So secularism never would have happened w/out the reformation and it's all the fault of protestants? That's a stretch. Having religious freedom, separation of church and state. I think these might be a few ingredients. There never was supposed to be merging of church and state, as the RCC practices, and gained a disproportionate amount of power because it did this. It doesn't have this power anymore, to crush or kill dissenters, nor should it ever have.
On the point about Catholicism being the only viable Christian option from the outside (i.e. "I lost my faith, I didn't lose my reason"), this is exactly my experience. I was a practicing and believing baptist from birth, for 25 years. I discovered the Catholic Faith, and all of the sudden the stakes had never been higher. I knew that if Catholicism was false, I couldn't go back to being a baptist. To disprove Catholicism, I thought, was to make Christianity as a whole impossible. A friend of mine who converted the same year as I did thought the same thing.
You basically just described my thoughts I had a few days ago (just much more coherently lol). Protestant all my life, looked more into Catholicism a few weeks back, found it was true.
Why do you trust Paul .... Romans 3:7 - The New International Version (NIV) 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”
"I lost my faith; I didn't lose my reason!" This is actually, embarrassingly, why I converted from the Protestantism in which I was raised. I had my faith, but not my reason (in that I was blind to much of what I falsely took for granted). But when I was shown solid, logical "reason", Protestantism was no longer an option. A brief overview of early history cemented my understanding of Protestantism, and then filled the void with what it affirmed to be the True Church.
When I was long away from the Church as an athiest I never considered protestatism either. It seemed utterly obvious that if any Christian church was true that it was the Catholic Church. I did realize after coming back that what marked both protestants and athiests is disobedience of the divine authority of the Church. To deny that authority is at once to say it does not exist at all. Once you say you can believe whatever you like, guess what, you believe whatever you like.
This guy has a great way of cutting through the crap of bad Protestant rationalizations. Does it with the bluntness that comes across as elegance in a British accent. Felt like an interesting zinger was edited out at the end, lol.
"Work out the details among yourselves!" -Jesus according to Protestants Funny, though kudos to Suan for refining it back to the issue of authority. Even Catholicism has councils and hierarchy to "work out the details." Though the larger point was that baptism of age 7&under cannot be a minor detail to work out.
Excellent topic! In the future, can you possibly make a video how America was founded upon the spirit of rebellion? I love this country, but many Americans worship it.
@@RumorHazi I'm not in the US, and I don't plan to go there for any extended period of time. It's a bad country founded by freemasons, a trash constitution so weak that for decades it was used to allow abortion until birth. Utter trash, the faster it sinks the sooner something better can be built in its place.
The moment Dr. Fimister realized that he had three children instead of two was priceless. A real Homer Simpson moment, “ We have three children Homer , THREE! 😂😂😂😂😂
I was just thinking about Gavins recent video on immaculate conception and you are right it has undertones of revelations of the spirit as absurd. He may never admit that but basically he suggests that if it isn't found through apostolic history then God could never reveal it in a way that it could have any force at all. So it is an absurd concept in their view.
You would like to make the argument that even though the early church taught nothing of the immaculate conception (of Mary, not Jesus) that it should still be true. The Catholic argument is that it was revealed later. Yet Catholics constantly argue that the reformation couldn't be of God, because it took 1500 years for anyone to think anything that the reformers ever thought and taught. It should go both ways, not just one way.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 what teaching exactly does the immaculate conception reverse? Because the reformation was a complete 180 of church teachings. The immaculate conception doesn't conflict with church teaching. It actually doesn't impact it at all. If Mary wasn't immaculately conceived the church would just say ok and move on(before the dogma was declared). Same as if Jesus was born of a woman who wasn't a virgin it would have been God's decision how he wanted to be made present to the world. All we can do is sit back and recognize what occured.
@@MrPeach1 I wasn't saying the teaching of the immaculate conception reverses anything. Just that the argument for why this teaching wasn't present at all in the early church is that it was revealed later. Yet when the reformation happened much later in time, it can't be correct or true, because it isn't what the early church taught. That was the only distinction I was making. The immaculate conception is a problem, because it led to other errors about Mary, supposedly revealed over time. At this point, she's pretty much a deity in her own right.
@@MrPeach1 I'm not sure what video this came from, it's part of a lengthy post a Catholic posted. It just goes to show the considerable attributes given to Mary, that used to be reserved only for Jesus: "This is the day of the Assumption of My Beloved Mother, Queen of the Heavens, Queen of the Earth, Mother of Salvation. It is no coincidence that the Book of Truth is being made available on this date for My Mother is the Mother of Salvation. The Book is to help salvage the souls of the whole of humanity. My Mother plays an important role in the salvation of souls. She is the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of Grace and Advocate." This seems to be the Catholic view on Mary and these are pretty much the same attributes of divinity that was also given to a pagan goddess, called queen of heaven. Look up queen of heaven and she is pretty much the Catholic view of Mary and it's shocking the similarities.
I think many Protestants understand this argument intuitively, which is why evangelicals tend to focus on romans 10:9 which says if you profess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. They are trying to make as broad of a rule for entrance into the true church as possible. But the problem immediately arises when we ask what if one of those elements is missing? What if you believe in your heart but you don’t profess with your mouth? Or what if you profess with your mouth but don’t believe in your heart? What if you doubt? What if you profess that Jesus is Lord but don’t obey him? Such important questions immediately break down that passage as the catch all used to dismiss weighty questions of soteriology and theology proper.
“We just can’t discuss these topics…” Isn’t that the truth! I was a part of a group called BSF that attempts to have bible studies amongst various Protestant groups and one of the rules is to avoid topics of disagreement in doctrine: the sacraments, predestination, monergism vs synergism, etc.
The point regarding interpreting older forms of English (old and middle, really) raises a very interesting issue: Protestants oppose the idea that the Church has a magisterium, yet they de facto have to create one. Unless you expect all believers to know Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and (maybe) Latin, then they do not have access to the actual Word of God, just interpretations. Making things worse for Protestants, the body of scholars that know all 3 or 4 languages does not perfectly overlap with their own clergy. Effectively, their magisterium could include heretics, heathens, and atheists.
So could your magisterium contain heathens, heretics and ladder climbers, and of course would have to some point. Our issue isn't for having a magesterium. There is some evidence for something similar in Acts, when the apostles called a meeting to address a pressing issue dividing the church. Of course elders need to make weighty decisions concerning churches. The problem is w/ infallibility and declaring dogma as infallible, that can never be changed.
Minimalist Christianity would make me wonder why God wrote the Bible through his inspired coauthors if he could have listed the essentials in a pocket-sized tract.
That's pretty much what Jesus did in Mark 12:29-31, isn't it? "The most important (commandment)," answered Jesus, "is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these."
@@paulchapman8023 That's a concise summary. But we should do much more than feel affection for God. He expects us to show that love by practicing virtue, attending Holy Mass, receiving the sacraments. . . Some Protestants think we Catholics believe we earn heaven with good works as if we sign a contract to make God pay us for them. Maybe they'll tell you that since God can't obligate us to do good things, Christians can still go to heaven, even if they never obey him. After all, obeying would be a good work. Do you see what convinces me that universalism and the eternal security promote license? Before Calvin's day, no one believed in eternal security. When Our Lord tells us to love our enemies, he's talking about charity, not affection. He expects us to will the highest good, i.e., heaven, for others. We can do that for even people we dislike.
I'm half through the video but wonder what you think about Ochman's nominilism had of the rise of secularism? I hear many ponting to this as a culprit that provided the foundation for protestantism. Enjoyed the interview.
protestantism paved way to secularism, rationality, rejection of authority, separation of church and state, disbelief, atheism, communism, etc. . but before, it was the orthodox that rejected papacy. and before it was the mohammendans that rejected Jesus' divinity. so this is a pattern that continues throughout the centuries, where full revelation is rejected. it goes back to times of Jesus, that many saw Him as a man, prophet, and not Son of God. this is all very interesting.
I came to this video *very* open minded about this topic, but holy smokes…I am extremely disappointed, and frankly quite offended. Fimister’s obvious prejudice against Protestants clearly clouds his reason. And the deep irreverence for Scripture is very hurtful to my soul. I plan on making a response to this. I’ve never watched a video and ended up so turned off to Rome.
Why do you feel that everyone needs to have an open mind toward Protestantism? Should I also have an open mind toward Mormonism or the JW religion? What about Islam? I'm Orthodox, not Catholic, and we hold Scripture in extremely high regard. It is a part of Holy Tradition, after all. I'm also a former Evangelical Protestant and I've heard quite enough to know that it's nonsense. There's no need for me to be open toward it. I completely reject it in all its forms. If that offends you, then that's not really my problem. Protestantism was offensive to me and it caused me a lot of pain and confusion. So pardon me for having a prejudice against what I perceive to be a harmful distortion of the ancient faith. I'm not sorry for having that view. If Orthodoxy or Catholicism really is true, then Protestantism is actually harmful. I'm not going to tip toe around the issues because it might hurt someone's feelings. Feelings aren't as important as the truth.
Seraphim rose OSC: The reformation led to secularism, and, scholasticism led to the reformation and the renaissance, and scholasticism was caused by the east-west schism- and the east west schism was caused by western innovation.
While I agree that the Reformation caused a vacuum effect that led to a rise in secularism as a result of the Age of Enlightenment, Fimister fails to discuss that the Reformation was an attempt to “de-papicize” Western European society. Most historians agree with this. The problem was not necessarily Catholic practices or the traditions of Catholicism but the politics around them. For example, papal supremacy was universally rejected by the Reformers because they saw no biblical basis for it. Most people run to this: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19) Speaking as a Catholic, this is not evidence that the Bishop of Rome carries the most important role in the office of all the other bishops out there (i.e. Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc). I have attended Reformed, Anglican, and Methodist services that are strikingly similar to what we find in the Mass. Another problematic statement Fimister makes is his subjective take that Catholicism is the only way; this is a Strict-Observance Thomist talking, and many of his type do think Catholicism is the only legit way to be saved according to biblical principles. I will say that this is the Good Doctors opinion. The major issue I take is with his definition of secularism. Just about every dictionary out there defines secularism as the separation of church and state. Fimister’s definition of secularism being “the formal exclusion of divine revelation from public policy and law” is his own warped definition and Suan even implies that following the logic this is considered a form of agnostic atheism. Any real historian of American history knows that the founders of our country grounded the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in a number of sources including the Bible. How is that the exclusion of divine revelation? Just because the Catholic Church had no say in the writing of these documents that automatically means that traces of divine revelation is absent from them? I think his entire argument is based solely on subjective experience with some academic quips thrown in there.
"I agree that the Reformation caused a vacuum effect that led to a rise in secularism as a result of the Age of Enlightenment" I mean, thats the whole point...
how does that follow? even if it's true that tge reformation/protestantism leads to secularism one could still reject both and stay with catholicism or something else. unless you are talking about some other premise.
RC has very few dogmatic interpretations of SS. I believe and accept every statement in SS. We don't have to understand every scripture in order to be saved.i don't need a manmade church to interpret the Bible for me.
Man made church? Christ founded the Catholic Church. If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744. If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605. If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder. If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century. If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
With all respect to you Suan - brilliant, clear, and well read on academic matters - this is simply the least substantive piece on this matter I have ever read/watched. At no point in his presentation did Dr. Fimister cite a single primary source in his support; whether to accurately demonstrate what the Reformers taught, how it affected European religion, and whether they really were a causal factor in the Enlightenment (phenomenologically or intellectually). The closest thing to a source he provided was his own childhood intuitions. Viewers with less reading on this matter will only come out worse informed, both due to the complete lack of source discussion, and the total unawareness of the key role the Counter-Reformation played in the intellectual formation of the Enlightenment, as Richard Popkin shows in his work.
It doesn't matter what the Reformers taught, that is the exactly the point, the effect that the century of warfare that resulted from the Reformation concluding with the Peace of Westphalia in1648, convinced everyone that "religion" is so destructive that it needs to be expunged from the public sphere altogether lest it led to more wars, that's the point
Sorry Other Paul, Suan too busy at Harvard getting his doctorate in I believe “prots are g*y and cringe” to rigorously interview this Based British Rad Trad. You should reach out to the Dr Fimister and ask for a debate, Funny Prot Zoomer vs Hilarious British Boomer (Genxer?)
To be fair, the phenomena was worldwide, as the work of Jonathan Israel shows. Even Spinoza was invited to be a professor at the university of Heildeberg, a Calvinistic territory in the Holy Roman Empire.
@@heinrich3088 It likely was worldwide, but it's handier for Catholics to blame everything wrong in the Christian world on protestants. It couldn't possibly be anything going wrong in their end of the church, or past mistakes that spiraled. It's the world, the flesh and the devil. We were warned there would be a great falling away. Catholics are losing believers, just as much as protestant churches are.
Ahh, so now just a Christian but no longer Protestant? And not a Catholic. So by dropping the moniker of “Protestant” you somehow are no longer protesting what the Catholic Church teaches? Doesn’t quite work that way. (but you can call yourself anything you want) I agree that all Protestants shouldn’t be lumped together because of the unbelievable list of differences among them but, you’ll have to admit, even though they can’t agree on what time it is, they all do have that one pesky thing in common. They all think the Catholics got it wrong. And the “early Christians” were Catholic. “To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.” - Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman
Why do you RC need a Book if God speaks to yiu through your megesterium. ? The same point is true of all Christians. Our God, the Father, speaks to all of us through a Book. You need a Book just as much as we do. You have no divine revelation without aBook.
He speaks to us through Christ, the Word Incarnate. That's the Word of God that Catholics worship, you guys worship the Bible, we worship the Word Incarnate, and he gave a Deposit of Faith that lives on and handed down by the Magisterium, who gave you the Bible you worship as "Word of Truth". See the distinction?
@@elperinasoswa6772 There is no distinction. We believe in and worship Christ, the Word incarnate, and we learn of him through his holy word, the bible. You do it through a church. It can be the same result, a sanctified and fervent believer that really loves God and chooses to live for Him.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 And you have the list of Books in the New Testament. And none of these even remotely tell what OTHER Books should be included. We don’t even know the author of Hebrews and yet, we KNOW it is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. How? Because the Catholic Church said so. So, the Catholic Church gave you the Table of Contents, so to speak. (Council of Rome 382 A.D. under Pope Damasus I) (you can Google it)
How is this Evil from God ? "O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" (Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV) NRSV, where the Israelites were asking why they were being attacked by the Babylonians: "Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen." (Jeremiah 13:15-26 NRSV) "Skirts lifted up" is sexual assault. "Violate" is rape. The King James Version has the quaint "heels made bare," which obscures the sexual assault. Notice that the "iniquity" for which they were being raped was not immorality or depravity; it was simply because "you have forgotten me." There are nine passages in the Old Testament where God makes cannibalistic threats. Here is the worst one: "And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version) General Jephthah made a vow with God in order to defeat the enemy. When Jephthah won the war, "And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: 'If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.' . . . When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! . . . After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed." (Judges 11:30-39 NIV) After burning his daughter, Jephthah was rewarded with a prestigious judgeship and was later buried with honor. Cutting babies to pieces and raping the wives "See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV) Here is some Quran ۞ قُلْ يَـٰعِبَادِىَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَسْرَفُوا۟ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ لَا تَقْنَطُوا۟ مِن رَّحْمَةِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَغْفِرُ ٱلذُّنُوبَ جَمِيعًا ۚ إِنَّهُۥ هُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ ٥٣, Say, ˹O Prophet, that Allah says,˺ “O My servants who have exceeded the limits against their souls! Do not lose hope in Allah’s mercy, for Allah certainly forgives all sins. He is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Al-An`am 6:54 And decree for us in this world [that which is] good and [also] in the Hereafter; indeed, we have turned back to You." [Allāh] said, "My punishment - I afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses all things." So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakāh and those who believe in Our verses- Al-A`raf 7:156 وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـٰكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةًۭ لِّلْعَـٰلَمِينَ ١٠٧ We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ only as a mercy for the whole world. Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:107 Riyad as-Salihin 419 Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: I heard Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, "When Allah created the creatures, He wrote in the Book, which is with Him over His Throne: 'Verily, My Mercy prevailed over My Wrath" Come to Islam, we all invite you brothers ☝🏾☝🏻☝🏿☝🏼☝🏽
@@StringofPearls55 Galatians 2:21 New International Version 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” Ezekiel 18:9 New International Version 9 He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord. Your going to hell with Paul 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 Psalm 101:7 New International Version 7 No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence. Paul 2 Corinthians 12-16:Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@@StringofPearls55 when did the Prophet Muhammed PBUH marry a baby? Maybe your just lying like Paul taught you Romans 3:7 New International Version 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@@StringofPearls55 The Rabis openly sccept the Prophet Muhaamed PBUH as a Prophet..... They also publicly state that Jew cannot use a church to urinate as it is a house of Idolatry and Paganism. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
This is the most important and urgent realization that all westerners need to make. We can’t move forward until we all realize this.
Facts Catholic theocracy is the way 🙏⛪️🇻🇦✝️💯
@voiceofreason … the ghost face of catholic apologetics in the house
So secularism never would have happened w/out the reformation and it's all the fault of protestants? That's a stretch. Having religious freedom, separation of church and state. I think these might be a few ingredients. There never was supposed to be merging of church and state, as the RCC practices, and gained a disproportionate amount of power because it did this. It doesn't have this power anymore, to crush or kill dissenters, nor should it ever have.
Voice, debate Andrew Wilson or Jay Dyer. I’d believe you’d win. Have a Blessed Day.
On the point about Catholicism being the only viable Christian option from the outside (i.e. "I lost my faith, I didn't lose my reason"), this is exactly my experience. I was a practicing and believing baptist from birth, for 25 years. I discovered the Catholic Faith, and all of the sudden the stakes had never been higher. I knew that if Catholicism was false, I couldn't go back to being a baptist. To disprove Catholicism, I thought, was to make Christianity as a whole impossible. A friend of mine who converted the same year as I did thought the same thing.
You basically just described my thoughts I had a few days ago (just much more coherently lol). Protestant all my life, looked more into Catholicism a few weeks back, found it was true.
It's why I'm not a Christian
Wow beautifully said!
Why do you trust Paul .... Romans 3:7 - The New International Version (NIV)
7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”
"If the pope isn't the head of the Church, then Jesus didn't rise from the dead" is quite the take...
"I lost my faith; I didn't lose my reason!" This is actually, embarrassingly, why I converted from the Protestantism in which I was raised. I had my faith, but not my reason (in that I was blind to much of what I falsely took for granted). But when I was shown solid, logical "reason", Protestantism was no longer an option. A brief overview of early history cemented my understanding of Protestantism, and then filled the void with what it affirmed to be the True Church.
When I was long away from the Church as an athiest I never considered protestatism either. It seemed utterly obvious that if any Christian church was true that it was the Catholic Church. I did realize after coming back that what marked both protestants and athiests is disobedience of the divine authority of the Church. To deny that authority is at once to say it does not exist at all. Once you say you can believe whatever you like, guess what, you believe whatever you like.
Yep! Protestantism turns one into a sola-pope!
This guy has a great way of cutting through the crap of bad Protestant rationalizations. Does it with the bluntness that comes across as elegance in a British accent. Felt like an interesting zinger was edited out at the end, lol.
Solid as always from Dr F
Excellent presentation on the “unintended” but inevitable consequences of the reformation..🎯
The book “A Secular Age” is a deep dive into this topic that is worth exploring.
Its mentioned in the video.
Taylor is pretty rad. “Sources of the Self” and “Retrieving Realism” are also great!
This is hard hitting and in your face truth about the Christian faith. There are a lot of Protestant apologist who argue poorly and reasons well.
my roommate and i had many a late night talks on this exact topic(both of us are converts)
Sounds like an awesome house to live in.
Fimister knows a lot about a lot.
"Work out the details among yourselves!" -Jesus according to Protestants
Funny, though kudos to Suan for refining it back to the issue of authority. Even Catholicism has councils and hierarchy to "work out the details." Though the larger point was that baptism of age 7&under cannot be a minor detail to work out.
THIS…a thousand times
Excellent topic! In the future, can you possibly make a video how America was founded upon the spirit of rebellion? I love this country, but many Americans worship it.
Americanism is a heresy for a reason.
There's not much to love, objectively speaking.
Yes rebellion and freedom are idols for many.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Well, I’m sure you know where the door is.
@@RumorHazi I'm not in the US, and I don't plan to go there for any extended period of time. It's a bad country founded by freemasons, a trash constitution so weak that for decades it was used to allow abortion until birth.
Utter trash, the faster it sinks the sooner something better can be built in its place.
Have this guy back on the show again. He had me in stitches 😂
An academic who isn’t afraid of polemics! Made for a fun and interesting listen, thanks Suan.
The moment Dr. Fimister realized that he had three children instead of two was priceless. A real Homer Simpson moment, “ We have three children Homer , THREE! 😂😂😂😂😂
Excellent interview
Excellent work, both of you!!!
One of the best formulations on the topic I've encountered! Very concise and poignant! Excellent stuff!
I was just thinking about Gavins recent video on immaculate conception and you are right it has undertones of revelations of the spirit as absurd. He may never admit that but basically he suggests that if it isn't found through apostolic history then God could never reveal it in a way that it could have any force at all. So it is an absurd concept in their view.
You would like to make the argument that even though the early church taught nothing of the immaculate conception (of Mary, not Jesus) that it should still be true. The Catholic argument is that it was revealed later. Yet Catholics constantly argue that the reformation couldn't be of God, because it took 1500 years for anyone to think anything that the reformers ever thought and taught. It should go both ways, not just one way.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 what teaching exactly does the immaculate conception reverse? Because the reformation was a complete 180 of church teachings. The immaculate conception doesn't conflict with church teaching. It actually doesn't impact it at all. If Mary wasn't immaculately conceived the church would just say ok and move on(before the dogma was declared). Same as if Jesus was born of a woman who wasn't a virgin it would have been God's decision how he wanted to be made present to the world. All we can do is sit back and recognize what occured.
@@MrPeach1 I wasn't saying the teaching of the immaculate conception reverses anything. Just that the argument for why this teaching wasn't present at all in the early church is that it was revealed later. Yet when the reformation happened much later in time, it can't be correct or true, because it isn't what the early church taught. That was the only distinction I was making. The immaculate conception is a problem, because it led to other errors about Mary, supposedly revealed over time. At this point, she's pretty much a deity in her own right.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Who teaches she is divine? Do you have a link to a video you can share?
@@MrPeach1 I'm not sure what video this came from, it's part of a lengthy post a Catholic posted. It just goes to show the considerable attributes given to Mary, that used to be reserved only for Jesus:
"This is the day of the Assumption of My Beloved Mother, Queen of the Heavens, Queen of the Earth, Mother of Salvation.
It is no coincidence that the Book of Truth is being made available on this date for My Mother is the Mother of Salvation. The Book is to help salvage the souls of the whole of humanity.
My Mother plays an important role in the salvation of souls.
She is the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of Grace and Advocate."
This seems to be the Catholic view on Mary and these are pretty much the same attributes of divinity that was also given to a pagan goddess, called queen of heaven. Look up queen of heaven and she is pretty much the Catholic view of Mary and it's shocking the similarities.
I think many Protestants understand this argument intuitively, which is why evangelicals tend to focus on romans 10:9 which says if you profess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
They are trying to make as broad of a rule for entrance into the true church as possible. But the problem immediately arises when we ask what if one of those elements is missing? What if you believe in your heart but you don’t profess with your mouth? Or what if you profess with your mouth but don’t believe in your heart? What if you doubt? What if you profess that Jesus is Lord but don’t obey him?
Such important questions immediately break down that passage as the catch all used to dismiss weighty questions of soteriology and theology proper.
“We just can’t discuss these topics…”
Isn’t that the truth! I was a part of a group called BSF that attempts to have bible studies amongst various Protestant groups and one of the rules is to avoid topics of disagreement in doctrine: the sacraments, predestination, monergism vs synergism, etc.
Very well said.
Sooooo many ads… it’s fine to have a couple but every time my brain got into the convo an ad would interrupt.
The point regarding interpreting older forms of English (old and middle, really) raises a very interesting issue:
Protestants oppose the idea that the Church has a magisterium, yet they de facto have to create one. Unless you expect all believers to know Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and (maybe) Latin, then they do not have access to the actual Word of God, just interpretations. Making things worse for Protestants, the body of scholars that know all 3 or 4 languages does not perfectly overlap with their own clergy. Effectively, their magisterium could include heretics, heathens, and atheists.
So could your magisterium contain heathens, heretics and ladder climbers, and of course would have to some point. Our issue isn't for having a magesterium. There is some evidence for something similar in Acts, when the apostles called a meeting to address a pressing issue dividing the church. Of course elders need to make weighty decisions concerning churches. The problem is w/ infallibility and declaring dogma as infallible, that can never be changed.
Brad Gregory’s book on this topic is great as well
There's a video on youtube where he summarizes his book (about one hour).
Yes, Cordial Catholic did interview with him. He makes same point about theological anarchy leading to atheism by at least exhaustion.
This was awesome
Really appreciate this video.
Minimalist Christianity would make me wonder why God wrote the Bible through his inspired coauthors if he could have listed the essentials in a pocket-sized tract.
That's pretty much what Jesus did in Mark 12:29-31, isn't it? "The most important (commandment)," answered Jesus, "is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these."
@@paulchapman8023 That's a concise summary. But we should do much more than feel affection for God. He expects us to show that love by practicing virtue, attending Holy Mass, receiving the sacraments. . .
Some Protestants think we Catholics believe we earn heaven with good works as if we sign a contract to make God pay us for them. Maybe they'll tell you that since God can't obligate us to do good things, Christians can still go to heaven, even if they never obey him. After all, obeying would be a good work.
Do you see what convinces me that universalism and the eternal security promote license? Before Calvin's day, no one believed in eternal security.
When Our Lord tells us to love our enemies, he's talking about charity, not affection. He expects us to will the highest good, i.e., heaven, for others. We can do that for even people we dislike.
When’s EMJ coming on?
I'm half through the video but wonder what you think about Ochman's nominilism had of the rise of secularism? I hear many ponting to this as a culprit that provided the foundation for protestantism.
Enjoyed the interview.
protestantism paved way to secularism, rationality, rejection of authority, separation of church and state, disbelief, atheism, communism, etc. . but before, it was the orthodox that rejected papacy. and before it was the mohammendans that rejected Jesus' divinity. so this is a pattern that continues throughout the centuries, where full revelation is rejected. it goes back to times of Jesus, that many saw Him as a man, prophet, and not Son of God. this is all very interesting.
The fractured witness supports secularism to this day
I came to this video *very* open minded about this topic, but holy smokes…I am extremely disappointed, and frankly quite offended. Fimister’s obvious prejudice against Protestants clearly clouds his reason. And the deep irreverence for Scripture is very hurtful to my soul. I plan on making a response to this. I’ve never watched a video and ended up so turned off to Rome.
Also Vatican II dogmatized religious liberty and pope Francis says there should be gay civil unions soooooooo
Why do you feel that everyone needs to have an open mind toward Protestantism? Should I also have an open mind toward Mormonism or the JW religion? What about Islam? I'm Orthodox, not Catholic, and we hold Scripture in extremely high regard. It is a part of Holy Tradition, after all. I'm also a former Evangelical Protestant and I've heard quite enough to know that it's nonsense. There's no need for me to be open toward it. I completely reject it in all its forms. If that offends you, then that's not really my problem. Protestantism was offensive to me and it caused me a lot of pain and confusion. So pardon me for having a prejudice against what I perceive to be a harmful distortion of the ancient faith. I'm not sorry for having that view. If Orthodoxy or Catholicism really is true, then Protestantism is actually harmful. I'm not going to tip toe around the issues because it might hurt someone's feelings. Feelings aren't as important as the truth.
Facts💯 Great Video Catholic theocracy is the way 🙏⛪️🇻🇦✝️💯
❤
Didn’t Palamas say something similar?
Seraphim rose OSC: The reformation led to secularism, and, scholasticism led to the reformation and the renaissance, and scholasticism was caused by the east-west schism- and the east west schism was caused by western innovation.
that's a substantial argument. the papolatrism of modern catholicism makes it hard to see.
While I agree that the Reformation caused a vacuum effect that led to a rise in secularism as a result of the Age of Enlightenment, Fimister fails to discuss that the Reformation was an attempt to “de-papicize” Western European society. Most historians agree with this. The problem was not necessarily Catholic practices or the traditions of Catholicism but the politics around them. For example, papal supremacy was universally rejected by the Reformers because they saw no biblical basis for it. Most people run to this:
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)
Speaking as a Catholic, this is not evidence that the Bishop of Rome carries the most important role in the office of all the other bishops out there (i.e. Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc). I have attended Reformed, Anglican, and Methodist services that are strikingly similar to what we find in the Mass.
Another problematic statement Fimister makes is his subjective take that Catholicism is the only way; this is a Strict-Observance Thomist talking, and many of his type do think Catholicism is the only legit way to be saved according to biblical principles. I will say that this is the Good Doctors opinion. The major issue I take is with his definition of secularism. Just about every dictionary out there defines secularism as the separation of church and state. Fimister’s definition of secularism being “the formal exclusion of divine revelation from public policy and law” is his own warped definition and Suan even implies that following the logic this is considered a form of agnostic atheism. Any real historian of American history knows that the founders of our country grounded the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in a number of sources including the Bible. How is that the exclusion of divine revelation? Just because the Catholic Church had no say in the writing of these documents that automatically means that traces of divine revelation is absent from them? I think his entire argument is based solely on subjective experience with some academic quips thrown in there.
"I agree that the Reformation caused a vacuum effect that led to a rise in secularism as a result of the Age of Enlightenment" I mean, thats the whole point...
Based.
3 ads before 8 minutes
So if we accept this premise, why not just become atheists?
how does that follow? even if it's true that tge reformation/protestantism leads to secularism one could still reject both and stay with catholicism or something else. unless you are talking about some other premise.
The arguments for Atheism were developed by 17th century French Catholics. Atheism in France, 1650-1729, Volume I: The Orthodox Sources of Disbelief
RC has very few dogmatic interpretations of SS. I believe and accept every statement in SS. We don't have to understand every scripture in order to be saved.i don't need a manmade church to interpret the Bible for me.
Man made church? Christ founded the Catholic Church.
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
With all respect to you Suan - brilliant, clear, and well read on academic matters - this is simply the least substantive piece on this matter I have ever read/watched. At no point in his presentation did Dr. Fimister cite a single primary source in his support; whether to accurately demonstrate what the Reformers taught, how it affected European religion, and whether they really were a causal factor in the Enlightenment (phenomenologically or intellectually). The closest thing to a source he provided was his own childhood intuitions.
Viewers with less reading on this matter will only come out worse informed, both due to the complete lack of source discussion, and the total unawareness of the key role the Counter-Reformation played in the intellectual formation of the Enlightenment, as Richard Popkin shows in his work.
It doesn't matter what the Reformers taught, that is the exactly the point, the effect that the century of warfare that resulted from the Reformation concluding with the Peace of Westphalia in1648, convinced everyone that "religion" is so destructive that it needs to be expunged from the public sphere altogether lest it led to more wars, that's the point
Sorry Other Paul, Suan too busy at Harvard getting his doctorate in I believe “prots are g*y and cringe” to rigorously interview this Based British Rad Trad. You should reach out to the Dr Fimister and ask for a debate, Funny Prot Zoomer vs Hilarious British Boomer (Genxer?)
To be fair, the phenomena was worldwide, as the work of Jonathan Israel shows. Even Spinoza was invited to be a professor at the university of Heildeberg, a Calvinistic territory in the Holy Roman Empire.
@@heinrich3088 It likely was worldwide, but it's handier for Catholics to blame everything wrong in the Christian world on protestants. It couldn't possibly be anything going wrong in their end of the church, or past mistakes that spiraled. It's the world, the flesh and the devil. We were warned there would be a great falling away. Catholics are losing believers, just as much as protestant churches are.
As a Lapsed Protestant i know this already, i now dont protest anything, i believe on Christ as early Christians did.
Ahh, so now just a Christian but no longer Protestant? And not a Catholic. So by dropping the moniker of “Protestant” you somehow are no longer protesting what the Catholic Church teaches? Doesn’t quite work that way. (but you can call yourself anything you want)
I agree that all Protestants shouldn’t be lumped together because of the unbelievable list of differences among them but, you’ll have to admit, even though they can’t agree on what time it is, they all do have that one pesky thing in common. They all think the Catholics got it wrong.
And the “early Christians” were Catholic.
“To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.” - Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman
Ww faithful Bible believers reject secularism and atheism and evolution and materialism etc
.God saves and sanctifie s us through His Word of truth.
What? The reformation led to glory.
??
Why do you RC need a Book if God speaks to yiu through your megesterium. ? The same point is true of all Christians. Our God, the Father, speaks to all of us through a Book. You need a Book just as much as we do. You have no divine revelation without aBook.
He speaks to us through Christ, the Word Incarnate. That's the Word of God that Catholics worship, you guys worship the Bible, we worship the Word Incarnate, and he gave a Deposit of Faith that lives on and handed down by the Magisterium, who gave you the Bible you worship as "Word of Truth". See the distinction?
@@elperinasoswa6772 There is no distinction. We believe in and worship Christ, the Word incarnate, and we learn of him through his holy word, the bible. You do it through a church. It can be the same result, a sanctified and fervent believer that really loves God and chooses to live for Him.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 And you have the list of Books in the New Testament. And none of these even remotely tell what OTHER Books should be included. We don’t even know the author of Hebrews and yet, we KNOW it is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. How? Because the Catholic Church said so. So, the Catholic Church gave you the Table of Contents, so to speak. (Council of Rome 382 A.D. under Pope Damasus I) (you can Google it)
How is this Evil from God ?
"O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV)
NRSV, where the Israelites were asking why they were being attacked by the Babylonians:
"Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen."
(Jeremiah 13:15-26 NRSV)
"Skirts lifted up" is sexual assault. "Violate" is rape. The King James Version has the quaint "heels made bare," which obscures the sexual assault.
Notice that the "iniquity" for which they were being raped was not immorality or depravity; it was simply because "you have forgotten me."
There are nine passages in the Old Testament where God makes cannibalistic threats. Here is the worst one:
"And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat."
(Leviticus 26:27-29 King James Version)
General Jephthah made a vow with God in order to defeat the enemy. When Jephthah won the war,
"And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: 'If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.' . . . When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! . . . After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed."
(Judges 11:30-39 NIV)
After burning his daughter, Jephthah was rewarded with a prestigious judgeship and was later buried with honor.
Cutting babies to pieces and raping the wives
"See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated."
(Isaiah 13:9-16 NIV)
Here is some Quran
۞ قُلْ يَـٰعِبَادِىَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَسْرَفُوا۟ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ لَا تَقْنَطُوا۟ مِن رَّحْمَةِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَغْفِرُ ٱلذُّنُوبَ جَمِيعًا ۚ إِنَّهُۥ هُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ ٥٣,
Say, ˹O Prophet, that Allah says,˺ “O My servants who have exceeded the limits against their souls! Do not lose hope in Allah’s mercy, for Allah certainly forgives all sins.
He is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Al-An`am 6:54
And decree for us in this world [that which is] good and [also] in the Hereafter; indeed, we have turned back to You." [Allāh] said, "My punishment - I afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses all things." So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakāh and those who believe in Our verses-
Al-A`raf 7:156
وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـٰكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةًۭ لِّلْعَـٰلَمِينَ ١٠٧
We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ only as a mercy for the whole world.
Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:107
Riyad as-Salihin 419
Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
I heard Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, "When Allah created the creatures, He wrote in the Book, which is with Him over His Throne: 'Verily, My Mercy prevailed over My Wrath"
Come to Islam, we all invite you brothers
☝🏾☝🏻☝🏿☝🏼☝🏽
Real prophets don't create their own religion or marry babies.
@@StringofPearls55 tell that to Paul. His people were famous for having sex with little boys .
@@StringofPearls55 Galatians 2:21
New International Version
21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
Ezekiel 18:9
New International Version
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
Your going to hell with Paul 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Psalm 101:7
New International Version
7 No one who practices deceit
will dwell in my house;
no one who speaks falsely
will stand in my presence.
Paul 2 Corinthians 12-16:Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@@StringofPearls55 when did the Prophet Muhammed PBUH marry a baby?
Maybe your just lying like Paul taught you
Romans 3:7
New International Version
7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@@StringofPearls55 The Rabis openly sccept the Prophet Muhaamed PBUH as a Prophet.....
They also publicly state that Jew cannot use a church to urinate as it is a house of Idolatry and Paganism.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
What a joke