and claim they’ve always had the same practices.
@@punstir1292 It's only your "church" that binds you to them, not God. You were given the sacraments and catechism by your "church", by men.
You should be proud to be part of the Reformation.
Beautifully explained and animated!
did gavin and the bible project have a crossover lol. Really great animation and video Gavin, it brings a peace of mind.
Our unity is to be found in Christ through the Spirit. As soon as we add anything else, we are wandering into turbulent waters.
I'm LOVING the graphics
Thanks so much!! It was definitely a labor of love :)
Thanks Gavin! This is a great overview. It is succinct, yet powerful and clear.
Amazing video. Sharing with a lot of my protestant friends to know these facts!
Very accessible. Awesome work Gavin! Praise God!!
Seems like a good video to share with the Catholic Answers team
Utmost respect here Dr. Ortlund, love your channel and have shared that I wish more Protestants would engage arguments in a likewise manner. That said, purely reading Scripture as a whole as well as the Church Fathers leads me to reject Protestantism as a whole, though I respect the more robust theology behind the older traditions they are still exactly that - other traditions.
I can’t help but notice the inconsistencies in the differing traditions, even within Protestantism. For example, would you baptize an infant? There are multiple denominations that answer this in vastly different ways and some that flatly deny it can be done.
I love the Body of Christ and take the position of the Church (Catholic) that many are indeed joined to the Body through the genuineness of their faith in Christ - whether they would accept it or not based on what has been presented to them (per Vatican II).
Much love brethren. Peace be with you.
The Catholic Church has the Holy Eucharist and that’s all I need to know to remain Catholic
I love Jesus so much. Vivo Christo Rey!
Man this is incredible 🎉 soooo good
Love the short animations! Would love to see more of these sprinkled in with (though certainly not replacing) your more in-depth videos.
Great job Gavin and thank you for your work. God bless you.
THIS IS AWESOME!! LOVE THIS 😍
Great effort for the cause
Wooow I love this. Thanks Gavin
Great video! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
THIS IS GREAT!
Thank you Gavin for standing firm for the Protestant representation of Christianity. The appeal to the RCC and EOC is heavily on the rise, especially among disgruntled people within evangelical communities that have only a one inch deep understanding of Scripture and Church History (at least that's what I've seen on RUclips). Thank you, your work is an answer to prayer.
You know about you own scripture and history. No wonder you're a protestant.
대박 !!! 👍👍👍
Cool animation!
And great summary!!!
Wow.... this is an amazingly well done video. I am a protestant and the more I have travelled the world and studied church history the more I wanted to be united with that. I attended a Russian Orthodox church for some months while I was staying in a city for a year. I really appreciated a lot of tradition they had and I thought we could use more of that in the church, but I don't know how I feel about scriptural interpretation of icon veneration and things like that. I don't understand any scriptural doctrine that says you cannot have salvation outside of the RCC. I feel that studying the church has really been a confusing topic for me in the past year or two and I would love some recommendations on resources for church history and how God would interpret his word today. Like you said, protestants are ok with the messiness
But do you know that there is a for example a grecce catolic church and in romam catolic church we belive that they also can go to haven. And People outside of visible church can go to haven. rome in name of rcc cames from tradicion of liturgy pope is a leader of all catolics.
Sory for my english but im not native speaker
Whilst I disagree with this video, it's very reasonable and very well-made, and visually beautiful. I look forward to Trent rebutting it.
You can’t rebut Truth.
@@philagon don’t look now, but the catechism of the Catholic Church has already addressed each of these 5 points.
While this 5 minute video does a great job laying out it’s 5 points. Because it’s so brief it glosses over the perspicuity of scripture, historical claims, etc. It claims that Protestantism is more Catholic despite a minimal list of doctrines that are agreed on and shared by the various number of protestant denominations, even managing to disagree on the prominence or importance of Baptism. The is more historical evidence for both the Catholic and Orthodox Church that are more consistent and compelling, which was precisely St. John Henry Newman’s point when he said “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, important to recognize that he put his money where his mouth was!
@@johnmendez3028 There are 3 points not 5. Doesn’t give me confidence you are paying attention. Regardless of what protestantism bases it catholicity on, it is more catholic. That can’t be debated. It is besides the point whether it rests that catholicity on doctrine or something else. All Gavin was establishing was that protestants can admit there are christians outside of protestantism in a more robust way than catholics can admit there are christians outside of catholicism. This is something like an empirical fact, it can’t be refuted. You can say we are wrong for drawing the line of catholicity where we do, but again, that’s a different point and not one Gavin is making. As soon as you admit that EO church has a case for being the “one true [institutional] church” you have hamstrung the RCC claim to fulfill that position uniquely. Better to abandon that silly idea entirely.
The catholicity and unity Gavin presents is an illusion, a deception. Many Protestants will feel reassured by his ideas but this will keep them in error and away from the sacraments.
@@philagon Catholic means universal church, a church for all mankind, that prays and speaks in all languages with more than 200,000 parishes all over the world.
Cyril of Jerusalem 350 A.D. “And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is, nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”.
Have to break this reply up... I can't keep to a five minute time limit!
Cute video! And as always, I think you do a very good job in presenting your case charitably and without any rancour or insult. Still, I remain unconvinced that Protestantism is a) a viable alternative to Catholicism with respect to doctrine, belief, and practice; and b) that Protestantism as a movement has a real foundation. I hold that I shall always remain convinceable, but the case has to be solid. I say this with all respect. I've listened to very many Protestant and Evangelical preachers, I've read some tracts and other literature from a Protestant perspective, I've read some source materials. Nowhere close to the amount you've read I am certain! I have yet to meet the Protestant apologist that can actually make a sensible case for Protestantism. And that is quite different than making a case *against Catholicism*.
1.
Ah, history!!
1517 vs 34ish. Historically we know, as you say, that the Protestant churches date to 1517. This means that there was no Protestantism before 1517. What was before 1517? The Church was before 1517. When was the Church founded? Around 33 or 34 AD. When was the first Protestant church founded? 1517. Who founded the Church? Jesus founded the Church. Who founded the Protestant churches? Did Jesus come back and found them? No, Martin Luther founded them, and others around his time, such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. So, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli did not found the Church in 33ish AD? No, they founded their own churches in 1517 and thereafter.
Interesting bit of history that.
What are the Five Solas? I've never heard of those! --- I guess that means I'm either Catholic / Orthodox or else was alive before 1517! I looked. They are sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). Interesting. According to Matthew Barrett, a Baptist theologian: "These five statements of the evangelical faith lay at the center of what distinguished the theology of the Reformation from the theology of the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century."
Interesting. The statements of the "Evangelical faith" --- so not the Christian faith? I wonder, were there any solas before the 16th century? Indeed there were! The Church has always professed: One God, one faith, one baptism. St. Paul wrote that early on! He wrote that before the 16th century. Also interesting --- so, if there is but one faith, why did Luther and Calvin and Zwingli have to make new churches with new faiths? That kind of defeats Christ's purpose! That's a good question that I think really needs answering!
In any event, a couple of the Protestant solas do look familiar: sola gratia, well, yes, salvation does come through God's grace, and we can accept or reject it. So I think we have a point of agreement there at least. And obviously solo deo gratias --- God is the source of all things and it is through his providence that we have our lives and are able to accomplish anything, so there's another agreement.
But what about sola scriptura and sola fide? Where do they come from? Did Jesus teach those things? No, of course not! Jesus taught that we are judged by the "works" we do, and he gave loads of examples. Of course, faith is critical, but it is not solitary and can not live without action. As for the scriptures, Jesus taught his apostles orally and commanded them to teach. He didn't give them a book to teach from, but he did give them the office and function of teachers. Eventually, the Church began the work of writing things down. This took a while, but certainly within a hundred years, there were loads of things written down! And within a couple hundred years, hundreds and maybe thousands of gospels and revelations and letters and testaments and books and psalms and sorts of things!
Wow, that's a lot of writing. What happened to it all? I know some of it is kind of --- weird? You know, Jesus being married and God not really being God, but being a kind of demon, and there's another God and physical things are evil while spiritual things are good. It's very confusing! How do we keep track of it all! Well, it's a good thing that Jesus founded his Church in 34ish AD and gave its leaders the authority to make determinations of this sort. Jesus may have been buff, but he wasn't stupid! He knew that people would get all confused and argue among themselves and some would lead other astray and loads of people would start writing all kinds of nonsense. Fortunately, he had the solution to building a proper Church --- and Christ was a tekton (a builder & craftsman) after all! He built his Church on a firm foundation --- on Peter, and the other apostles. He gave them authority to teach and hand on the faith that he himself had taught them by his words and his actions. He gave them ministerial & governmental authority over the Church, to make determinations and settle issues. And he promised the eternal assistance of the Holy Spirit in this endeavour. And that God for that, because with all those confusing books out there, what am I supposed to make of it all, 2000 years later? Well, the Church settled on only 73 books! Of course, that only took them 300 years! But at least we don't have to worry about all that other stuff!
Wait. I heard there were only 66 books in the Bible. What gives? And what was all that about the Catholics adding books at the Council of Trent?
Ah, yes. More history! So yeah, 73 books was the accepted canon, based on a number of earlier lists and based on which of all those hundreds of books were actually orthodox (correct) in teaching and catholic (universal) in acceptance. In other words, everyone everywhere was hearing the Gospel of Mark, but other books like the Shepherd of Hermas and perhaps even the Gospel of Thomas, were not as widely read or somewhat dicey on the orthodoxy of their teaching. Fast forward another thousand years to the 1500s and here is where the confusion arises again! Remember how Luther founded the first Protestant church in 1517? Yes, well, he also decided that there were simply too many books in the Bible, and anyway, some of them did not agree with his own teachings, so they had to be cut out. Or revised. Or disputed. *cough cough* James, you straw epistle you! Wait. Why is James a "straw epistle"? Oh, it teaches contrary to one of the solas. Which sola? God, faith, or baptism? Oh no! James doesn't contradict any of the Church's solas! It contradicts one of the Protestant solas --- sola fide.
2.
Protestantism is more Catholic? No -- "catholic"? WHAAAT? Don't worry, it's just more history! Yes, of course, the Catholic Church would claim to be the scary quotes "One True Church". Because, well, that's the history. It is the Church that Jesus founded after all. In 34ish AD, rather than one of the Protestant churches that was founded in 1517 by some bloke who wasn't Jesus. To be fair, the Orthodox Churches share in this claim, and I'd say their claim is equally valid. To use your tree model, I would argue that the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church are "turned apart" from one another, like two parallel branches, with respect to their ancestral and rightful unity. But they are not sundered or cut off from one another because they all continue 98% of the historical tradition. They hand on the same faith that came from the Apostles. Even now, there is far more in common between Orthodoxy and Catholicism than there is, or ever can be, between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. They don't have the Five Solas and the Two Sacraments and the (Protestant version of) the Priesthood of All Believers. No. The Orthodox have the Three Solas, the Seven Sacraments, and the Christian Priesthood. Exactly the same as the Catholics.
Did Catholics and Orthodox throw stones at each other? Sure! Whenever there is a separation, there is bound to rise the spectre of tribalism. Whatever. This just means that Catholic and Orthodox people can be stupid and spiteful towards one another. And it's not like the Catholics and Protestants got along any better. They called each other heretics and burned each other at the stake and fought all sorts of religious wars. And even the Protestants smacked each other down. The situation hasn't really gotten any better!
Also, it should be noted that "throughout the medieval period" there really were no "non-Catholics". The medieval period is about 476 to 1453 (convenient ends of the Western and Eastern Empire respectively). What non-Catholics were there in 509? 787? 886? 923? 1049? Even in 1054, it's not like people in Russia and people in England suddenly woke up one morning and said "By Jove! The Pope and the Patriarch excommunicated one another!? Well, sod off those lousy Orthodox!" I've heard, and suspect that there is some truth to the claim, that it could very well have been a century or more before ordinary Catholics in the East came to be aware that they were now part of a separate "Orthodox Church".
As for the "highest magisterial teachings" of the Catholic Church, here's what the Catechism actually says, far from condemning the Orthodox to damnation: "838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.""
They're not heretics. They aren't damned to hell. Heck, we're not even allowed to prosletyse or evanangelise them! Why? Because they are already part of the Church!
3.
Phillip Schaff. Organic Renewal Effort? Progress and movement? Catholic union with the past? "If you're opposed to shrinking the church down to one institution..."
Again, history!
With all due respect, this is not what Protestantism is. Protestantism ceased to be an "organic effort" in 1517 when Luther founded his own church. Organic renewal is nothing new in the life of the Church. We've been in a constant process of reform, literally since Paul rebuked Peter about eating with gentiles. Reform. This is literally what the Ecumenical Councils are all about! Someone comes up with a novel idea, like say, Arius. His ideas get tossed about, people start to question them, other people follow them. The situation comes to a point where the Church has to step in and actually define a dogma. Okay, no, Arius, you're incorrect: Christ is divine, and you deny this. (JWs, looking at you!) Or take St Catherine of Siena. She went down to Avignon and told the pope to get his butt back to Rome. It took a while, but he eventually did so. Or take St Francis of Assisi. He railed against the corruption of the clergy, and reformed the Church by founding orders whose focus was rightly on the poor and dispossessed.
So what's the difference between a Protestant reformer and a Catholic reformer? Principally, it's one of obedience to the Church. Catholic reformers understand that you can't truly reform something from the outside. It's true of individuals --- how many women out there have ever actually succeeded in "changing" a man? Seriously! So it is with the Church. Luther may have begun as a reformer, but historically, we can see that he ended up a rebel. He taught his own theories and his own doctrines, he founded his own church in which to teach those doctrines and he edited the scriptures to fit his theories and doctrines.
Historically speaking, Christians shouldn't be interested in "opposing shrinking the church down to one institution". Rather, they should be seeking to reduce the number of institutions. Why is this is? Well, again, history! I honestly have no idea how many Protestant churches there are in 2023, but I do know that in 1502 there were effectively zero. Yes, there have always been revolutionaries and people that sought to destroy the unity of the Church, but at that time, they had not done so. But if we look forward from the beginning, we see Jesus instituting the Church. How many Churches did Jesus found? Four? Twelve? Seven? Eight hundred and forty three? No. He founded one Church. In 34ish AD. Not 1517? No, 34ish. And there would be another completely different church until 1517. (Remember, Orthodoxy is not sundered from the Church.) So since Jesus founded exactly one institution, the Church, and since this one institution a) is historically, theologically, ecclesiologically, dogmatically / doctrinally, united through time with itself and b) is not the product of a different person forming a new institution and sundering it from the original institution, why should this make me want to consider Protestantism? Jesus founded one institution, the Church, and as a Catholic, we regularly pray for the unity of old and continually seek to reduce the number of institutions, ideally back to one!
4.
The Seven Examples of Accretions. Here I know we're going to agree on several things Gavin!
Corrupt indulgences. We agree on this. There was corruption. It needed to be reformed. It got reformed. Next! Seriously, indulgences and meriting for others (masses for the dead, praying for others, etc) --- these are nothing new in the life of the Church. The Church has the authority to make or allow indulgences (binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining). These concepts began in Old Testament times, as we can see in Maccabees. That was the incident where some dead Jewish soldiers were found possessing some idols. They prayed for the soldiers and sent money to Jerusalem for atoning sacrifices to be made on behalf of the dead men. But as far as the corrupt practices of the 16th century, we are in total agreement.
Transubstantiation. Well, that wasn't dogmatic in Luther's day. But again, this is how the Church has worked historically. Remember Arius? Remember how he taught his own doctrines (that Jesus was not divine) and it took an Ecumenical Council to define the dogma that Christ is, in fact, both human and divine? People had already believed that universally, except for the Arians, and so the Church had to use its authority to define and impose this dogma on the faithful. So now Luther comes along teaching consubstantiation (admittedly, this is a very old debate in the Church, going back to the 800s or so!), but in stead of seeking to reform and ultimately submitting in obedience to the Church, he broke away from the Church. In order to bring order from his chaos, the question now had to be settled once and for all. Thanks Martin Luther! Clearly, *something* miraculous is going on upon all the altars of Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Something divine. Something transcendent. There is no magic, no science, no technology that can transform, transmute, or transmogrify ordinary bread and wine into something that appears to the lower senses to be bread and wine, yet is not bread and wine. I'm not a theologian or a mysteriologist. I'm not going to try to explain transubstantiation, because I don't understand it at all. All I know is that this is what the Church teaches, so I go with that. Whatever the underlying mechanism is, Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist, the Church has always gathered in liturgy to celebrate the Eucharist (even St Paul writes about it!), so I go with that too!
Papal Infallibility. The old favourite of anti-Catholic bashing. This is probably the single most misunderstood dogma by everyone. Protestants, certainly, but some Catholics too. It's really not that difficult to grasp, I think, if we just look at Pope Francis. He goes to visit some country and there's a bunch of reporters on the plane. They ask him questions, and he answers. He likes to teach (and, he actually has the authority and office of teacher). He talks off the cuff to the reporters. And the next day, in the newpapers, all the headlines are like "POPE FRANCIS SAYS GAY MARRIAGE OKAY!!" or "POPE CHANGES CHURCH TEACHING ON WOMEN IN THE PRIESTHOOD!!" And all the officials in the Vatican are face palming, wondering what he said this time! No, that's not how papal infallibility works. Very simply, it's this: "891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." The Pope can not infallibly declare the sky to be green or that Jesus has a divine sister. Clearly, this doctrine rests on Jesus's own instruction to Peter and the Apostles. To Peter he gives the special injunction to "feed the sheep" (that is teach) and to carry "the keys of the kingdom" (governing authority, as of a prime minister). He gives him the authority to bind and loose (when a Pope defines a dogma, that's it! It's bound on Earth and also in Heaven.) He gives him the authority to retain or forgive sins. All bishops share in this authority, but Peter is given a unique role among them.
Seven Sacraments vs Two. All seven sacraments are referenced in scripture. Some are more prominent, some are less obvious. Generally, I think Protestants have retained Baptism and Matrimony as sacraments, so we don't really need to address those. Suffice to say that Baptism and Matrimony are found throughout the teachings of Jesus. But to take a look at the others: we have Confirmation or Chrismation, which are role modelled by Jesus and the Father once Jesus is baptised. In the East it is common tradition to chrismate a baby or child right along with baptism and Eucharist. In the West we tend to spread them out a bit. Essentially, this is a sacrament of affirmation. We also see it in Acts when Peter and John went to Samaria to "lay hands on" those who had only been baptised and then the received the Holy Spirit. Admittedly not a lot to go on, but that's the way of it! Reconcilliation is already dealt with. Holy Orders. This is a sacrament you can't actively receive --- you have to be called by the Church. We see this when Jesus chooses the Twelve (those who will go on to become the first bishops), and when Peter declares that a new Apostle must be chosen as a successor to Judas. (Interesting that it should be Peter who does this.) Jesus also role models the things a priest does --- he serves the lowest, he teaches the faith, he performs the sacrifice. Anointing of the Sick. Literally in the Book of James: Is one among you sick? Call for a priest of the Church and he will come and pray over you and anoint you with oil in the name of the Lord. And last but not least, the Eucharist itself. Honestly, this should go without saying. The Eucharist is literally the mighty pillar that runs from Old to New Testament and so central to the life of the Church that Jesus teaches on it in almost uncharacteristically explicit terms and role models it for the Church. It's prefigured in the OT with the sacrifice of the son by the father and fulfilled in the New (Isaac and Abraham / Jesus and Yahweh).
"Cultic Practices" (veneration of icons, relics, saints, "worship of Mary") Quite simply, there is no doctrine (let alone a dogma) that instructs Catholics to positively venerate any object such as an icon. Christian art is certainly very old, and Christian art generally is a visual representation of scripture. Icons of the nativity of Christ, the crucifixion, etc. or events and people from the early Church. I think it's fair to say that most Christians, even Protestants, to some degree or other "venerate" or hold in respect their Bibles. It's the word of God after all, and you don't just toss it around or abuse it. In a time when there were no Bibles, no Christian scripture to speak of, the faith was handed on orally and visually. And this was the case well into and beyond the 17th century! A lot of Protestants, it seems to me, read far too much into the printed word of God. Catholics are often accused of intentionally trying to keep people from reading the Bible. Sometime you just have to shake your head in amazement and say, well, no one had Bibles really until the 1600s! A Bible took monks a couple years to copy, and they were always adorned to glorify God and thus costly and precious objects. Most people in the world were illiterate until relatively recently, so the teaching of the faith through images was simply how it was done. I'm sure the actual veneration of icons was not done extremely early, but I would hazard the guess that they were being venerated by the late first or second century.
Withholding the Eucharist in Both Kinds. This one is simply untrue. Again, history. The practice of withholding the chalice seems to have gained and lost favour several times over the course of early Church history and was still an issue in the 1400s. I've read that the practice was officially promulgated right before the Council of Constance and also that the English were Not Amused by this abuse of tradition. I've read that one of the first acts of Parliament after the death of Henry VIII (the Church in England still being Catholic at this time, although schismatic) was to restore the chalice to the people. It took a little longer for the Church to concur --- Vatican II permits the reception of Eucharist in both kinds. Done. It should be noted that this is simply a restoration to the people of the West the ancient heritage of their forebears. In the early Church the Eucharist was distributed in both kinds. In the East, Catholics have always partaken of the Eucharist in both kinds because of their tradition of intinction.
4 1/2.
Ah! Never mind, "Mary Worship" got its own section. (I know you didn't say the words because of irenicism, but I also know there are loads of people out there who are probably pulling their hair because you didn't call a spade a spade! Everyone knows Catholics worship Mary! She's just the Mother Goddess in disguise!) Even worse than papal infallibility. I'm just going to say it. Catholics do not and have never worshipped Mary. But as for her "elaborate role" --- well, yeah! Her role in the life of the Church is complex and the dogmas surrounding her have taken a while to process. But really, there are only four Marian dogmas, and I do concede that these are often perceived by Protestants as stumbling blocks in their journey towards Rome.
Fear not! There are ONLY FOUR Marian dogmas! First is the Motherhood of God, Ephesus 431 and explained further at Chalcedon 451. Keep in mind that this definition comes with the dogmatic statement that Christ has two natures, human and divine: "...begotten from the Father before the ages as regards his godhead, and in the last days, the same, because of us and because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten..."
Second is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Lateran 649. Here, we find this dogma in the context of the even earlier baptismal formulas and even the creed itself where we hold that Christ was begotten of the Father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit, in Mary's womb, where he became Man: "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth". It is in this dogma that the mystery of Eve is resolved: from her (and Adam's) sin, the whole history of redemption began, first with the Old Covenant, symbolised by the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant; and now fulfilled in the New Covenant, which is Jesus himself, and his mother the Ark of the New Covenant. This also puts paid to the argument that Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Even in scripture, we can see that they're his cousins!
Third is the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854. Here we see how our understanding of Mary's role unfolds, but focusing on the dignity and holiness of the Mother of God, "that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin."
The fourth is the Glorious Assumption into heaven, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950. "Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory." This dogma fails the scriptural basis test. Naturally! We don't know when Mary fell asleep, but it must have been some time after the New Testament books had been written because no mention is made. And in any event, the Church has never held sola scriptura as a doctrine. The dormition and assumption are ancient beliefs, found in the East as well as in the West. It has long been a matter of theological consideration as well.
Dare we consider the "Fifth Marian Dogma"?
No, not this time!
5.
Scriptural authority over Church authority. First, this Protestant dogma is not scriptural in and of itself. Yes, scripture is God breathed, oracles of God and carried along by the Holy Spirit. Yet nowhere did Jesus teach that his Church and his faith would be founded on scripture. What is scriptural is: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." No mention of placing scripture above Church authority. As we saw above, the authority Jesus expressly gives is to be found in the teaching office of his ministers. Teaching ministers who had only the Old Testament for scriptures, yet had to teach the faith that completed and fulfilled those scriptures. Also, on Mark 7:8, the context here seems pretty clearly to be the Pharisees sticking to the "letter of the law" rather than the "spirit of the law". "He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."" I'm not saying no Catholic ever let go the commands of God in favour of some tradition of men! (Santa Muerte anyone?) I would argue that this particular verse does not support the Protestant theory that scripture should be placed above the Church as an authority.
History! We know that, early on (here we're talking 34ish AD to about 50ish) there were no Christian scriptures at all that we would recognise as such. Certainly no Gospels, no Revelation, no Letters. Not that it matters much to the faith, but I think that textual studies have revealed that the synoptics have some commonalities and differences indicative of there being earlier source materials, so there very well could have been some notes and lists and incidents noted down that would later be collected into proper books. But in this first decade, there really was no scripture to speak of. And certainly nothing to rest a whole dogma of scriptural authority on. That said, in short order, by about 95ish yes, we do have a full Bible's worth of scriptures, OT and NT. And some extra books as well (Hermas, Didache, etc).
But the historical argument for scriptural supremacy doesn't bear out. It is obvious that the early Church was a scriptural institution in its faith, its teachings and its practices. But it is also very clearly a hierarchical and structured body. There are clear distinctions of roles, such as the clerical roles, and there are clear records that these clerics, in particular the bishops, played the part of the rulers. Not in a bad sense of jumped up potentates, but rather of regulators of the teaching, monitors (a bishop is literally an overseer), and those who pronounce what is orthodox and what is heterodox. It is these same bishops who periodically met to determine matters of doctrine and dogma. These matters early on were the matter of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the content of the canon of scripture.
Ultimately, history teaches us that if we submit to the Church's authority, we can be assured of orthodox faith being transmitted, orthodox practice being done (even if we have wait 500 years for it!); but if we reject the authority of the Church as constituted by Christ, we enter the realm of chaos. If the claim is made that "scripture is the highest authority", my question then is, well, who decides what scripture means? And if you tell me the Bible is the paramount authority and say that this verse means something; and another guy holds up his own Bible as the paramount authority and says that the same verse means something else; and a third guy holds his Bible up as paramount authority and says that both the first guys are totally wrong and will lead you to hell; and then a fourth guy gets up ... Well, you see the point I hope! History bears out that without a real authority, there is no authority. Who actually holds you "accountable to the apostolic deposit" when you can't even agree on what the apostolic deposit even is? When all of your churches are kind of equal and everyone kind of does their own thing and interprets scripture in their own way, how does that even make sense? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Catholics know that if they hold an opinion contrary to Church teaching (sadly it is true that a number of Catholics are unsure about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist for example) they don't have the authority to say "the Church teaches that Christ isn't really present in the Eucharist, simply because I don't believe it".