@@javierperd2604 It's one thing to sprout unsubstantiated claims about the Catholic Church in the echo-camber of ones co-religionists. It is another thing to have these accusations tested in discussion with a Catholic Apologist. I challenge you Javier, to engage in discussion with Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin or Trent Horn. Pax
I watch both of these guys channels. Did not realize young_anglican was so new to faith in Crist. Its great to see conviction, and documenting a journey to faith is great, but it may be worth waiting before becoming an online apologist after such a recent conversion. It can be easy to be zealous when you convert in your 20's and its so new, and I pray his zealous faith never dies, but 2020-2021 becoming a Christian for the first time and then going immediately and hard into online/public apologetics is a wild move.
I love that Javier asked the question about the role of miracles in epistemology. RE: Marian apparitions. Mary has been the hardest part of leaving the RC for me. The main reason is that I am still ambivalent on whether or not the Church Triumphant interacts with us-the Church Militant (relative to “cloud of witnesses” and the doctrine of the Communion of Saints). I still wonder if they pray for us, or interact in any way on our behalf. The miracles of OL of Guadalupe are convincing to me for a few reasons. However, I have never been able to connect with the sense of awe and emotional capture of the miracles associated with the “incorruptibles,” the bleeding hosts, nor the levitating (St Teresa of Avila was reported as doing that as well as Cupertino). I find some of the Miracles promoted by Catholics to be macabre in nature and not at all consistent with how God uses miracles in Scripture . I see nothing in Scripture where God preserves a body from decaying or makes things bleed. His miracles (the signs and wonders I’m familiar with in Scripture) serve the purpose of edifying one’s faith, providing for someone’s need, or interceding on behalf of someone he has sent on mission (I.e., Moses’ staff turning into a serpent). The miracle witnessed by the Young Anglican was God intervening on behalf of a person in need and it correlates perfectly with how Jesus calls people to serve. I would love to see Gavin and Javier do more on this issue-I could definitely speak to the Guadalupe story-what’s convincing and what seems sus.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're trying to gaslight me! (-: To reiterate, I have been reluctant to give up the idea that the saints in heaven interact with the Church militant (which is not a direct Biblical teaching, though one can make inferences from one or two places in Scripture). My only reluctance pertains to intercession and prayer. Mary is truly the only one that I can attest to from experience. I have so many experiences in my life where Mary's presence was insinuated into a situation in ways that were just too remarkable to be coincidence and they were always connected with deepening my faith life, strengthening or unifying my family, and even (in the most recent case) to confirm my journey away from Catholicism. Mary is unique, too, because she was chosen by God to bear His son. She is the model par excellence of faith--the anti-Eve. There is no human who loved or could love Jesus more than his mother. That's just a fact and it makes sense to me that God would not dismiss her significance as though she were just a breeder. That reasoning is why I can actually accept one or two Marian dogmas (perpetual virginity and IC). But, they are not necessary for saving faith, so I have problems with the RCC holding them in the same esteem as, say, the virgin birth or resurrection. So many rabbit trails I can take here, but suffice it to say, Mary and her intercession are still ideas I cannot completely let go of. My main point, though was Javier's question. Javier's question was so on point: what role does the miraculous play in terms of epistemlogy--how do miracles serve to confirm or negate our perceptions of truth? Intercession of the saints occurs to me when I take my troubles to prayer and they are answered in a way that points specifically to that saint's hand. I have a few such storiess. However, there's really no need to stress over it because all intercessions are effectuated by the one mediator, Jesus. While it can reasoned that those in heaven are "more alive than we are" (a statement I used to make all the time as a Catholic apologist), giving credit to the saints for their intercession is 100% unnecessary since they would rightly credit the Lord Jesus for receiving and answering prayers. A saint would rightly demur any credit. When it comes to Mary, I always taught (IAW with Pope John Paul II's own writings) that everything I love about Mary is how she teaches me to love her son more deeply--everything must be directed to the son (as was so in the wedding at Cana--"do whatever he instructs you to do"). Apparitions and the more sensational eucharistic miracles and stigmata (i.e.,Padre Pio) are another layer of this supernatural interaction that brings with it huge potential for deception and satanic influence. That's my problem with them. They are not necessary for saving faith and they are wrought with danger. However, there are some Marian apparitions that (in my mind, which is open to being changed) seemm to pass the test for what I would call serving a Godly purpose that comports with Biblical spirituality. Guadalupe, if the story passed down is true, is fascinating and just so happened to be the catalyst for the conversion of Mexico from paganism to Christianity. Fatima was witnessed by tens of thousands of people and the fruits of those apparitions seem to me to point to Godliness on the part of the children to the point that they were unaffected by the Communists who jailed them and threatened them if they didn't recant their stories. They never once did--even when told their parents would be arrested and harmed. As for the incorrptibles and bleeding hosts and levitating saints--I see no fruit from those--how exactly do those glorfy Christ or edify a person's struggle with faith? They are sensationalist and, as I mentioned, kind of activate the "creepy" feels.
Rome has a lot to answer for. If only there had not been the Great Schism around 1054, with its subsequent Romish corruptions and accretions. The Reformation need not have happened and we might all still be in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
My question in this would then be….shouldn’t we all be Eastern Orthodox (considering we are all Chalcedonian)? If the Great Schism occurred and the Patriarch of Rome innovated, then the other Patriarchs did not, should we not be united to them? What is the point of being Anglican (even if it is apostolic)? It’s simply then just a schism of a schism, or at the very least, a Western expression of apostolic Christianity that must return to the communion of the Church that Rome abandoned.
Or maybe it needed to happen. Why do we assume that God who has made every leaf on every tree unique, expects absolute uniformity in every minute detail of theology? Is it not more probable that God responds to different people through the variety of churches that make up His one holy and apostolic Church. God is greater than our theologies, what if we all contribute to the understanding of that greater reality better than if we were all absolutely uniform?
Couldn’t agree more. Galatians is the book that solidified my belief that we are justified by faith alone. “For if righteousness were through the law, Christ died for no purpose.” And “the law was our guardian so that we might be justified by faith”
I am confused as it sounds like i cannot trust miricles from God as he may lead me away. Like if I am struggling with faith or having ecclessial anxiety and looking to God for an answer that would be along the lines of a miricle or sign I cannot trust it since it might be false or leading me into temptation?
The miraculous is certainly real, but I would say to trust Scripture over your own miraculous experiences when the two seem to conflict -- after all, the Scriptures tell us to be discerning and to test these sorts of things. That being said, I would definitely recommend speaking with your pastor about this as well as reading some further resources on the issue.
I grew up Evangelical and when I had questions about how the minimalist and non-liturgical way of doing church seemed really at odds with the First Millenium, these questions were simply dismissed and they were not interested in addressing them. In my town, staying Protestant meant choosing between extremely low church worship and neo-Zwinglianism, and gay pride flags everywhere. Sola scriptura WAS presented as solO scriptura at every evangelical church I attended. Since I had to choose, I returned to the Catholicism of my grandparents. Sometimes I'm a little angry that Protestantism didn't offer a third way to my younger self.
@albertito77 Thank you for your comment. I'm really sorry to hear that happened to you. That reminds me almost of the atheist friends I have who grew up Christian but were repeatedly shut down when they asked questions... leading them to eventually leave the faith. Of course, this isn't an exact parallel, but it's always incredibly sad for me to hear when good-faith questions are met with scorn or dismissal from fellow Christians. I would encourage you to check out the resources on this playlist regarding Roman Catholicism: ruclips.net/p/PLjjcmFjyDP07Bwhw29_U2DlTxplfdv5c0&si=k4mFebxl0gJjAOAy That way, you can get a wide sampling of how different traditions within Protestantism address Rome's challenges. Who knows what the Lord may have in store for your future. God's blessing be with you, friend.
It's one thing to sprout unsubstantiated claims about the Catholic Church in the echo-camber of ones co-religionists. It is another thing to have these accusations tested in discussion with a Catholic Apologist. I challenge you Javier, to engage in discussion with Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin or Trent Horn. Pax
@crossvilleengineering1238 My attempt at being friendly (hence, the smiley after the comment) offended you, which is too bad. Christians need more than ever to assume the best intentions from each other. Since you threw out that I was rejecting Biblical teaching, I returned your spirited attitude in kind. Oh well. My attempt at being friendly (hence, the smiley after the comment) offended you, which is too bad. Christian’s need more than ever to assume the best intentions from each other. Since you threw out that I was rejecting Biblical teaching, I returned your spirited attitude in kind. Oh well.
You don’t have to make up a new word to describe the EC, OC, ACE, and RC - they’ve been referred to as the Apostolic Churches in academia for centuries. “Ecclesiasts,” for one, has no etymology, is a mouthful, and no one knows it. I’ve heard it a few times and each time I was confused as to what word was being used and, more importantly, why.
I wish Anglicans just became Lutheran. Both traditions are so close liturgically, but Lutheranism has so much more theological depth. Just read the Book of Concord.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 Many Lutheran churches have restored the historic episcopate. Our confessions state they prefer that form of church government. However, the bishop-presbyter distinction is of merely human origin, and is therefore “adiaphora.”
This was a such a good conversation. We will definitely have to talk more here on RUclips
Absolutely! Thank you for coming onto the channel, brother.
Great interview Joe.
@@javierperd2604 It's one thing to sprout unsubstantiated claims about the Catholic Church in the echo-camber of ones co-religionists. It is another thing to have these accusations tested in discussion with a Catholic Apologist. I challenge you Javier, to engage in discussion with Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin or Trent Horn. Pax
I watch both of these guys channels. Did not realize young_anglican was so new to faith in Crist. Its great to see conviction, and documenting a journey to faith is great, but it may be worth waiting before becoming an online apologist after such a recent conversion. It can be easy to be zealous when you convert in your 20's and its so new, and I pray his zealous faith never dies, but 2020-2021 becoming a Christian for the first time and then going immediately and hard into online/public apologetics is a wild move.
Thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Thanks!
Great as always.
What a great talk! I'm new to Joes work, but what I've seen, I've really enjoyed.
I went Roman Catholic for 10 years but then i came back to Anglo-catholicism. The papacy shouldn't be thr centre of your existence jesus should be.
I love that Javier asked the question about the role of miracles in epistemology. RE: Marian apparitions. Mary has been the hardest part of leaving the RC for me. The main reason is that I am still ambivalent on whether or not the Church Triumphant interacts with us-the Church Militant (relative to “cloud of witnesses” and the doctrine of the Communion of Saints). I still wonder if they pray for us, or interact in any way on our behalf. The miracles of OL of Guadalupe are convincing to me for a few reasons. However, I have never been able to connect with the sense of awe and emotional capture of the miracles associated with the “incorruptibles,” the bleeding hosts, nor the levitating (St Teresa of Avila was reported as doing that as well as Cupertino). I find some of the Miracles promoted by Catholics to be macabre in nature and not at all consistent with how God uses miracles in Scripture . I see nothing in Scripture where God preserves a body from decaying or makes things bleed. His miracles (the signs and wonders I’m familiar with in Scripture) serve the purpose of edifying one’s faith, providing for someone’s need, or interceding on behalf of someone he has sent on mission (I.e., Moses’ staff turning into a serpent). The miracle witnessed by the Young Anglican was God intervening on behalf of a person in need and it correlates perfectly with how Jesus calls people to serve. I would love to see Gavin and Javier do more on this issue-I could definitely speak to the Guadalupe story-what’s convincing and what seems sus.
Thank you for that comment! I definitely hope to do some more research and future content on Marian Apparition in the future.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're trying to gaslight me! (-: To reiterate, I have been reluctant to give up the idea that the saints in heaven interact with the Church militant (which is not a direct Biblical teaching, though one can make inferences from one or two places in Scripture). My only reluctance pertains to intercession and prayer. Mary is truly the only one that I can attest to from experience. I have so many experiences in my life where Mary's presence was insinuated into a situation in ways that were just too remarkable to be coincidence and they were always connected with deepening my faith life, strengthening or unifying my family, and even (in the most recent case) to confirm my journey away from Catholicism. Mary is unique, too, because she was chosen by God to bear His son. She is the model par excellence of faith--the anti-Eve. There is no human who loved or could love Jesus more than his mother. That's just a fact and it makes sense to me that God would not dismiss her significance as though she were just a breeder. That reasoning is why I can actually accept one or two Marian dogmas (perpetual virginity and IC). But, they are not necessary for saving faith, so I have problems with the RCC holding them in the same esteem as, say, the virgin birth or resurrection. So many rabbit trails I can take here, but suffice it to say, Mary and her intercession are still ideas I cannot completely let go of. My main point, though was Javier's question.
Javier's question was so on point: what role does the miraculous play in terms of epistemlogy--how do miracles serve to confirm or negate our perceptions of truth? Intercession of the saints occurs to me when I take my troubles to prayer and they are answered in a way that points specifically to that saint's hand. I have a few such storiess. However, there's really no need to stress over it because all intercessions are effectuated by the one mediator, Jesus. While it can reasoned that those in heaven are "more alive than we are" (a statement I used to make all the time as a Catholic apologist), giving credit to the saints for their intercession is 100% unnecessary since they would rightly credit the Lord Jesus for receiving and answering prayers. A saint would rightly demur any credit. When it comes to Mary, I always taught (IAW with Pope John Paul II's own writings) that everything I love about Mary is how she teaches me to love her son more deeply--everything must be directed to the son (as was so in the wedding at Cana--"do whatever he instructs you to do").
Apparitions and the more sensational eucharistic miracles and stigmata (i.e.,Padre Pio) are another layer of this supernatural interaction that brings with it huge potential for deception and satanic influence. That's my problem with them. They are not necessary for saving faith and they are wrought with danger.
However, there are some Marian apparitions that (in my mind, which is open to being changed) seemm to pass the test for what I would call serving a Godly purpose that comports with Biblical spirituality. Guadalupe, if the story passed down is true, is fascinating and just so happened to be the catalyst for the conversion of Mexico from paganism to Christianity. Fatima was witnessed by tens of thousands of people and the fruits of those apparitions seem to me to point to Godliness on the part of the children to the point that they were unaffected by the Communists who jailed them and threatened them if they didn't recant their stories. They never once did--even when told their parents would be arrested and harmed. As for the incorrptibles and bleeding hosts and levitating saints--I see no fruit from those--how exactly do those glorfy Christ or edify a person's struggle with faith? They are sensationalist and, as I mentioned, kind of activate the "creepy" feels.
Great conversation!!!!
Rome has a lot to answer for. If only there had not been the Great Schism around 1054, with its subsequent Romish corruptions and accretions. The Reformation need not have happened and we might all still be in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
My question in this would then be….shouldn’t we all be Eastern Orthodox (considering we are all Chalcedonian)? If the Great Schism occurred and the Patriarch of Rome innovated, then the other Patriarchs did not, should we not be united to them? What is the point of being Anglican (even if it is apostolic)? It’s simply then just a schism of a schism, or at the very least, a Western expression of apostolic Christianity that must return to the communion of the Church that Rome abandoned.
Rome was technically right in 1054 because the filioque was the doctrine of most Christians in east and west for generations.
Or maybe it needed to happen. Why do we assume that God who has made every leaf on every tree unique, expects absolute uniformity in every minute detail of theology? Is it not more probable that God responds to different people through the variety of churches that make up His one holy and apostolic Church. God is greater than our theologies, what if we all contribute to the understanding of that greater reality better than if we were all absolutely uniform?
So, which is Javier's denomination?
Joe lookin hecka drippy in that thumbnail 🔥🔥🔥🔥
01:45:00 : This Sola Fide & Sola Scriptura chapter is 🔥
You've summarized a few of my concerns w Eastern Orthodoxy.
Couldn’t agree more. Galatians is the book that solidified my belief that we are justified by faith alone. “For if righteousness were through the law, Christ died for no purpose.”
And “the law was our guardian so that we might be justified by faith”
I am confused as it sounds like i cannot trust miricles from God as he may lead me away. Like if I am struggling with faith or having ecclessial anxiety and looking to God for an answer that would be along the lines of a miricle or sign I cannot trust it since it might be false or leading me into temptation?
The miraculous is certainly real, but I would say to trust Scripture over your own miraculous experiences when the two seem to conflict -- after all, the Scriptures tell us to be discerning and to test these sorts of things.
That being said, I would definitely recommend speaking with your pastor about this as well as reading some further resources on the issue.
I grew up Evangelical and when I had questions about how the minimalist and non-liturgical way of doing church seemed really at odds with the First Millenium, these questions were simply dismissed and they were not interested in addressing them. In my town, staying Protestant meant choosing between extremely low church worship and neo-Zwinglianism, and gay pride flags everywhere. Sola scriptura WAS presented as solO scriptura at every evangelical church I attended. Since I had to choose, I returned to the Catholicism of my grandparents. Sometimes I'm a little angry that Protestantism didn't offer a third way to my younger self.
@albertito77 Thank you for your comment. I'm really sorry to hear that happened to you.
That reminds me almost of the atheist friends I have who grew up Christian but were repeatedly shut down when they asked questions... leading them to eventually leave the faith. Of course, this isn't an exact parallel, but it's always incredibly sad for me to hear when good-faith questions are met with scorn or dismissal from fellow Christians.
I would encourage you to check out the resources on this playlist regarding Roman Catholicism: ruclips.net/p/PLjjcmFjyDP07Bwhw29_U2DlTxplfdv5c0&si=k4mFebxl0gJjAOAy
That way, you can get a wide sampling of how different traditions within Protestantism address Rome's challenges. Who knows what the Lord may have in store for your future.
God's blessing be with you, friend.
@@javierperd2604 they were nice people but it's more that they had never thought about these questions before and had no idea how to handle me!
Wow YA is a very new Christian.
Great convo. I would check out Auguste Sabatier.
I am curious what was his wife's claim that the Episcopal Church isn't proper compared to Anglicanism?
It's one thing to sprout unsubstantiated claims about the Catholic Church in the echo-camber of ones co-religionists. It is another thing to have these accusations tested in discussion with a Catholic Apologist. I challenge you Javier, to engage in discussion with Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin or Trent Horn. Pax
you both sounds like kierkegaard to me
@crossvilleengineering1238
My attempt at being friendly (hence, the smiley after the comment) offended you, which is too bad. Christians need more than ever to assume the best intentions from each other. Since you threw out that I was rejecting Biblical teaching, I returned your spirited attitude in kind. Oh well.
My attempt at being friendly (hence, the smiley after the comment) offended you, which is too bad. Christian’s need more than ever to assume the best intentions from each other. Since you threw out that I was rejecting Biblical teaching, I returned your spirited attitude in kind. Oh well.
Alot of Anglican churches are not Conservative
You don’t have to make up a new word to describe the EC, OC, ACE, and RC - they’ve been referred to as the Apostolic Churches in academia for centuries. “Ecclesiasts,” for one, has no etymology, is a mouthful, and no one knows it. I’ve heard it a few times and each time I was confused as to what word was being used and, more importantly, why.
I wish Anglicans just became Lutheran. Both traditions are so close liturgically, but Lutheranism has so much more theological depth. Just read the Book of Concord.
I will join with the Lutherans as soon as they restore the historic episcopate.
Also, as soon as they are willing to do proper triage rather than refusing to commune with any body that disagrees with a single letter of the BoC.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 Many Lutheran churches have restored the historic episcopate. Our confessions state they prefer that form of church government. However, the bishop-presbyter distinction is of merely human origin, and is therefore “adiaphora.”
@@BenjaminAnderson21 Lutherans are no different than Catholic or Orthodox on the subject of “Closed Communion.”
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Lutherans don’t believe apostolic succession is necessary for valid sacraments.
You become Anglican instead of Catholic because you want a divorce 🙃