The fundamental issue is that highly intelligent human beings are pretty good at making arguments for anything they want to believe. I think it is a foolish errand to think we can objectively evaluate every claim. Rather, I think the best we can do is compare competing claims across related ideas and try to decipher which has the stronger evidence. I think that is all we can realistically do.
I love this! God says we renders useless the wisdom of men for the sake of the Gospel. Because it is not about the best arguments or the best theology but the Gospel which leads to faith which leads to repentance and God heals them.
A famous Saint once said paraphrased that the heart will not rest till it rest in God. For me personally I found rest leaving Protestantism for Catholicism. As a protestant I never felt like I measured up but as a Catholic I dont have the pressure of being a super Christian anymore and I know that its ok and God loves me the way I am with all my flaws. I dont have to pretend to be something Im not anymore. Conversion is when you finally find God and no longer need to search. 🙏
Your comment needs to be clarified. My reality is entirely different. When I accepted and began to seek God, that's when the search really started for me. If being Catholic makes you feel like God loves you with all your flaws, that's a False Gospel . Jesus said over and over Believe and sin no more. "whoever does my Father's will is my brother and sister . I suggest you find out what that is.
I understand what you mean. When I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism I found rest for my soul, too. I also have learned a lot about my own humanity in a way I never learned as a Protestant. It has helped me accept myself, see my flaws and struggles honestly and depend on God and know him in a deeper way. I have found a lot of interior freedom since becoming Catholic.
@@dallasbrat81 Not a false Gospel at all. Jesus really does love you with all your flaws. That is the Good News! Of course, we must listen to Him and do our best to sin no more - but we are human and we WILL sin. Confession is truly one of the great gifts to mankind.
Austin, this is totally spot on. I’ve seen all sides cite the same evidence and interpret it differently for their case. It’s literally an unsolvable problem intellectually. This is why I’ve been forced to just put my faith in Jesus Christ. I have nothing else. I can do no else. I’ve spent years thinking I could solve these issues with my mind or “following the evidence.” * Protestant pastor of 12+ years with an M.A. in New Testament who converted to Catholicism and then quickly left once I found that once you move past the shiny arguments apologists have, you are left with a lifeless, lonely, cold church with people who barely even look at you and an unknown faith where Christ is not glorified like in Protestantism or Orthodoxy. I am thankful for the grace of God, the gift of faith, and vibrant communities of people who actually care for one another. Soli deo Gloria!
But you can’t say that you put your faith in Jesus and at the same time reject the Church he established or reject the Sacraments he gave us. Is the Catholic Church lifeless? Maybe. Was the Last Supper lifeless? Was the Crucifixion lifeless? Was the Resurrection lifeless? Was the Ascension lifeless? Was Pentecost lifeless?
Agree with a lot of what you said here. What converted me wasn't good evidence, and what keeps me converted isn't good evidence because I see at least decent evidence for every position. What keeps me converted is the way I see the evidence. For a protestant to convince me I'm wrong, they would have to undermine more fundamental aspects of my worldview now, like the inherent virtue of hierarchy, the immorality of Liberal ideology, assumptions about how we can know theological truth with or without a tangible, physical church, etc. I am aware of most of the evidence so just showing me more is going to have severely diminished returns, it's going to take something more fundamental now. But like you said, I am a lot more humble and understanding of others' beliefs than I used to be because I know I'm not the only smart person on the planet now haha.
Many many Protestants believe in the inherit virtue of hierarchy and the immorality of liberal ideology. Those things are not exclusive to nor have anything to do with the Bishop of Rome
Austin you nailed it. It's a value judgement issue. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition. I went to Westminster to discern pastoral ministry only to find myself agreeing with Carl Truman to this day, that deep down Protestantism profess that the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy. It was in his class when he taught us that the fathers weren't Protestants. I was shocked at that time so I asked him in great details why we need to study the fathers if they weren't in agreement with Scripture due to their interpretation tainted by accretion from tradition of men? He said Westminster also disagreed with Luther and Calvin because they professed that Mary was ever virgin which shows that they were still tainted by their past Catholic corrupt traditions of men. And there are many more examples that other professors showed me to explain why no one is infallible neither the early fathers nor the reformers themselves. The rest is history. I was discerning EOy thinking I could find unity in the Church only to find Constantinople and Moscow fighting for power. I then join Byzantine Catholic Church and went to Byzantine Catholic Seminary. How we value group of people as the lens to interpret history matters. You can find my public discussion with Gavin Ortlund on his video with Fr De Young an EO priest on Sola Scriptura and Second Nicaea. In min 21 of that video Gavin Ortlund laid similar argument Carl Truman made that over time accretion crept into traditions of men similar to telephone game which corrupt the original message. I personally recommend you brother to contact former EOs, former Catholics, to learn why they left churches that claim to be the one Christ founded. I highly recommend talking to Joshua Schooping he was an EO priest who recently installed as a Lutheran priest in Missouri Synod. He and I have lengthy discussions on this exact problem. It's deeply presuppositional. So when you arrive at a conclusion deep down you actually solving a problem you created. For a Protestant unity wasn't the essential issue, it's the Gospel. For Catholics, EOs, OOs, Church of the East, Old Catholic etc the essential issue is Holy Tradition. Unity is a result among groups who agree with what's their essential priorities were. I become an Eastern Catholic because of my conviction so it's circular reasoning and it's ok. All of us seek a solution for the problem we created. As long as you can grow spiritually and find peace with God that's what matters brother. I'll give you a few food for thoughts and feel free to find me on Facebook. If the early Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy then when that happens? Most people will tell you it didn't happen overnight but gradually. For Radical Traditionalists it becomes evident under Pope Francis, for Sedevacantists it becomes evident at Second Vatican, for Old Catholics it becomes evident at First Vatican, for Protestants it becomes evident at Trent, for Eastern Orthodox it becomes evident at Florence, for Oriental Orthodox it becomes evident at Chalcedon, and for Church of the East it becomes evident at Ephesus. No matter what you believe deep down schism is influenced by a belief that the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy. If not entirely corrupted as Mormons argued at least partially. That it's substantial enough to warrant schism from the Church Christ divinely established. I have been following your channel for a few years. You have a solid content. Hopefully one day we can do joint podcast together. May God grant you peace and answers your questions. My brother in Christ, God bless you.
I like your point at the end about wanting to focus more on piety over theological forensics at this point. As a convert from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, I'm in the same place. Sometimes I forget this was actually the heart of the "problem" I was attempting to "solve" when I started looking outside Evangelicalism four years ago. I'd spent a lifetime in the Evangelical tradition, doing what I was supposed to, and it wasn't bringing me closer to God, helping me to love and follow Him, or changing me. What I found in Orthodoxy was an approach to actually living a Christian life that worked in practice and wasn't contingent on creating a particular emotional state. Having a prayer rule and participating in the Sacraments, especially confession, has been an absolute game-changer for me and it's difficult to imagine life without it now. This isn't to say that I don't find theology, Church history, and so on to be interesting and important. But at this point, I feel like I've pretty much learned what I needed to know in those regards for my level of intellect/role as a member of the Church, and hit the point of diminishing returns. This whole "just follow the evidence and became a lay Christian scholar" approach is useful to a point, but it's easy to forget that it's something of a historical particularity of the time and place where we live - all of us being literate, with access to virtually all recorded information at our fingertips. It has its benefits, but it's easy to overwhelm yourself and get lost in the weeds, too. I think this comes out a lot in regards to debates around things like iconodulia, the Mother of God, and so on. As an Orthodox Christian who participates in the life of the Church, it's just bizarre to me how much digital ink gets spilled in debates around this because something like icons is a tertiary topic that tends to get distorted in the online sphere, as though Orthodoxy revolves around icons and it's all we ever talk and think about. If people interested in these questions just come to some church services, talk to clergy and parisioners and observe it all, you quickly find that the real heart of Orthodoxy is repentance, struggling against the passions to be conformed to God's will, to be made holy, and in light of that, the other points fall into place and you see that Christ is at the center of it all, with the weird exotic Orthodox stuff like mirrors shining His light around the metaphorical room. It's a bit like putting a puzzle together. If you get too fixated on a particular piece, holding it up and squinting at its shape and trying to figure out what's on it, then you'll get a distorted impression, compared to viewing it in the context of the completed puzzle, where it naturally belongs. Oh, and for those still hung up icons, watch Michael Garten's material where he goes over all the evidence of veneration in early Christianity. Long story short, veneration was present early on, with the practice being developed and refined over time to its present form, much like the Liturgy.
Having gone through a similar journey I really appreciate your post. Truly: living as ambassadors of Gods kingdom through living out His transformative work in community with the body is the heart of Christianity in practice. That said, I ended up on the opposite end of the spectrum in a wonderful house church community. We might not agree on every aspect of the details, but I suspect we have much in common when talking about what the end goal should be. I have not found evidence for icons to be anything other then an accretion compelling, but because of the tone and heart of your post I'll check out Michael Garten as I am certainly open to new (to me) info. Blessings!
Re Icons - I personally think they are wonderful. I go to an Iconography class every week ( I'm currently writing my 3rd Icon) , what I find fascinating is the symbolism of the steps of writing an icon.
For me, Theosis is key to everything I feel its lacking for western churches. Of course the history and why tradition is, is important but to have God in your heart is our acting and trying to be as Christ, is key. Without it action is empty and a fools errand. There are many saints who were fools of God not intellectuals and couldn't even read but are vererated .
@@paulinewoods375I’d like to see more emphasis on this whole “writing” of icons. Maybe if people stopped seeing them as pictures and more as pictorial presentations of scripture and their use among a mostly illiterate people, we’d see them more as scripture and less as “images”. Like if we venerate the scriptures, then icons (as a translation of scripture) would also be venerated.
I think a lot of the concern we see today stems from a misunderstanding of what the Church actually is. That and an over-emphasis on intellectual engagement (which is good in its right place). I wrote this comment before I heard you say "intellectual humility". 100% spot on, Austin. Thank you! The Church is not just about individualistic intellectual pursuits - it is about spreading the Gospel, making disciples, loving our neighbors and brothers/sisters in Christ, and impacting our communities and the world to Glorify the Lord. Part of that is simply loving each other for being Christ followers, regardless of tradition (which was not as pressing an issue in the early church). Love the O's hat 😉
I think your assessment is spot on. I think some people convert for intellectual reasons, but mostly people just have an attraction or problem they want solved. They intrepret their love of a tradition or the solution to a problem as this particular denomination having the right evidence. I'm a Byzantine Catholic and I've spend the last few years studying church history because I really wanted to understand who was "right" when it came to the Papacy and the Filioque. What did I find out? I found evidence for the views of each side going back quite early, which is a weird position to find myself in as I realize they are mutually exclusive. Thus I remain in my church happy to affirm the Filioque and the Papacy while seeing and appreciating the Orthodox and totally getting why they maintain a different perspective on these issues.
i agree. hearing others recognize that it's "too big" is relieving. the only problem is that the RCC has placed Protestants in a Pascal's Wager scenario on top of The Gospel. this is really why this is unnerving and too heavy to ignore for most of us. That being said, Gavin Ortlund recommend several books recently, but two that I read that have _dramatically_ eased my anxiety are: "The Freedom of a Christian" by Martin Luther, and "A Reformation Debate" by Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin. If you are having these ecclesiastical anxiety issues, I genuinely recommend you read both of those. I have several others he suggested that I need to read, but they are wonderful demonstrations of our security in Christ.
I'm a former Protestant now Catholic. One of the prayers I have often said is God please guide me into the truth. I did look at the evidence and that's the conclusion I came to. People that have come to other conclusions out of curiosity did you pray and fast that God would guide you into the truth? If so what do we do with that? I believe truth can be known but what happens if two people come to different conclusions when they're genuinely seeking God and want to follow wherever the truth leads? I believe God wants us to have certainty and not be tossed to and fro amongst doctrines and denominations.
That is great on becoming Catholic. My evidence is Jesus was never Catholic and neither was anyone that wrote anything in the Bible. I just don't feel the need to become Catholic
I don't believe God wants certainty if he did then their would be far far less atheists. God requires confidence and confidence produces faith and trust. We arrive at confidence through various means and I am confident in Protestantism and am happy that is (not tossed to and fro) where I am in the place God has put me.
There are 255 dogmas in the Roman Catholic Church that every RC must affirm not to be considered a heritic or schismatic. Yet, the majority of American Roman Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. Therefore, a majority of American Roman Catholics are not truly Roman Catholic since their beliefs are not affirming all the dogmas of the RCC. They shouldn't be receiving the Eucharist until they confess and do penance for their heretical belief. Now what about Vatican II stating Christians outside the RCC are "separated brethren"? This is clearly outside the historical teaching of the RCC who historically viewed those outside the RCC as damned to hell. Which teaching is correct? Vatican II or prior historical teaching?
I think this video is incredibly well thought and put together. And I deeply appreciate your irenic but candor tone when speaking about these topics. Conversion is a holistic movement of the whole human person. One thing that I want to also point out is - and this topic was brought up in your most recent conversation with Suan Sonna - that we must also go where our faith and conviction finds a place to rest. As you have stated in other videos, sometimes in pursuit of these “scholarly” endeavors of trying to “follow the evidence” we end up in some form of pious ambiguity and essentially ecclesial agnosticism - and this is very dangerous. Reflecting on my own journey from my birth faith of Oriental Orthodoxy, then Reformed Protestantism, and then neocharismatic evangelicalism associated with groups like Bethel and IHOP, to then Anglicanism, and now finally coming into the bosom of (Eastern) Orthodoxy I have found that my intellect gave me an excuse to look at church history as some sort of outsider, some pious and neutral observer who did not have to change or examine his life, and this was detrimental for my soul. I even entertained the idea of starting my own apostolic network, inspired by the likes of the reposed Fr. Peter Gilquist of blessed memory and his former Evangelical Orthodox Church, because I work as a missionary in a frontier ministry context overseas. It became easy to let “intellectualism” or “following the evidence” become a way to exempt myself of the weightier matters and conclusions I was coming to. The truth is, we are not islands unto our selves or bishops/pastors unto ourselves. We must see ourselves as part of the entire story, a child and partaker of God’s divine economy rather than an observer of it. If we do not do this then we slip into ecclesial agnosticism, vain philosophies dressed up to look like we care about “dogma” and the life, and a sort of superiority because “I know better than to be enchanted or captured by the narrow beliefs of this or that tradition”. May God have mercy on all our souls.
The whole first part of the video is basically saying that any objective standards that Catholics/Orthodox have for why Protestants should convert are just to vague and un objective to be strong enough reasons for why one should feel that they must convert. Then ironically the end of the video talks about what matters is where you “find Christ” or “deepen your relationship with Christ” both of which are quite vague and un objective. Mormons, Unitarians, Protestants who belong to LGBTQ churches all say they “find Christ” in those churches. Someone could be shipwrecked alone on an island and potentially “find Christ.” So that’s a pretty goofy standard when the question at hand is whether to be Catholic or Protestant. I don’t even think we Catholics disagree that one can in many ways “find Christ” as a Protestant. But everyone should still be Catholic because it’s the one church Christ founded and it has the fullness of the faith.
Austin, I appreciate your desire to "elevate" the conversation, but this video sounded more like agnosticism or relativism than Christianity. You seemed to be making the case that we can't really know. The puzzle is too complex. Have you given up? You seemed to be advocating for a form of Protestant agnosticism under the guise of intellectual humility. I know dealing with the pile of evidence is difficult, but despairing a final solution isn't an option. Putting the zombie on a treadmill can only buy a little time.
I could be wrong here, but I don’t think he’s making the case that things are too complex therefore we give up. I think he’s highlighting the fact that we have to make value judgments throughout studying church history. We are noting our biases as we study church history. Which is insightful and helpful in discerning truth.
being aware of personal biases are helpful, for sure, but that shouldn’t deter someone from minimal ascent to apostolic tradition/community (whether that be eastern orthodoxy or catholicism). makes me wonder if takes like austin’s are veiled rationalizations to evade accepting any other authority other than the scriptures. everything austin said here can be applied to the bible by an agnostic who is having difficulty accepting christianity in general
This is your best take yet, and I am going to plug it on my channel. For me, encountering Orthodoxy was like being hit with an electric shock. All the doctrinal questions, historical messiness, etc. became secondary, and the problem I was trying to solve (finding a church that made tradition paramount) even dripped away with a renewed focus on MY problem: sin. I hope others have a similar experience with it, so I try to share my story, and the reasons behind it, but I do not presume to say that I have all the answers to every historical and theological debate. Anyone who does claim this reminds me of Satan on the temple quoting Psalm 90.
I am Catholic, just to bring this out. I firmly believe the Holy Spirit will guide people into truth. Saul had to be blinded in order to see. If you simply ask people to follow the "evidence," it doesn't always mean the same as it would to you. Jesus couldn't preform signs in the presence of his home town, because they didn't have faith (Matthew 13:57-58.) Same thing here, you can provide all the evidence and all the signs you want, but those things still require openness and faith. I feel like we're Sanhedrin arguing in the temple about the law, etc etc etc... True does matter and we also forget the truth has different aspects, we might not have seen do to our circumstances (where we are at).
I’m Orthodox. I’m not sure people were divided for millennia. All the apostolic churches despite our differences agree on icon veneration. The disagreement raised by Protestants is much much more ancient and I hate to raise the bogey man of Gnosticism, but really protestantism is a religion heavily influenced by gnostic thought. A strong distinction and division between the material and spiritual. faith vs faith + works Symbolic sacraments No icons No saints No relics No religious calendar No visible church Gnostic thought suffuses all of Protestant beliefs, even the magisterial genevan reformers had massive gnostic influences. And this isn’t new , the body spirit divide goes back to before Christ. Every incarnation of it is just a variation on the theme. IMHO Protestantism will collapse when the US collapses as the preeminent economic and political power. All worldly empires will end. When it ends, Protestantism will also end as a footnote in Christian history, a heresy of about 500 years. Like the gnostics, the Manichaeans, the arians who all survived for hundreds of years, the Protestants have had their day and will die out eventually simply because they attack the full implications of the incarnation.
Protestantism true or false is a lot bigger than the USA, there's millions of protestants in Africa, Asia, and South America. I seriously doubt it's going to go away with the USA.
Every single Protestant ever is Thomas Darby apparently. Sorry for the crabby tone, but this argument is just as frustrating as Protestants accusing any of the apostolic churches of idolatry.
Austin - as I think your holy patron taught, sometimes we have to make the act of faith FIRST. CREDO UT INTELLIGO. I believe so that I may understand. In my own journey I was advised to "act as if" for a period. I stopped obsessing over evidence, and just concentrated on the spirituality, the practices, the liturgical cycle, the sacrarmentals and prayer.
Your third point regarding conversion being related to a problem someone is trying to solve seems on point with my observations as well. I desired to research many traditions including Roman/western, Greek/eastern, lutheran, reformed, Anglicans, church fathers etc. to get a deeper understanding of what I already accepted to be true from scripture. Upon self reflecting after years of research I think your earlier point on a "value system" is why I have not "converted" from my general Bible believing Protestant upbringing. I'm still content with measuring all traditions against scripture as my highest authority. I still struggle with the different interpretations of those scriptures.
After much prayer and consideration, I have decided that the book of James is not scripture and so I have decided to ignore everything it teaches. Fallible men included it in the canon.
I agree with this! One question can lead to others then you can find yourself unable to escape the rabbit hole you stumbled into. As for piety. That's a great and noble question, but I'm struggling to see how the protestant paradigm can hold that. It may work for Gavin Ortland, being at the helm of his own ship. But what happens when your current Church starts to chip away at your piety? Do you forever hop ships to maintain piety?
Best of luck following this. I found when I tolerated a dissonance between my lex orandi lex credendi I couldn't do it long term. It's reasonable to be fearful of ramifications of fully embracing what you know to be true. Jesus is Truth, follow him home, eventually.
I think it should be clear to anybody who has followed this channel for some time, that Austin did not actually start with an open mind and willingness to change his beliefs on what Christian sect he should be a part of, but that from the beginning he had determined that he would continue to be Protestant and that he would never become Catholic/Orthodox. This entire channel’s purpose was/is to serve as an example to actual open minded Protestants who are considering Catholicism that you can (supposedly) be a well meaning unbiased open minded Protestant, study church history, be logical, and stay Protestant. In actuality though, you can’t, because Protestantism makes no sense.
I think that is unfair. In my early adult years, I did over a year deep dive into Catholicism and ultimately found the arguments unpersuasive and did not convert at that time. I started doing seminary, planted churches, had a family, and 15 years later, I converted. Simply because Austin is not convinced now, does not mean he isn't being open minded. Had I not done that deep dive, which I found unconvincing at the time, I would not be Catholic now.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw I think the way you word your answer explains a lot. The assumption you had at the time which is that Protestantism was the default and the Catholic Church had to present arguments to “persuade” you is not how the question should be approached. No truly unbiased person could say that Protestant arguments are more persuasive. Also the fact that you did all of those personal things within Protestantism (marriage, job, “planting” churches) tells me that you were probably personally biased towards Protestantism. Doesn’t mean you weren’t a good man and a good Christian (I’m sure you were and Austin is) just means that you probably weren’t fully unbiased. Praise God that you’re a part of the Church Christ founded now though!
@@MaxJones-dj5ubI wasn't biased towards Protestantism at all. I was a very rebellious kid. I started the first atheist club at my school in rebellion to my devout Protestant upbringing. When I became convinced of the basic tenets of Christianity, I spent two years exploring various different traditions outside of what I was raised in (did not want to be where I was raised at all). After that, I landed in OPC/PCA circles after that two year exploration. I was specifically looking to reject the Protestantism I was raised in.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw you said you did a “deep dive” into Catholicism and found the arguments “unpersuasive.” So if it wasn’t some personal bias, what technical fact were you made aware of later that finally caused you to be persuaded and convert? And how was that fact missed during your original “deep dive”?
Great thoughts, but this is like the third conversion short you’ve made in a really short time. Conversion on your mind recently? Genuine question, not trying to be rhetorical.
Haha, fair observation. I suppose so, at least in the sense of I've become very interested in the question of why some people convert and others don't and have been generally unsatisfied with the answers people give.
Ultimately, Christianity requires and demands FAITH. The reason, knowledge, defense for our faith - most of that comes after the leap. Catholicism requires a LOT of faith. In many ways, more faith than Protestantism does. Catholicism demands faith that Jesus Christ can substantially change the bread and wine to give it the nature of his flesh and blood through the Holy Spirit and a Priest’s consecration. The Catholic Church demands ACTING like you believe in eternal life through the intercession of the saints, not just saying you believe. The Catholic Church demands more faith in Christ not forsaking the church and perpetual guidance into all truth. More faith in the Union of the church with Christ that is exemplified in Mary. More faith in the incredible holiness of God. It demands we consider the ancillaries in the light of God and to have faith that God can change US the same way he changes the bread and wine. You need faith.
HIGHLY recommend the "our lady Undoer of Knots" novena for your, seemingly, analysis paralysis. You might not get an "answer" but she will move you out of your stagnation; I am completely confident of that. God bless you!
This video makes points that so many people never consider. We usually assume that the evidence that convinced us will convince others. Yet, we know that different people are convinced by different things. We can chalk some of that up to people being different, with different gifts, etc. However, people rarely consider that the questions and goals can differ. That makes this video very worth hearing for most people. Yet, the point itself could be used to point to a subset of denominations and toward a different subset. The fact that the same Biblical texts can lead people in drastically different directions, based on their goals, questions, and interpretations really weakens sola scriptura, in my opinion. We have so many denominations because of people reading and interpreting scripture differently. Thus, it seems like this would point to needing authoritative interpreters, and thus gives more weight to sticking with the Church of the bishops (with Apostolic Succession). That doesn't narrow it down to just one, but greatly reduces the options. But it also assumes that this is the question or concern one values most, or at least enough to make a switch.
I don't think sola scriptura means me, my Bible, and God. Even those who hold to sola scriptura (like myself) understand the role of teachers and the value of those who have studied the Scriptures before us. The point is that these interpretations are not 'infallible', but they can be 'beneficial' or 'edifying' as Paul wrote. Even if you believe the Magisterium's teachings are infallible, there are plenty of debates and interpretations on what the Magisterium has written regarding their interpretation, so it doesn't really resolve the issue that anything written by an author can have many different interpretations later in history when the author is no longer living to inquire of the meaning of what they wrote.
Yet, with succession, any future disputes can still get addressed by those at that time. It's a living line of interpreters. Yes, individuals die, but the office lives on.
@@tasiaflynn3549@tasiaflynn3549 What funny is God never removed his blessing from his followers' leadership, did he? Of course, He did in the Old Testament all the time, removing Prophets or Kings who errored, Yet you don't imagine the Catholic church was ever Corrupted? I am not talking about its believers but its leadership. You had a female Pope named Joan who was murdered after being found with a Child .
@@dallasbrat81 1. Where in the Bible does it say that God did the same for the Apostles and their successors, 2. Where is your evidence of a female pope named Joan
I'm glad to see that your studies have brought you not only bare knowledge but also wisdom and self awareness. I find these to be the rarest characteristics in apologists for both Cahtolic/Orthodox positions as well as apologists on the Protestant side.
Yeah, I think conversion is far more complicated that it seems for some people. At least I thought that being "deep in history" would make me Catholic, as I watched and read about all these conversion stories. But it's not so simple! In my case, I wanted to find a Church that resembled the Early Church, and the Early Church had so many conflicting ideas! Take the issue of icon veneration, for example. Most Church Fathers were against it when the idea rose around 350 because people had started venerating icons. There are some people (apparently, not really Church Fathers) who were for it. There was one council there, another over here, and eventually the Church accepted the icon veneration idea as a whole because of the iconoclast controversy. It's really weird! How did the Early Church get from not really liking the idea of icon veneration to affirming it in the Council of Nicaea? How can I know if it's a legitimate development as Catholics say? Or how do I know that the Church really erred there as Protestants say? :(
I guess it boils down to trust. Do you trust the Church? Do you trust that God guides His Church, espescially through the living magisterium and the councils? Then the development is one you can trust. Do you not trust that God guides His Church? Then how is anything She says binding in any way? Personally, i'm in the catholic Church because God said 'go there'. And so i will trust Him, and trust Him through His Church.
@@MrsYasha1984 I hope you don't mind me asking this question, but how did you know that He was telling you to go there? And did you personally struggle with any of these topics?
Great insight in identifying what the problem is. What keeps me from having intellectual anxiety is I don't believe I am actually lacking anything that God desires for my salvation and Christian life.
Another aspect of conversion may be relational, I've talked with a few people, and one of the factors that led them to change traditions was essentially a falling out they had with the pastor of the previous church they attended. It's obviously not the only factor, but I think it may certainly play a role.
No matter how much evidence a person sifts through, and no matter how smart or how dumb a person is, and no matter what conclusions a person draws from the inexhaustible amount of evidence, the ONLY thing that matters is Grace. The purpose of sifting through all of the evidence is to determine the factual Truth of how a person receives Grace, without which there can be no Salvation. And the factual Truth is that Grace can only be received in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. This is a historical and Biblical fact. All of the teachings in the OT and all of the teachings in the Gospels and the NT are summarized in just one single chapter out of the entire Bible and we call this chapter The Biblical Blueprint for Sacramental Salvation. What chapter is being spoken of? Acts chapter 2 - PENTECOST. The problem between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants teach that a person is made Righteous, is Justified, and is Sanctified at the moment that he Believes in Jesus as Savior, therefore he is Saved. Catholics teach that all of this happens in the Sacraments. One of us has to be wrong. Acts chapter 2 is the solution to the dispute. Let’s see what the Bible says about all of this. Let me invite you to read Acts chapter 2 contemplatively, and then answer these questions. On that great Day of Pentecost we see that 3000 souls were saved, and EVERYONE agrees that they were Saved by Grace. After you read Acts chapter 2 then come back and share with us just exactly when those 3000 that were saved on that Day of Pentecost were Born Again into a Life of Grace. Was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? When were they made Righteous, was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? When were they Justified, was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? When were they Sanctified, was it when they first believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? When were all of their sins forgiven, was it when they first believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? When did they receive Grace, was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism? When did they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism ? *Truth is the reason for conversion. God bless* .
This topic also comes up outside of church history with the topic of studying the Bible. Often it is said you need to just study the Bible for yourself to know what God is truly saying. But how does one know when one has studied the Bible enough? Is it reading the Bible all the way through once? Is it doing a topic study on every verse in the Bible on that topic? But how many topics do you need to go over, and how do you know which verses should be included in your search? Is it just reading the whole bible over again and again? Which version are you supposed to use? Does your study include I Maccabees and II Maccabees? What about the books of Nehemiah or Zephaniah, or Lamentations? Should they play an equal weight in hearing what God is saying through the Bible? Or should John and Romans be studied far more? When has someone truly studied the Bible enough?
Hi Austin, I always enjoy your thoughtful explorations. Here are some Scriptural and traditional principles that might help guide your quest: 1. *1 Tim **3:15* : The Church is called the "pillar and bulwark of the truth." How do you identify the true Church today? 2. *Acts 5:38-39* : "If this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them." Which undertakings have stood the test of time and which have failed? 3. *St. Vincent of Lerins* : "What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." Which churches hold true to these realities today? Sometimes, others can see us more clearly than we see ourselves. From your openness, it seems the Holy Spirit is calling you towards Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Your eyes light up when you explore these faiths, but dim when you retreat into Protestant doubts. Don’t stifle the Spirit. Don’t be like the rich young man who went away sad. Embrace the pearl of great price and you’ll find the Holy Spirit's graces return to you even richer, as I did.
As a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I completely agree with #1 & #2. #3 however is a trap. If Christ is guiding the church and providing additional light and knowledge to His covenant followers then #3 is more likely to make you reject Him than accept him. Consider the Jewish attitude of what has been believed everywhere by all and how it gave the Pharisees license (in their minds) to kill Christ. Not good. There is always higher hung, keep climbing.
Hi @@HaleStorm49 , thanks for taking time to reply. The principle from Vincent of Lerins includes more than three arguments which may resonate with your Latter -Day Saints beliefs: *1. Historical continuity* I understand that in your church, you value the continuity of divine revelation. As a Catholic who also holds strongly to the validity of Eastern Orthodoxy and mourns our separation, I believe that authentic doctrine has been handed down through generations from the Apostles in both churches which is really the one Church Jesus founded. In contrast to the dead traditions that He condemned, this is a living tradition, kept alive and fresh through the Holy Spirit so that we might, as He says bring out of our treasure house "what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:52) Just as you believe in a restoration of the ancient Church, we Catholics argue that the original deposit of faith has been preserved and taught consistently throughout history. The early Church Fathers, starting with those taught by the Apostles, like Polycarp and Ignatius and their successors, provide a historical witness to the unbroken consistency of Christian doctrine. *2. Universal Consensus* It's vital that there should be one, united, universal (catholic) Church so that Jesus's prayer that we may all be one can be realized (John 17:21). Tragically this one Great Church is now divided between East and West, with some encouraging exceptions like the uniate churches. Just as I understand you believe in the universality of your church, we hold that the core truths of our Christian faith can't be restricted to a certain place, yet we have the numbers in terms of people, centuries and millenia. The vast majority of the world's Christians are either Catholic or Orthodox and there's no doubt the relatively undivided Church of the first millenium more closely resembled either than any Protestant group. *3. Apostolic Tradition* I understand that we both value apostolic tradition, as taught by Christ and inspired by the Holy Spirit. We Catholics believe that the teaching of the Apostles has been not only preserved but truly kept alive, as Jesus promised it would: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:17). St Vincent of Lerins principle accords with Jesus' promise, that true doctrine is that which has been taught consistently yet developed since the Apostles' times. The effects and witness of that teaching are seen not only in the inspired Word of God in the New Testament, but also in the next generation, the Apostolic Fathers and in their successors.
I've always thought that our personalities have a huge impact on what we believe (not that they control it, just that they make some beliefs WAY easier to swallow than others). So someone who likes authority is going to have a lot easier time becoming Catholic. Some people are very concrete, tangible, thinkers, which may make them more likely (maybe "susceptible") to something like atheism. I've also always thought that church-of-origin is important as that influences how you think about that group. Like some people go to Catholicism because they see it as "richer" or whatever, but they started out in a very shallow protestant group. I know Catholics who moved to protestant groups because their initial experience was very strict and impersonal. Maybe a good comparison is a relationship. It's very common for people to just feel things for someone else and then justify those feelings after the fact.
One of the greatest strengths of protestantism is that you can admit how hard some of these issues are and have grace for those who come to different conclusions. Not saying that all, or even most Protestants actually give this grace. Unfortunately, we are often just as dogmatic and close-minded as those we see as dogmatic and close-minded. However, viewing the true church in a way that transcends visible institutions makes room for these differences and allows the church to be united on the fundamental doctrines of the faith, rather than on one's view of historical establishment and development and choosing the right institution. I'm very happy to have seen the development there has been in Protestant/ Roman Catholic/ Eastern Orthodox dialogue. In my opinion, this is drawing the church nearer to the ideal the reformers had in the first place.
Interesting to hear this video now...this was from the scripture reading this past Sunday "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another..." 1 Peter 3:8. It seems that St Peter is identifying unity with compassion...so no doubt you are on to something. Amen, Christ is the point...all these things must find their source, center, and terminus in Him.
I agree. I've been trying to figure things out as well. Church history is super complicated to say the least. But it's not like everyone was in unanimous agreement since the church started. Even in the early church, there were already outside influenced and heresies and disagreements etc. that the apostle Paul had to address in his letters. Even back then and throughout all history, you have humans...all with varying perspectives, ideas, opinions, etc. I lean toward the idea that it's the heart of the gospel that matters, and how we live our lives, not so much rituals or institutions.
There is a core group that was very vocal about the heresies that popped up. Many of them knew the Apostles or were friends, students and acquaintances with people that knew the Apostles. I would challenge you to take three colors, orange, yellow and blue. Read Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon, and use blue to highlight when they clearly affirm the need for a Bishop or an Elder, the importance of Apostolic Succession, the need for baptism, the need for the Eucharist. Use yellow when it could go either way and use orange when they explicitly speak against the importance of these things.
I’ve already converted to the Catholic Church. Newman was a huge part of it. His Grammar of Assent is something that would be really interesting to dive deep into
@@etheretherether His Apologia Pro Vita Sua was very influential for me. The Development of Christian Doctrine was a great read, and his novel Loss and Gain was also very good. I was an evangelical for a while, then Anglican for a few years - discerned the priesthood - and then finally was convinced of the Catholic claims. He has been a great conversation partner for me and I'm sure he will be for you too!
@@GospelSimplicity Hi Austin, Newman's 'Grammar of Assent' is spot-on for your questions, though it can be quite dense. If you're trained in philosophy and comfortable with 19th-century texts, you'll manage. If not, his University sermons cover similar ideas more accessibly. Newman highlights that certainty isn't necessary for strong belief or what he calls "real assent". Think about how we confidently dress in winter, expecting the sun to rise based on past experience, even without certainty. Faith works the same way. Time is short, eternity is long.
Interesting. Newman was a huge part of me rejecting catholicism. His invention of the development hypothesis because he knew history wasn't friendly to Roman Catholic claims, and his rejection of papal infallibility (but forced to accept it) was extremely off putting. Now we see the pope calling for Latin Mass to cease. So much for the constant faith for 2000 years. It's a myth. Any objections to Rome can now be met with "slap some Newman on it."
In the end you are left with two choices: Trust the church that God has founded. Or trust your ability to study and do research into this subject and come to your own conclusion about the Bible. Protestantism encourages everyone to do their own research, which is admirable. However, the average person cannot be expected to be able to interpret the Bible nor information about the early church and come to a clear and definite conclusion.
Well, the problem is "trust the church God has founded" begs the question, "which church did is the one God has founded?" and "how do we know that a church claiming to be the one God founded is indeed the one God founded?" To answer these questions, we either have a fideism which says, "we just trust" or we're back to examining the evidence.
@@GospelSimplicity you are right, but in the end, either you trust like a child, or you have to come to your own conclusion. I’m not passing judgment for either choice I think both are reasonable.
@@Jerome616 The amount of text and data that needs to be parsed to figure out which Church is the True Church is much much larger than the amount of data that needs to be parsed to find the creeds in the Bible. I'm finally at the point where I think I half way understand the arguments on either side of the filioque, and I still don't know where I land on the issue. "Trust like a child" probably better described my faith when I was an Evangelical non-denom. Where most questions where answer like this: Q: How's communion work? What does Jesus mean by "this is My Body?" A: It's a mystery that we won't know until we're in heaven. Q: How's the Trinity work, how can there be 3 Persons and only 1 God? A: It's a mystery that we won't know until we're in heaven. Q: Who's saved and who isn't? A: People who say the believe in God, the Trinity, and the Physical Resurrection, and have been baptized are Christians. We won't know which ones where actually saved until we see them in Heaven. Where I am now is something more like: Q: How does the Trinity work? A: Well there's the Father, the Son, and and the Holy Spirit. They all originate eternally from the Father for complex reasons that involve defending against ancient heresies like modalism. The Holy Spirit was sent to us by the Son, but doesn't originate from the Son proper. Or does He? For complex platonic reasons, saying He does originate eternally from the Son could result in polytheism, according to St Photios. For complex platonic reasons, saying He doesn't originate from the Son results in Unitarianism, according to St Thomas Aquinas. But also, it could've just been a translation issue. If that's the case, there's still the problem of the Pope changing the creed without going through the proper channels. Maybe if he'd waited to discuss it in a council, the translation issue would've been settled. Or maybe it wouldn't have because actually.......
I often look to the Berean Jews from Acts 17 as the example we should follow. If they merely followed the institution of authority in their time they would have deferred to the Rabbis, Pharasees, and Saducees. They didn't. They searched the Scriptures (OT) to verify if what Paul was teaching about the Scriptures (OT) were true. It doesn't mean one should merely dismiss teaching from elders or those more learned, but it does show an example that even common Jews were capable of studying Scripture (OT) and discerning whether what Paul taught aligned with their ability to interpret and understand it. To say only a few have the special knowledge of truth revealed to them is the epitome of gnosticism.
Well i definitely just left it on in the background during my morning exercise. Already subscribed. As a publishing Christian scholar and lifelong Catholic, it's not that I've never had doubts. It's not that i never tried to follow my individual reasoning abilities, which are objectively high, to find the true religion or true denomination. RATHER, I've bumped up against the limitations of Intelligence, my own, my intersubjective communal intelligence, and artificial intelligence models, to find limits that are pretty darn insurmountable. If choosing the right denomination were a matter of tortuous internal consistency and scientific analysis, already large chunks of the human population would be barred from salvation because of biological limits, being born with the wrong material brain matter, and maybe every human because of our species biological limits. I've come to believe we're saved by Grace instead. Grace which inspires faith and works and hope and love and wisdom and my own scholarship of creation. And your work too. Sustained every second. I don't know where my thinking leaves room for institutional conversions of denominations as being a priority when we are faced with deep seated Conversion of the soul and spirit of the universe.
Just pray. No one objective will see universal jurisdiction or infallible charism of St Peter in first 1,000 years of the Roman papacy. They will see overwhelming evidence that refutes those claims. Rome is a dead fantasy that looks beautiful on the outside, but is dead on the inside. None of the Protestant sects make a persuasive claim to the faith once delivered to the saints. You have two options: 1) DIY church 2) open your heart to holy orthodoxy
This video risks confusing and dividing Christians. Placing doubt about God, under the rubric of "it's complicated", into the minds of those seeking the truth and implying what is being sought is a solution to a personal faith problem is a big miss for me. I do NOT think you are intending this consequence, but it is a consequence of the video. Remember Satan's infamous line: "Did God really say..."? Doubt was Satan's main weapon. The Church is NOT primarily an institution or a collection of like-minded individuals who agree on 'main things'. The Church is an undivided truth, it is a Who. The types of questions this video could lead to include: Who made the prudential judgement about which books are in the bible? Were those judgements trustworthy? Who made the judgement that Sunday became the day of worship when the bible (the 10 commandments) says to "keep holy the Sabbath", which is Saturday? And many more. When everything is doubted, then nothing is real and Satan has his day. Have FAITH in Christ and His Mystical Body - the Catholic Church!!
Love this video! Points 1 and 2 were true for me when I was converted. I don’t think I was specifically trying to solve a problem but that’s because I think that point applies to those who are converting from one denomination to another more than it applies to those who are converting from a non Christian background.
I was converting from a non Christian background. Once I was convinced of the truth of Jesus, I wanted to be in the Church closest to Jesus. After reading the Bible and then reading Protestant confessions and core beliefs on denominational websites, I knew Protestantism was not an option. Sola Scriptura can’t get you a Scripture and was therefore completely impossible.
I love Austin, but Trent's perspective always echoe in my mind. Protestants tend to over analyze over criticize if Catholicism is True Protestants do not hold the same standards with their denomination Same with sentiments of Protestants towards Atheism Atheists tend to over analyze if Christianity is True Atheist do not hold the same standards with absence of God
Unity is found in none other than Oneness with Christ (John 17:21) by His Life IN us (John 6:53) which is WHY He came (John 10:10) ! Mary said Yes. Hopefully you are not rejecting LIFE (worshipping Molech) keeping you in the outer darkness and apart from Oneness with Him!
I can 💯 relate. I’ve come to the conclusion that we Protestants are fundamentally mistrustful of people. This is born out by the fruit so prevalent now of Protestants rejecting church entirely. We trust/mistrust first THEN accept evidence after to affirm that trust/mistrust.
i think that the conversion is not an intellectual exercise but something existential. it happens when God approaches you and presents Himself to you as He is.....and you understand with all your being that He is the (personification of) ultimate Truth , the answer to all your questions, the source of your being...the Truth which exceeds all understanding.....and you cannot do anything else than to reply with all your being..... that said - till we die, conversion never ends.....
“It is not what man does which counts in eternal life, but what he is; whether his is like Jesus Christ, our Lord, or if he is different and unlike Him.” -St. Simeon the New Theologian I feel like too much of our security lies in finding a true church or intellectually assenting to the correct doctrine instead of where it should lie. I don’t think that our salvation depends on passing a theology exam. I found that obsessing about what the truest tradition is was making me focus on pursuing truths about God rather than pursuing Him. I was using the same mindset I had used when I went through a few years of existentialism. I became a Lutheran not because I was gung-ho about it but because I felt much freer to pursue Christ. I felt split between eastern mysticism, the protestant evangelical spirit, and a scholasticism deriving from Catholicism which views the universe as rational and discoverable. All of these are present in Lutheranism and so I became LCMS. Ultimately while I obviously am an advocate for true doctrines I think that spiritual development is the most important factor. Where will you become the most like Christ? It might be at a local church which you have some disagreements with but you will be taught patience humility and can offer a different perspective that others need to hear. I think learning to be Christlike through building relationships and emptying yourself in service to others is way more impactful upon someone’s growth as a Christian than whether you are a Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox or whatever. Obviously there are limits and I would caution against becoming a Baptist or something that says the sacraments are symbolic or sects which have few roots in tradition.
@williampeters9838 I can't tell you how much this comment has blessed me this morning. I feel you have perfectly articulated what I have been feeling for a long time in my walk as I have been trying to find the "truest tradition." I have been trying to pursue truths instead of pursuing God and I have been fully aware of it. Our walk is about following and relying on Him for all things, not mostly trying to find the most water tight theology to follow because the end of that road only leads to a dry, parched, dead faith. The pursuit of God is of the mind and the heart not one or the other, and that middle road has been the subject of my studies this whole time. My father was a pastor in the LCMS all growing up and as I pursue my faith in deeper ways I am finding that I am more Lutheran than I thought. I agree that there is a beauty to the way that Lutherans approach the faith that I find freeing as well. Thank you for your encouragement brother, I hope you have a blessed day!
The problem with a Protestant viewing the magisterium as something that could “solve the problem” of disunity, is that it implies that disunity existed first and the magisterium came along and might solve it. In reality the magisterium existed long before the Protestant rebellion and is one of the things that prevents church disunity. Protestant need to humble themselves and get back to the things that pre-existed them and which can and do prevent the problems they identify.
. . . and that’s why the Church as Mother makes sense . . . that’s why the gift of faith is nurtured by growing into a lifestyle . . . that’s why understanding FOLLOWS faith . . . so pray for more faith.
I don't know if it's that hard. What are your presuppositions? You have to be aware of them and see if they make sense. Sure, if you're unaware of your starting point that's a problem, but it doesn't mean you can get a very clear idea of what truth is. For me it's what did the early church teach. I assume that the church was teaching the right way because it's makes no sense to think the early church is all wrong. If you're trying to ascertain the truth of Christianity and you're prepared to say the early church got things wrong, you should consider whether Christianity is even true. If you believe God came to earth, became man, built a church to teach His people, and then it went to hell 50 years later and for the next 1974 years people have been entirely lost, you should have no problem with God sending His son to die on a cross to redeem people and an asteroid comes and kills everyone, so Jesus isn't crucified and never resurrects. This line of thinking that the early church can be corrupt or that God will let His Church be corrupt is totally absurd. It's incomprehensible that a person would believe in Christianity and believe that for 2000 years the church has been lost.
This could be an entire book published by Gospel Simplicity: Church, Are You Asking the Right Questions? ...In Humility? My questions are similar to yours. I want to know how to follow Jesus well, successfully, to persevere my whole life. I want to know how to be confident in salvation - can I really out-sin Christ's perfect once-for-all sacrifice of grace, or does he "keep that which I've committed to him"? Is there enough humility in Christ's church ever to see real unity? Is a personal approach because of reasoning with matters of truth best? ...or is going along with a church community/denomination/expression best because there certainly are things beyond me? Is perfect theology and ecclesiology necessary for justification and perseverance?
🤔When faced with the evidence what did the Apostle choose? When presented with evidence despite their doubts they made a choice. In John chapter 6 we see the example of disciples who when presented with evidence chose their doubts.
My conversion to the Catholic Church was mainly from reading the lives of the Saints. No religion produce as many holy and virtuous men as the Catholic Church. I also read Orthodox saints but Matthew 16:18 clinched it for me.
Matthew 16:18 is one of those issues mentioned in the video where your interpretation depends heavily upon who you consider to be authoritative. The modern Latin interpretation follows what was a minority position among the fathers, so depending on who you are more inclined to follow, magisterium or the majority of the fathers, you will interpret the verse differently.
Peter never overcame hades though, Jesus did (revelation 1:18). Something to think about, we see the first time Peter made the confession of faith in John 1:38-42, it was based on flesh and blood. This is why Jesus here did not say upon this rock I will build my church. But in Matthew 16:17, the Father did something. 1 John 5:1 helps us better understand what happened. It is a spiritual matter, you might want to look at it more this way. Thank you.
@@theowilmot1841 That depends. If you go to the Fathers’ abstract interpretation out of thin air, not many people produced interpretations of what you would call the “Latin” one. But whenever context was given, and I’m talking about specific turmoils concerning the risk of schismatic processes, so that the Church universal should be discerned from the schismatic branches that left the vine, then NOT only in the Fathers but MOSLY in the very documentos of ECUMENICAL Councils it is there. In an honest search for the evidence, one could easily mention Ephesus/431 (St Cyril of Alexandria constituted by Pope St Celestine a Roman legate in the Ecumenical Council, using every inch of Roman authority against fellow Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, with Philip the Legate in his famous Petrine affirmation of the Roman prerrogatives); Chalcedon/451 (Pope St Leo’s nullification of the so-called Robber Council, the Tome in all its doctrinal affirmation of authority, the specific Chalcedonian mode of reception of the Leonine Tome and the rebellion of Dioscorus), the Acacian Schism (and the Hormisdas Libel or “Formula”), 3rd Constantinople (and the Monothelite attempting of reuniting the Empire with the Pre-Chalcedonians and the huge acclamations of Pope St Agatho concerning the Petrine authority and the divine protection perpetually tied to the Roman See as a way to unify both orthodoxy and governance) and 2nd Nicea (and the Imperial pressure for Iconoclasm, with the heroic intervention and affirmations of Pope Hadrian concerning his own See and the acclamation received at the Council), for example. They all vindicated the Petrine promises EXACTLY in the Catholic position, to which the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is alien (and a denial of those very instances). To be out of the doctrine of the Councils is the inevitable conclusion of the radiography of history.
@theowilmot1841 Those interpretations, as I said, where not given out of thin air, but they are clear ENOUGH whenever schismatic processes happen. In the context of the so-called “Meletian schism”, St Jerome clearly addressed how to discern the ONE universal church in a famous letter to Pope St Damasus: *St Jerome of Stridon, Eastern monk who lived in the West (347 AD - 420 AD)* _”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of ROMAN MAJESTY withdraw. My words are spoken to the SUCCESSOR OF THE FISHERMAN, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_ (St Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2). God bless your journey, my friend!
@@theowilmot1841 Only Eastern texts: *St. John Cassian, Eastern monk who lived in the West (c. 430)* _“That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, _*_who wielding the government of the ROMAN CHURCH POSSESSED THE PRINCIPLE AUTHORITY IN FAITH AND IN PRIESTHOOD. Tell us, therefore, WE BEG OF YOU, PETER, prince of Apostles, TELL US HOW THE CHURCHES MUST BELIEVE_*_ in God”_ (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276) ___________________ *St Jerome of Stridon, Eastern monk who lived in the West (347 AD - 420 AD)* _”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of ROMAN MAJESTY withdraw. My words are spoken to the SUCCESSOR OF THE FISHERMAN, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_ (St Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2). ____________ *St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)* _“TEACHING US ALL ORTHODOXY and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, _*_I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings AS PROCEEDING FROM THE MOUTH OF PETER the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul_*_ ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church”_ (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461) _“Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other _*_UNTIL YOU COME TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE (Rome), where are the FOUNDATIONS OF THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of THAT THRONE the questions agitated among us._*_ Cease not to pray and to beg them _*_UNTIL their apostolic and Divine wisdom SHALL HAVE PRONOUNCED THE VICTORIOUS JUDGMENT_*_ and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy”_ . (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, 893) ___________________ *St. Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople* (466-516) _“Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that _*_such a step WITHOUT an Ecumenical Synod PRESIDED OVER BY THE POPE OF ROME IS IMPOSSIBLE”_* (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.) ___________________ *John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)* _“The Pope of Rome, _*_the HEAD OF THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD_*_ , whom in Peter, the Lord commanded TO CONFIRM HIS BRETHREN”_ . (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.) ___________________ *St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)* _“WITHOUT WHOM _*_(the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a A DOCTRINE BROUGHT FOWARD IN THE CHURCH COULD NOT, EVEN THOUGH CONFIRMED by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, EVER OBTAIN FULL APPROVAL OR CURRENCY. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and *who have received into their hands THE DIGNITY OF HEADSHIP AMONG THE APOSTLES”_* (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]). ___________________ *St. Athanasius (362)* _“Rome is called _*_THE APOSTOLIC THRONE”_* . (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35) ___________________ *St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424)* _”They (the Apostles) strove to _*_LEARN THROUGH ONE, that PREEMINENT ONE, PETER,”_* . (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736). ___________________ *St. Eulogius of Alexandria (581)* _“Neither to John, _*_NOR TO ANY OTHER OF THE DISCIPLES, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee THE KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven,' BUT ONLY TO PETER”_* . (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280) ___________________ *St. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)* _“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade _*_the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo the Great) TO USE HIS APOSTOLIC POWER,_*_ and to order me to hasten to your Council. _*_For THAT MOST HOLY THRONE (Rome) HAS THE SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL THE CHURCHES THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE on many grounds”_* . (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197). _”If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, *how much more DO WE, POOR AND HUMBLE, RUN TO THE APOSTOLIC THRONE (Rome) to RECEIVE FROM YOU (Pope Leo the Great) HEALING FOR WOUNDS OF THE CHURCHES. For it PERTAINS TO YOU TO HAVE PRIMACY IN ALL THINGS; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives”_ . (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni) ___________________ *St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Salamis (385)* _“Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; *and the same (Peter) furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting IN THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES, that firm ROCK UPON WHICH the CHURCH OF GOD is built, and the gates of hell shall NOT PREVAIL against it. The GATES OF HELL ARE HERETICS and heresiarchs. For in every way WAS THE FAITH CONFIRMED IN HIM WHO RECEIVED THE KEYS OF HEAVEN* ; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. HE WAS AIDED BY THE FATHER SO AS TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF THE SECURITY (firmness) OF THE FAITH. He (Peter) heard from the same God, 'feed my lambs'; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master”_ . (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor). ___________________ *Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-565)* (the creator of the not-theological concept of “Pentarchy”): _“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, _*_as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole EASTERN district, and to UNITE them to the See of Your Holiness, for WE DO NOT ALLOW of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since YOU ARE THE HEAD of all the holy Churches_*_ ”_ . (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1). ________________________ *Byzantine Emperor Justin I (518-527)* _“Let your Apostleship show that you have _*_worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the LORD WILL WORK THROUGH YOU, AS SUPREME PASTOR_*_ , the salvation of all”_ . (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Emperor Justin to Pope Hormisdas).
I would agree with Paul is the unification stems from the Gospel. What I see from studying church history is the fact that human beings in leadership want to restrict or force a certain aspect when Scripture very clearly teaches freedom within the confines of what pleases God. Example, the dates of Easter in 150 ad is just ridiculous. Why in the world should it matter if one church celebrates Easter on a certain date vs another church celebrates Easter on a different date. What matters to God is we honor him and give thanks to him for all things. Therefore, stop restricting or forceably submit a position that can't be traced back to the Appostles and at best and or use best discernment giving God the proper thanks without being trapped by occasional sin.
But if Jesus established a Church that has the authority to bind and loose on heaven and earth, isn’t going against that Church essentially going against Jesus? As childish as that is, I truly believe that is the crux of the debate.
The Symbolic World has a great episode with some guy named Rohlin on the importance of celebration in forming culture, community, and how it is used to pass down teaching. It’s eye opening on why we should want to celebrate together. And also why we should be mindful of what we celebrate.
I am pretty simple. In 1Cor. Paul coveys to us the confession of faith given to him by the post resurrected Jesus “as of first importance “. That is the core (tree trunk) of our faith. All who hold to that confession are united (and have always been) in Him. Everything else are ornaments (purgatory, Marian dogma etc). Some are beautiful. Some obscure the tree. But they are all secondary.
I love this channel. However, this channel is almost 5 years old and still at the same point as the start. One would say to coming to a conclusion would be nice. Yes, one can change their mind but now it feels like flirting with different denominations for X amount of years just to return to the same question and perspective, Paralysis. Don't get me wrong, the videos are amazing but its too much of the same.
I agree with your statement. This channel came across my feed yesterday and I watched some of his content. The tour of St. John Cantius was my favorite. To see that some 5 years later, this guy is still not convinced by anything he’s heard from Catholics or Orthodox makes the whole thing seem disingenuous. He was either searching bc something in his faith tradition was lacking or he’s presenting all of this as an exercise in comparison just for its own sake, like entertainment. I could be wrong but something about this content creator, he presents himself in a very scientific, almost atheistic way. Idk, I don’t wish to spend any more time seeing what Austin is going to do. Is he going to convert, is he not? Don’t know and don’t care
It may be just what you said, he hears from Catholics and Orthodox. It’s like pick one or the other. One has to be true. The orthodox don’t affirm the biggest part about Roman Catholicism, the PAPACY! This is a huge thing to come to a disagreement in as, well you see history. It’s like you both are saying, why haven’t you chose one or the other? That is a very hard thing to hear when either one of them could be wrong. You can say they have similarities but fundamentally there is still a schism. Maybe they need to figure things out between themselves first, then we can see the One true church. One afirmas the other but the other doesn’t recognize this papal authority. Who’s right? Y’all can debate each other. I’ll gladly listen.
My question has been, “Which church has 2000 years of demonstrable fruit in transforming sinners into Christ-following, holy people?” This question has clarified much for me. I cannot justify separating myself from that church if I can answer it with confidence, unless I believe it has undergone such a significant decline that holy people are no longer present within it.
@@ryank2740 Orthodoxy. I am not yet in a position to officially convert, but “Thinking Orthodox” by Eugenia Constantinou was fundamental in helping me resolve the question. It comes down to continuity vs development, and I believe that only Orthodoxy has been continually making saints in the same way, with the same mind, for 2000 years. That is not to say there aren’t faithful Christians in Catholicism and Protestantism. I simply see the fullness of the early church in Orthodoxy.
I like the idea of seeking piety, but it can be difficult to navigate because it’s easy to treat the presence of pious actions and feelings as indicators of how close one is growing (or not growing) to God, and to become overly-attached to these things. I’ve been reading The Ascent of Mt. Carmel by St. John of the Cross, which goes into this in depth, and I think you’d really enjoy it.
Re: conversion. If you don't believe in protestant tenets like once saved always saved then you have another issue - The problem of infinite progression. Sanctification and/or theosis imply that you can be more converted than someone else. How converted are you? At what point does your conversion and knowledge base cause you to question your church and the limits of its theology? Christ taught that eventually, we could be worthy of the 2nd Comforter, IE that He (Christ) would personally manifest himself to us. Most believers don't realize their "conversion" keeps them from receiving this 2nd comforter.
In my case it was easier. Grew up Catholic, wasn't well informed and educated, converted to Lutheran because I thought that's so much better, educated myself about the Catholic curch, learned what it is about, missed our rich traditional heritage and converted back to Catholic. Never been happier. ❤
Fantastic thoughts. While all out agnosticism and relativism are dangers to watch out for here, I don’t agree with those who perceive in this video. What a great point that Scripture itself creates and informs the various concerns and questions people have about unity, tradition, doctrinal purity, etc. I didn’t hear you suggest that each person’s decision is suddenly equally valid, Christ-honoring, or wise because of this; rather, as you said, this “elevates the conversation” so we can be more tuned into legitimate concerns. Now, maybe some concerns/questions should be valued more than others - like love over knowledge in 1 Corinthians - and yet even that requires discernment.
I'm glad you enjoyed this! Thanks for seeing the distinction between a level of subjectivity(i.e., we all bring unique concerns to the evidence) and relativism (our conclusions are equally valid). I think this distinction is often lost, and perhaps I could have explained it better in the video.
@@benjaminsisson5808 He also wrote in Galatians 1:6 that the Church in Galatia had strayed and were following another Gospel than the one the Apostles had taught to them. What is the pilar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)? Paul gives an early creed in v16 "He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory." At this time in Church history, there was no "institution" of the Church. The Church was the body of believers who received the true Gospel as proclaimed and taught by the Apostles. The authority of teaching was based on whether it came or could be traced to an Apostle's teaching either through word or through writing. It was the early church's memory of receiving the teaching from the Apostle(s) that made the teaching infallible.
@@jadtucker1972 I agree mostly with everything you’ve just said, only I believe that the apostolic teaching is found most fully in the Catholic Church.
@@jadtucker1972Now ask yourself who were those historical disciples and what faith do they profess in union? You’ll only get two answers, Catholic or Orthodox.
John Vervaeke has really interesting content on psychological combinatorial explosion you may like. Rather than seeking Cartesian indubitable certainty, I think it's sound to find the most coherent worldview and adapt accordingly. The Commonitory was helpful for me in articulating my salience philosophy bc it basically says that regarding content that bears universality, antiquity and consent should be preferred to content without said features. It's partly because I realized piecing together my own theology through just research was an impossible task that I accepted there must be a correct system. Orthodoxy has proven to be the most coherent of them
Disagree. It didnt take long to find the answers were pretty clear. Very few things werent. Further, once youve proven all but 1 church wrong after just a few doctrines, then it becomes obvious that if Jesus didnt lie, and you beleive him, you must be part of that Church until someone provides you evidence that that single church is wrong. Ultimately this video comes across as more of a way to justify not wanting to follow the evidence
Good stuff Austin. Staying humble is a really good first step. We all could stand to be reminded of that. Also, that is a fine hat indeed. Maybe sometime I'll see ya downy Ohshun for some pit beef and Thrasher's fries.
I’m not sure how Paul’s exhortation to Christians to hold fast to tradition and to not believe the gospel except what he preached to them would change how one views/is inconsistent with Christ’s prayer that we be one. If anything it would seem to reiterate the same desire. Paul preached one specific gospel message and handed down one set of traditions…. That one tradition, that one gospel, that one Church, is undeniably the Catholic Church. All should be Catholic.
What problem are people trying to solve. Excellent question! At the end of the day, though, we must allow the Scripture to speak to us in its fullness as it was intended to. Instead of building a theology of repentance from sin, how about we actually repent from sin, in other words. :) And it seems like the more we submit to and obey the Word, the closer we come to the Truth, doctrinally and experientially.
Pray, fast, if you're seeking the Truth, He won't deny you, praying and fasting in secret is the surest way to know you're walking with, and ever towards a deeper relationship with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The rest comes naturally, not through the intellect, but through the Spirit. He will naturally draw you closer, and into a deeper friendship and union. Eventually you may find that the only treasure on earth that comes close to filling your spirit on this journey is the Eucharist. May God's graces and blessing be upon you and your journey.
Evidebtialism doesn't work because different people are going to evaluate the strength of the evidence differently. That's perfectly fine. I found Orthodoxy quite compelling, but I am not infallible, all my reasonings are fallible, and therefore all my conclusions are fallible. We humans are simply fallible, and we cannot know things with 100% logical certainty. But we have to take that into account for our worldviews. If evidence is evaluated differently by different people, then when it comes to Biblical evidence, we EITHER need a normative authority to establish what the correct standard of evaluating the evidence is so that we can arrive at the same conclusion (most interpretative differences arise because different people find different explanations more compelling) OR we must accept all variations in interpretation. But wait, why do we need to accept ALL variations? Why can't we say "accept all within reason?" Well, who's reason are we going with? Who gets to decide the objective standard of reason? We would need to identify that, too. The problem is that among the three major branches, the RCC and the EOC have a solution to this dilemma: the authority is the Vatican and/or the Ecumenical Councils, respectively. Protestantism meanwhile has no solution to this dilemma, instead wanting to normatively enforce things like the Trinity and the canon if scripture as necessary beliefs, but being unable to actually justify that normativity.
One can’t just follow the evidence. There are other qualities of Christ that rise above evidence. One thing, Catholics and orthodox have a sold, inflexible idea of what is meant by gods love. This is different than that of Protestants. Just take my residency here at my senior center. For three years now I’ve attended mariners evangelical church services here weekly. After 3 years services, prayers, etc. I can’t recall the visiting lay ministers or our residents ever mentioning the word “love” in any capacity including god is love. With Catholics love is constantly spoken of. “Gods love” is praised, defined, explained, partialled out in bits and. Catholics are inundated with what gods love is and how it takes place in our life. The word “love “ is bounced around like a ping pong ball. We live it even if we don’t realize it. Or, we try to. The evangelicals constantly hammer away saying you must have faith. This frosts my bones. I thought I declared faith in grade K in Catholic school, plus communion, confirmation. Again and again at mass. But Catholics are always saying you must have love.
Follow this evidence...where is the Body and Blood of Christ physically alive and present? Which of these Churches is, perhaps despite internal friction and strife, still One and not many?
It seems that maybe you also think that the Church came form the scriptures, and this is not the case, the Scriptures came from the church. There is not such thing as a "protestant" before Martin Luther, and as far as I am concerned the whole "reformation" is an abomination and a sin against Christ, like a divorce in the Body of Christ almost. It is one thing to change wrongs of the church from within, but not to "become your own pope" and start your own. I pray you keep searching, because without the catholic Church, you don't have the Eucharist, and without that, well we turn to St. Ignatious of Antioch who before the "bible" came into being said, "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). When i came back to Christ after a dark period in my life, I began to study, and in that study it was not long before i could not deny the Eucharist of my youth, and now i finally understood it as the Truth as given to us by Christ Himself.
I agree that the heart plays a role, and a person will be led by his or her own unique relationship with Christ. That said, when I was searching, John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine laid out what I found to be a pretty unimpeachable argument. I'd love to hear Austin's review of it.
You say you are more concerned with “personal piety”but what constitutes “personal piety” will change based on whether someone is Catholic or Protestant. A Protestant wife can pop birth control pills like it’s candy because her and her husband love money so much and don’t want to bear the cost of the number of children that she could have naturally, while feeling perfectly pious. Whereas a practicing Catholic could not do that without believing that they are in grave sin (which they would be because contraception is evil).
@@tuckerchisholm1005 if the basis of your conviction were the Bible you would be Catholic. The Bible ironically never says that the Bible should be the only basis for your convictions. The Bible says Jesus started a Church (not many churches), he prayed that we would be one, Saint Paul says we should be perfect of the same mind with no schisms. The Bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
I need to ask a local priest from a Catholic Church near me if he agrees with you about birth control. Or I’ll ask a few to make sure. And I should also ask if any woman there are on birth control. Are any in your church on birth control at the moment?
@@jdruiz_95 Just read the Catechism, I can assure you that it explicitly states that contraception is a sin. And of course there are disobedient Catholics who use contraception. There are 1.6 billion Catholics in the world, and we all sin. Do Protestants sin? What’s your point?
The fundamental issue is that highly intelligent human beings are pretty good at making arguments for anything they want to believe. I think it is a foolish errand to think we can objectively evaluate every claim. Rather, I think the best we can do is compare competing claims across related ideas and try to decipher which has the stronger evidence. I think that is all we can realistically do.
heretics are mostly intelligent people.
I love this! God says we renders useless the wisdom of men for the sake of the Gospel. Because it is not about the best arguments or the best theology but the Gospel which leads to faith which leads to repentance and God heals them.
A famous Saint once said paraphrased that the heart will not rest till it rest in God. For me personally I found rest leaving Protestantism for Catholicism. As a protestant I never felt like I measured up but as a Catholic I dont have the pressure of being a super Christian anymore and I know that its ok and God loves me the way I am with all my flaws. I dont have to pretend to be something Im not anymore. Conversion is when you finally find God and no longer need to search. 🙏
Your comment needs to be clarified. My reality is entirely different. When I accepted and began to seek God, that's when the search really started for me. If being Catholic makes you feel like God loves you with all your flaws, that's a False Gospel . Jesus said over and over Believe and sin no more. "whoever does my Father's will is my brother and sister . I suggest you find out what that is.
I understand what you mean. When I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism I found rest for my soul, too. I also have learned a lot about my own humanity in a way I never learned as a Protestant. It has helped me accept myself, see my flaws and struggles honestly and depend on God and know him in a deeper way. I have found a lot of interior freedom since becoming Catholic.
@@dallasbrat81 Not a false Gospel at all. Jesus really does love you with all your flaws. That is the Good News! Of course, we must listen to Him and do our best to sin no more - but we are human and we WILL sin. Confession is truly one of the great gifts to mankind.
Austin, this is totally spot on. I’ve seen all sides cite the same evidence and interpret it differently for their case. It’s literally an unsolvable problem intellectually. This is why I’ve been forced to just put my faith in Jesus Christ. I have nothing else. I can do no else. I’ve spent years thinking I could solve these issues with my mind or “following the evidence.”
* Protestant pastor of 12+ years with an M.A. in New Testament who converted to Catholicism and then quickly left once I found that once you move past the shiny arguments apologists have, you are left with a lifeless, lonely, cold church with people who barely even look at you and an unknown faith where Christ is not glorified like in Protestantism or Orthodoxy.
I am thankful for the grace of God, the gift of faith, and vibrant communities of people who actually care for one another. Soli deo Gloria!
Thanks for sharing your story and perspective!
But you can’t say that you put your faith in Jesus and at the same time reject the Church he established or reject the Sacraments he gave us. Is the Catholic Church lifeless? Maybe. Was the Last Supper lifeless? Was the Crucifixion lifeless? Was the Resurrection lifeless? Was the Ascension lifeless? Was Pentecost lifeless?
Agree with a lot of what you said here. What converted me wasn't good evidence, and what keeps me converted isn't good evidence because I see at least decent evidence for every position. What keeps me converted is the way I see the evidence. For a protestant to convince me I'm wrong, they would have to undermine more fundamental aspects of my worldview now, like the inherent virtue of hierarchy, the immorality of Liberal ideology, assumptions about how we can know theological truth with or without a tangible, physical church, etc. I am aware of most of the evidence so just showing me more is going to have severely diminished returns, it's going to take something more fundamental now. But like you said, I am a lot more humble and understanding of others' beliefs than I used to be because I know I'm not the only smart person on the planet now haha.
Many many Protestants believe in the inherit virtue of hierarchy and the immorality of liberal ideology. Those things are not exclusive to nor have anything to do with the Bishop of Rome
Well said
The evidence does seem to lead away from Protestantism, but I’m not sure if it confirms RC or EO either. 😢
Austin you nailed it. It's a value judgement issue. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition. I went to Westminster to discern pastoral ministry only to find myself agreeing with Carl Truman to this day, that deep down Protestantism profess that the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy. It was in his class when he taught us that the fathers weren't Protestants. I was shocked at that time so I asked him in great details why we need to study the fathers if they weren't in agreement with Scripture due to their interpretation tainted by accretion from tradition of men? He said Westminster also disagreed with Luther and Calvin because they professed that Mary was ever virgin which shows that they were still tainted by their past Catholic corrupt traditions of men. And there are many more examples that other professors showed me to explain why no one is infallible neither the early fathers nor the reformers themselves. The rest is history. I was discerning EOy thinking I could find unity in the Church only to find Constantinople and Moscow fighting for power. I then join Byzantine Catholic Church and went to Byzantine Catholic Seminary.
How we value group of people as the lens to interpret history matters. You can find my public discussion with Gavin Ortlund on his video with Fr De Young an EO priest on Sola Scriptura and Second Nicaea. In min 21 of that video Gavin Ortlund laid similar argument Carl Truman made that over time accretion crept into traditions of men similar to telephone game which corrupt the original message. I personally recommend you brother to contact former EOs, former Catholics, to learn why they left churches that claim to be the one Christ founded. I highly recommend talking to Joshua Schooping he was an EO priest who recently installed as a Lutheran priest in Missouri Synod. He and I have lengthy discussions on this exact problem. It's deeply presuppositional. So when you arrive at a conclusion deep down you actually solving a problem you created. For a Protestant unity wasn't the essential issue, it's the Gospel. For Catholics, EOs, OOs, Church of the East, Old Catholic etc the essential issue is Holy Tradition. Unity is a result among groups who agree with what's their essential priorities were. I become an Eastern Catholic because of my conviction so it's circular reasoning and it's ok. All of us seek a solution for the problem we created. As long as you can grow spiritually and find peace with God that's what matters brother.
I'll give you a few food for thoughts and feel free to find me on Facebook. If the early Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy then when that happens? Most people will tell you it didn't happen overnight but gradually. For Radical Traditionalists it becomes evident under Pope Francis, for Sedevacantists it becomes evident at Second Vatican, for Old Catholics it becomes evident at First Vatican, for Protestants it becomes evident at Trent, for Eastern Orthodox it becomes evident at Florence, for Oriental Orthodox it becomes evident at Chalcedon, and for Church of the East it becomes evident at Ephesus. No matter what you believe deep down schism is influenced by a belief that the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy. If not entirely corrupted as Mormons argued at least partially. That it's substantial enough to warrant schism from the Church Christ divinely established. I have been following your channel for a few years. You have a solid content. Hopefully one day we can do joint podcast together. May God grant you peace and answers your questions. My brother in Christ, God bless you.
This was a super thoughtful comment. Really appreciate your point of view.
I like your point at the end about wanting to focus more on piety over theological forensics at this point. As a convert from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, I'm in the same place. Sometimes I forget this was actually the heart of the "problem" I was attempting to "solve" when I started looking outside Evangelicalism four years ago.
I'd spent a lifetime in the Evangelical tradition, doing what I was supposed to, and it wasn't bringing me closer to God, helping me to love and follow Him, or changing me. What I found in Orthodoxy was an approach to actually living a Christian life that worked in practice and wasn't contingent on creating a particular emotional state. Having a prayer rule and participating in the Sacraments, especially confession, has been an absolute game-changer for me and it's difficult to imagine life without it now.
This isn't to say that I don't find theology, Church history, and so on to be interesting and important. But at this point, I feel like I've pretty much learned what I needed to know in those regards for my level of intellect/role as a member of the Church, and hit the point of diminishing returns.
This whole "just follow the evidence and became a lay Christian scholar" approach is useful to a point, but it's easy to forget that it's something of a historical particularity of the time and place where we live - all of us being literate, with access to virtually all recorded information at our fingertips. It has its benefits, but it's easy to overwhelm yourself and get lost in the weeds, too.
I think this comes out a lot in regards to debates around things like iconodulia, the Mother of God, and so on. As an Orthodox Christian who participates in the life of the Church, it's just bizarre to me how much digital ink gets spilled in debates around this because something like icons is a tertiary topic that tends to get distorted in the online sphere, as though Orthodoxy revolves around icons and it's all we ever talk and think about.
If people interested in these questions just come to some church services, talk to clergy and parisioners and observe it all, you quickly find that the real heart of Orthodoxy is repentance, struggling against the passions to be conformed to God's will, to be made holy, and in light of that, the other points fall into place and you see that Christ is at the center of it all, with the weird exotic Orthodox stuff like mirrors shining His light around the metaphorical room.
It's a bit like putting a puzzle together. If you get too fixated on a particular piece, holding it up and squinting at its shape and trying to figure out what's on it, then you'll get a distorted impression, compared to viewing it in the context of the completed puzzle, where it naturally belongs.
Oh, and for those still hung up icons, watch Michael Garten's material where he goes over all the evidence of veneration in early Christianity. Long story short, veneration was present early on, with the practice being developed and refined over time to its present form, much like the Liturgy.
Having gone through a similar journey I really appreciate your post. Truly: living as ambassadors of Gods kingdom through living out His transformative work in community with the body is the heart of Christianity in practice.
That said, I ended up on the opposite end of the spectrum in a wonderful house church community. We might not agree on every aspect of the details, but I suspect we have much in common when talking about what the end goal should be.
I have not found evidence for icons to be anything other then an accretion compelling, but because of the tone and heart of your post I'll check out Michael Garten as I am certainly open to new (to me) info.
Blessings!
Re Icons - I personally think they are wonderful.
I go to an Iconography class every week ( I'm currently writing my 3rd Icon) , what I find fascinating is the symbolism of the steps of writing an icon.
Incredibly well said
For me, Theosis is key to everything I feel its lacking for western churches. Of course the history and why tradition is, is important but to have God in your heart is our acting and trying to be as Christ, is key. Without it action is empty and a fools errand. There are many saints who were fools of God not intellectuals and couldn't even read but are vererated .
@@paulinewoods375I’d like to see more emphasis on this whole “writing” of icons. Maybe if people stopped seeing them as pictures and more as pictorial presentations of scripture and their use among a mostly illiterate people, we’d see them more as scripture and less as “images”. Like if we venerate the scriptures, then icons (as a translation of scripture) would also be venerated.
I think a lot of the concern we see today stems from a misunderstanding of what the Church actually is. That and an over-emphasis on intellectual engagement (which is good in its right place). I wrote this comment before I heard you say "intellectual humility". 100% spot on, Austin. Thank you! The Church is not just about individualistic intellectual pursuits - it is about spreading the Gospel, making disciples, loving our neighbors and brothers/sisters in Christ, and impacting our communities and the world to Glorify the Lord. Part of that is simply loving each other for being Christ followers, regardless of tradition (which was not as pressing an issue in the early church). Love the O's hat 😉
Please God, increase in us a spirit of humility and gentleness.
I think your assessment is spot on. I think some people convert for intellectual reasons, but mostly people just have an attraction or problem they want solved. They intrepret their love of a tradition or the solution to a problem as this particular denomination having the right evidence. I'm a Byzantine Catholic and I've spend the last few years studying church history because I really wanted to understand who was "right" when it came to the Papacy and the Filioque. What did I find out? I found evidence for the views of each side going back quite early, which is a weird position to find myself in as I realize they are mutually exclusive. Thus I remain in my church happy to affirm the Filioque and the Papacy while seeing and appreciating the Orthodox and totally getting why they maintain a different perspective on these issues.
Dude you're just crushing it more and more with these videos lately. Thanks for speaking up about these things and helping me feel less crazy haha
Thanks for the encouragement! Glad to hear these videos are resonating with you.
i agree. hearing others recognize that it's "too big" is relieving. the only problem is that the RCC has placed Protestants in a Pascal's Wager scenario on top of The Gospel. this is really why this is unnerving and too heavy to ignore for most of us.
That being said, Gavin Ortlund recommend several books recently, but two that I read that have _dramatically_ eased my anxiety are: "The Freedom of a Christian" by Martin Luther, and "A Reformation Debate" by Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin. If you are having these ecclesiastical anxiety issues, I genuinely recommend you read both of those. I have several others he suggested that I need to read, but they are wonderful demonstrations of our security in Christ.
I'm a former Protestant now Catholic. One of the prayers I have often said is God please guide me into the truth. I did look at the evidence and that's the conclusion I came to. People that have come to other conclusions out of curiosity did you pray and fast that God would guide you into the truth? If so what do we do with that? I believe truth can be known but what happens if two people come to different conclusions when they're genuinely seeking God and want to follow wherever the truth leads? I believe God wants us to have certainty and not be tossed to and fro amongst doctrines and denominations.
That is great on becoming Catholic. My evidence is Jesus was never Catholic and neither was anyone that wrote anything in the Bible. I just don't feel the need to become Catholic
I don't believe God wants certainty if he did then their would be far far less atheists. God requires confidence and confidence produces faith and trust. We arrive at confidence through various means and I am confident in Protestantism and am happy that is (not tossed to and fro) where I am in the place God has put me.
There are 255 dogmas in the Roman Catholic Church that every RC must affirm not to be considered a heritic or schismatic. Yet, the majority of American Roman Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. Therefore, a majority of American Roman Catholics are not truly Roman Catholic since their beliefs are not affirming all the dogmas of the RCC. They shouldn't be receiving the Eucharist until they confess and do penance for their heretical belief. Now what about Vatican II stating Christians outside the RCC are "separated brethren"? This is clearly outside the historical teaching of the RCC who historically viewed those outside the RCC as damned to hell. Which teaching is correct? Vatican II or prior historical teaching?
@@jotink1 Just to be clear my comment wasn't meant as an attack on any denomination. I do like your thoughts on confidence.
But is "being happy" with where we are a good measure of where we should be? @@jotink1
I think this video is incredibly well thought and put together. And I deeply appreciate your irenic but candor tone when speaking about these topics. Conversion is a holistic movement of the whole human person.
One thing that I want to also point out is - and this topic was brought up in your most recent conversation with Suan Sonna - that we must also go where our faith and conviction finds a place to rest. As you have stated in other videos, sometimes in pursuit of these “scholarly” endeavors of trying to “follow the evidence” we end up in some form of pious ambiguity and essentially ecclesial agnosticism - and this is very dangerous.
Reflecting on my own journey from my birth faith of Oriental Orthodoxy, then Reformed Protestantism, and then neocharismatic evangelicalism associated with groups like Bethel and IHOP, to then Anglicanism, and now finally coming into the bosom of (Eastern) Orthodoxy I have found that my intellect gave me an excuse to look at church history as some sort of outsider, some pious and neutral observer who did not have to change or examine his life, and this was detrimental for my soul. I even entertained the idea of starting my own apostolic network, inspired by the likes of the reposed Fr. Peter Gilquist of blessed memory and his former Evangelical Orthodox Church, because I work as a missionary in a frontier ministry context overseas. It became easy to let “intellectualism” or “following the evidence” become a way to exempt myself of the weightier matters and conclusions I was coming to.
The truth is, we are not islands unto our selves or bishops/pastors unto ourselves. We must see ourselves as part of the entire story, a child and partaker of God’s divine economy rather than an observer of it. If we do not do this then we slip into ecclesial agnosticism, vain philosophies dressed up to look like we care about “dogma” and the life, and a sort of superiority because “I know better than to be enchanted or captured by the narrow beliefs of this or that tradition”.
May God have mercy on all our souls.
Thanks for sharing your story! Sounds like it's been quite the journey
The whole first part of the video is basically saying that any objective standards that Catholics/Orthodox have for why Protestants should convert are just to vague and un objective to be strong enough reasons for why one should feel that they must convert. Then ironically the end of the video talks about what matters is where you “find Christ” or “deepen your relationship with Christ” both of which are quite vague and un objective. Mormons, Unitarians, Protestants who belong to LGBTQ churches all say they “find Christ” in those churches. Someone could be shipwrecked alone on an island and potentially “find Christ.” So that’s a pretty goofy standard when the question at hand is whether to be Catholic or Protestant. I don’t even think we Catholics disagree that one can in many ways “find Christ” as a Protestant. But everyone should still be Catholic because it’s the one church Christ founded and it has the fullness of the faith.
I hope you mean Orthodox Catholic
I really appreciate your approach to this topic.
Austin, I appreciate your desire to "elevate" the conversation, but this video sounded more like agnosticism or relativism than Christianity. You seemed to be making the case that we can't really know. The puzzle is too complex. Have you given up? You seemed to be advocating for a form of Protestant agnosticism under the guise of intellectual humility. I know dealing with the pile of evidence is difficult, but despairing a final solution isn't an option. Putting the zombie on a treadmill can only buy a little time.
thank you for verbalizing this. like austin’s channel (mostly bc of his guests) but this is ‘hipster protestantism’ in my view.
I could be wrong here, but I don’t think he’s making the case that things are too complex therefore we give up. I think he’s highlighting the fact that we have to make value judgments throughout studying church history. We are noting our biases as we study church history. Which is insightful and helpful in discerning truth.
@@changjscye having criteria qnd accepting the big deal is part of growing in faith accepting this is not equal to low your strenght in Christ
I disagree with you
being aware of personal biases are helpful, for sure, but that shouldn’t deter someone from minimal ascent to apostolic tradition/community (whether that be eastern orthodoxy or catholicism). makes me wonder if takes like austin’s are veiled rationalizations to evade accepting any other authority other than the scriptures. everything austin said here can be applied to the bible by an agnostic who is having difficulty accepting christianity in general
Sometimes its easier to follow your heart . God Bless you
This is your best take yet, and I am going to plug it on my channel. For me, encountering Orthodoxy was like being hit with an electric shock. All the doctrinal questions, historical messiness, etc. became secondary, and the problem I was trying to solve (finding a church that made tradition paramount) even dripped away with a renewed focus on MY problem: sin. I hope others have a similar experience with it, so I try to share my story, and the reasons behind it, but I do not presume to say that I have all the answers to every historical and theological debate. Anyone who does claim this reminds me of Satan on the temple quoting Psalm 90.
Glad this resonated with you!
I am Catholic, just to bring this out. I firmly believe the Holy Spirit will guide people into truth. Saul had to be blinded in order to see. If you simply ask people to follow the "evidence," it doesn't always mean the same as it would to you. Jesus couldn't preform signs in the presence of his home town, because they didn't have faith (Matthew 13:57-58.) Same thing here, you can provide all the evidence and all the signs you want, but those things still require openness and faith.
I feel like we're Sanhedrin arguing in the temple about the law, etc etc etc...
True does matter and we also forget the truth has different aspects, we might not have seen do to our circumstances (where we are at).
Here is my deeply theological comment … Nice Hat!!
Remeber the old addage; "you do and then you believe" , do one liturgical calendar year in the Church and the rest will sort itself out.
I’m Orthodox. I’m not sure people were divided for millennia. All the apostolic churches despite our differences agree on icon veneration.
The disagreement raised by Protestants is much much more ancient and I hate to raise the bogey man of Gnosticism, but really protestantism is a religion heavily influenced by gnostic thought.
A strong distinction and division between the material and spiritual.
faith vs faith + works
Symbolic sacraments
No icons
No saints
No relics
No religious calendar
No visible church
Gnostic thought suffuses all of Protestant beliefs, even the magisterial genevan reformers had massive gnostic influences.
And this isn’t new , the body spirit divide goes back to before Christ.
Every incarnation of it is just a variation on the theme.
IMHO Protestantism will collapse when the US collapses as the preeminent economic and political power.
All worldly empires will end.
When it ends, Protestantism will also end as a footnote in Christian history, a heresy of about 500 years. Like the gnostics, the Manichaeans, the arians who all survived for hundreds of years, the Protestants have had their day and will die out eventually simply because they attack the full implications of the incarnation.
Protestantism true or false is a lot bigger than the USA, there's millions of protestants in Africa, Asia, and South America. I seriously doubt it's going to go away with the USA.
Every single Protestant ever is Thomas Darby apparently.
Sorry for the crabby tone, but this argument is just as frustrating as Protestants accusing any of the apostolic churches of idolatry.
Austin - as I think your holy patron taught, sometimes we have to make the act of faith FIRST. CREDO UT INTELLIGO. I believe so that I may understand. In my own journey I was advised to "act as if" for a period. I stopped obsessing over evidence, and just concentrated on the spirituality, the practices, the liturgical cycle, the sacrarmentals and prayer.
Your third point regarding conversion being related to a problem someone is trying to solve seems on point with my observations as well. I desired to research many traditions including Roman/western, Greek/eastern, lutheran, reformed, Anglicans, church fathers etc. to get a deeper understanding of what I already accepted to be true from scripture. Upon self reflecting after years of research I think your earlier point on a "value system" is why I have not "converted" from my general Bible believing Protestant upbringing. I'm still content with measuring all traditions against scripture as my highest authority. I still struggle with the different interpretations of those scriptures.
After much prayer and consideration, I have decided that the book of James is not scripture and so I have decided to ignore everything it teaches. Fallible men included it in the canon.
@@EpistemicAnthony 🤨
*sarcastic clapping*
@@dyzmadamachus9842 😱
@@ninjason57 what's wrong? Martin Luther agreed.
I agree with this! One question can lead to others then you can find yourself unable to escape the rabbit hole you stumbled into. As for piety. That's a great and noble question, but I'm struggling to see how the protestant paradigm can hold that. It may work for Gavin Ortland, being at the helm of his own ship. But what happens when your current Church starts to chip away at your piety? Do you forever hop ships to maintain piety?
Best of luck following this. I found when I tolerated a dissonance between my lex orandi lex credendi I couldn't do it long term. It's reasonable to be fearful of ramifications of fully embracing what you know to be true. Jesus is Truth, follow him home, eventually.
I think it should be clear to anybody who has followed this channel for some time, that Austin did not actually start with an open mind and willingness to change his beliefs on what Christian sect he should be a part of, but that from the beginning he had determined that he would continue to be Protestant and that he would never become Catholic/Orthodox. This entire channel’s purpose was/is to serve as an example to actual open minded Protestants who are considering Catholicism that you can (supposedly) be a well meaning unbiased open minded Protestant, study church history, be logical, and stay Protestant. In actuality though, you can’t, because Protestantism makes no sense.
I think that is unfair. In my early adult years, I did over a year deep dive into Catholicism and ultimately found the arguments unpersuasive and did not convert at that time. I started doing seminary, planted churches, had a family, and 15 years later, I converted. Simply because Austin is not convinced now, does not mean he isn't being open minded. Had I not done that deep dive, which I found unconvincing at the time, I would not be Catholic now.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw I think the way you word your answer explains a lot. The assumption you had at the time which is that Protestantism was the default and the Catholic Church had to present arguments to “persuade” you is not how the question should be approached. No truly unbiased person could say that Protestant arguments are more persuasive. Also the fact that you did all of those personal things within Protestantism (marriage, job, “planting” churches) tells me that you were probably personally biased towards Protestantism. Doesn’t mean you weren’t a good man and a good Christian (I’m sure you were and Austin is) just means that you probably weren’t fully unbiased. Praise God that you’re a part of the Church Christ founded now though!
@@MaxJones-dj5ubI wasn't biased towards Protestantism at all. I was a very rebellious kid. I started the first atheist club at my school in rebellion to my devout Protestant upbringing. When I became convinced of the basic tenets of Christianity, I spent two years exploring various different traditions outside of what I was raised in (did not want to be where I was raised at all). After that, I landed in OPC/PCA circles after that two year exploration. I was specifically looking to reject the Protestantism I was raised in.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw you said you did a “deep dive” into Catholicism and found the arguments “unpersuasive.” So if it wasn’t some personal bias, what technical fact were you made aware of later that finally caused you to be persuaded and convert? And how was that fact missed during your original “deep dive”?
Great thoughts, but this is like the third conversion short you’ve made in a really short time. Conversion on your mind recently? Genuine question, not trying to be rhetorical.
Haha, fair observation. I suppose so, at least in the sense of I've become very interested in the question of why some people convert and others don't and have been generally unsatisfied with the answers people give.
The "conversion" topic is good for views
There are videos who have converted to either orthodoxy or RC and have left for mainline Protestant
Ultimately, Christianity requires and demands FAITH. The reason, knowledge, defense for our faith - most of that comes after the leap.
Catholicism requires a LOT of faith. In many ways, more faith than Protestantism does. Catholicism demands faith that Jesus Christ can substantially change the bread and wine to give it the nature of his flesh and blood through the Holy Spirit and a Priest’s consecration. The Catholic Church demands ACTING like you believe in eternal life through the intercession of the saints, not just saying you believe. The Catholic Church demands more faith in Christ not forsaking the church and perpetual guidance into all truth. More faith in the Union of the church with Christ that is exemplified in Mary. More faith in the incredible holiness of God. It demands we consider the ancillaries in the light of God and to have faith that God can change US the same way he changes the bread and wine.
You need faith.
HIGHLY recommend the "our lady Undoer of Knots" novena for your, seemingly, analysis paralysis. You might not get an "answer" but she will move you out of your stagnation; I am completely confident of that. God bless you!
This video makes points that so many people never consider. We usually assume that the evidence that convinced us will convince others. Yet, we know that different people are convinced by different things. We can chalk some of that up to people being different, with different gifts, etc. However, people rarely consider that the questions and goals can differ. That makes this video very worth hearing for most people.
Yet, the point itself could be used to point to a subset of denominations and toward a different subset. The fact that the same Biblical texts can lead people in drastically different directions, based on their goals, questions, and interpretations really weakens sola scriptura, in my opinion. We have so many denominations because of people reading and interpreting scripture differently. Thus, it seems like this would point to needing authoritative interpreters, and thus gives more weight to sticking with the Church of the bishops (with Apostolic Succession). That doesn't narrow it down to just one, but greatly reduces the options. But it also assumes that this is the question or concern one values most, or at least enough to make a switch.
I don't think sola scriptura means me, my Bible, and God. Even those who hold to sola scriptura (like myself) understand the role of teachers and the value of those who have studied the Scriptures before us. The point is that these interpretations are not 'infallible', but they can be 'beneficial' or 'edifying' as Paul wrote. Even if you believe the Magisterium's teachings are infallible, there are plenty of debates and interpretations on what the Magisterium has written regarding their interpretation, so it doesn't really resolve the issue that anything written by an author can have many different interpretations later in history when the author is no longer living to inquire of the meaning of what they wrote.
Yet, with succession, any future disputes can still get addressed by those at that time. It's a living line of interpreters. Yes, individuals die, but the office lives on.
Where to find Jesus? The Eucharist, friend.
CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE FIRST CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST THE TRUE CHURCH 16:18 FROM PETER TO THE POPE AND ALSO THE BIBLE
@@tasiaflynn3549 Amen Amen
Interesting, I think Jesus said more than that .
@@tasiaflynn3549@tasiaflynn3549 What funny is God never removed his blessing from his followers' leadership, did he? Of course, He did in the Old Testament all the time, removing Prophets or Kings who errored, Yet you don't imagine the Catholic church was ever Corrupted? I am not talking about its believers but its leadership. You had a female Pope named Joan who was murdered after being found with a Child .
@@dallasbrat81 1. Where in the Bible does it say that God did the same for the Apostles and their successors, 2. Where is your evidence of a female pope named Joan
I'm glad to see that your studies have brought you not only bare knowledge but also wisdom and self awareness. I find these to be the rarest characteristics in apologists for both Cahtolic/Orthodox positions as well as apologists on the Protestant side.
Yeah, I think conversion is far more complicated that it seems for some people. At least I thought that being "deep in history" would make me Catholic, as I watched and read about all these conversion stories. But it's not so simple! In my case, I wanted to find a Church that resembled the Early Church, and the Early Church had so many conflicting ideas! Take the issue of icon veneration, for example. Most Church Fathers were against it when the idea rose around 350 because people had started venerating icons. There are some people (apparently, not really Church Fathers) who were for it. There was one council there, another over here, and eventually the Church accepted the icon veneration idea as a whole because of the iconoclast controversy. It's really weird! How did the Early Church get from not really liking the idea of icon veneration to affirming it in the Council of Nicaea? How can I know if it's a legitimate development as Catholics say? Or how do I know that the Church really erred there as Protestants say? :(
I guess it boils down to trust.
Do you trust the Church? Do you trust that God guides His Church, espescially through the living magisterium and the councils?
Then the development is one you can trust.
Do you not trust that God guides His Church? Then how is anything She says binding in any way?
Personally, i'm in the catholic Church because God said 'go there'. And so i will trust Him, and trust Him through His Church.
@@MrsYasha1984 I hope you don't mind me asking this question, but how did you know that He was telling you to go there? And did you personally struggle with any of these topics?
Great insight in identifying what the problem is. What keeps me from having intellectual anxiety is I don't believe I am actually lacking anything that God desires for my salvation and Christian life.
Thanks, conversion is based on John 3:8, we have no control over it, although we like to think we do.
This feels very relativistic
The Eucharist is the real body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Cor 11:17-33
@@tasiaflynn3549 Amen
Another aspect of conversion may be relational, I've talked with a few people, and one of the factors that led them to change traditions was essentially a falling out they had with the pastor of the previous church they attended. It's obviously not the only factor, but I think it may certainly play a role.
No matter how much evidence a person sifts through, and no matter how smart or how dumb a person is, and no matter what conclusions a person draws from the inexhaustible amount of evidence, the ONLY thing that matters is Grace. The purpose of sifting through all of the evidence is to determine the factual Truth of how a person receives Grace, without which there can be no Salvation. And the factual Truth is that Grace can only be received in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. This is a historical and Biblical fact. All of the teachings in the OT and all of the teachings in the Gospels and the NT are summarized in just one single chapter out of the entire Bible and we call this chapter The Biblical Blueprint for Sacramental Salvation. What chapter is being spoken of? Acts chapter 2 - PENTECOST.
The problem between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants teach that a person is made Righteous, is Justified, and is Sanctified at the moment that he Believes in Jesus as Savior, therefore he is Saved. Catholics teach that all of this happens in the Sacraments. One of us has to be wrong. Acts chapter 2 is the solution to the dispute. Let’s see what the Bible says about all of this.
Let me invite you to read Acts chapter 2 contemplatively, and then answer these questions. On that great Day of Pentecost we see that 3000 souls were saved, and EVERYONE agrees that they were Saved by Grace. After you read Acts chapter 2 then come back and share with us just exactly when those 3000 that were saved on that Day of Pentecost were Born Again into a Life of Grace. Was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism?
When were they made Righteous, was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism?
When were they Justified, was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism?
When were they Sanctified, was it when they first believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism?
When were all of their sins forgiven, was it when they first believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism?
When did they receive Grace, was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism?
When did they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Was it when they first Believed or was it when they received the Sacrament of Baptism ?
*Truth is the reason for conversion. God bless* .
"Repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. "Repent and be converted" (Acts 3:19).
This topic also comes up outside of church history with the topic of studying the Bible. Often it is said you need to just study the Bible for yourself to know what God is truly saying. But how does one know when one has studied the Bible enough? Is it reading the Bible all the way through once? Is it doing a topic study on every verse in the Bible on that topic? But how many topics do you need to go over, and how do you know which verses should be included in your search? Is it just reading the whole bible over again and again? Which version are you supposed to use? Does your study include I Maccabees and II Maccabees? What about the books of Nehemiah or Zephaniah, or Lamentations? Should they play an equal weight in hearing what God is saying through the Bible? Or should John and Romans be studied far more? When has someone truly studied the Bible enough?
Hi Austin, I always enjoy your thoughtful explorations. Here are some Scriptural and traditional principles that might help guide your quest:
1. *1 Tim **3:15* : The Church is called the "pillar and bulwark of the truth." How do you identify the true Church today?
2. *Acts 5:38-39* : "If this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them." Which undertakings have stood the test of time and which have failed?
3. *St. Vincent of Lerins* : "What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." Which churches hold true to these realities today?
Sometimes, others can see us more clearly than we see ourselves. From your openness, it seems the Holy Spirit is calling you towards Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Your eyes light up when you explore these faiths, but dim when you retreat into Protestant doubts. Don’t stifle the Spirit. Don’t be like the rich young man who went away sad. Embrace the pearl of great price and you’ll find the Holy Spirit's graces return to you even richer, as I did.
As a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I completely agree with #1 & #2.
#3 however is a trap. If Christ is guiding the church and providing additional light and knowledge to His covenant followers then #3 is more likely to make you reject Him than accept him.
Consider the Jewish attitude of what has been believed everywhere by all and how it gave the Pharisees license (in their minds) to kill Christ. Not good.
There is always higher hung, keep climbing.
Hi @@HaleStorm49 , thanks for taking time to reply. The principle from Vincent of Lerins includes more than three arguments which may resonate with your Latter -Day Saints beliefs:
*1. Historical continuity*
I understand that in your church, you value the continuity of divine revelation. As a Catholic who also holds strongly to the validity of Eastern Orthodoxy and mourns our separation, I believe that authentic doctrine has been handed down through generations from the Apostles in both churches which is really the one Church Jesus founded. In contrast to the dead traditions that He condemned, this is a living tradition, kept alive and fresh through the Holy Spirit so that we might, as He says bring out of our treasure house "what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:52)
Just as you believe in a restoration of the ancient Church, we Catholics argue that the original deposit of faith has been preserved and taught consistently throughout history. The early Church Fathers, starting with those taught by the Apostles, like Polycarp and Ignatius and their successors, provide a historical witness to the unbroken consistency of Christian doctrine.
*2. Universal Consensus*
It's vital that there should be one, united, universal (catholic) Church so that Jesus's prayer that we may all be one can be realized (John 17:21). Tragically this one Great Church is now divided between East and West, with some encouraging exceptions like the uniate churches. Just as I understand you believe in the universality of your church, we hold that the core truths of our Christian faith can't be restricted to a certain place, yet we have the numbers in terms of people, centuries and millenia. The vast majority of the world's Christians are either Catholic or Orthodox and there's no doubt the relatively undivided Church of the first millenium more closely resembled either than any Protestant group.
*3. Apostolic Tradition*
I understand that we both value apostolic tradition, as taught by Christ and inspired by the Holy Spirit. We Catholics believe that the teaching of the Apostles has been not only preserved but truly kept alive, as Jesus promised it would: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:17). St Vincent of Lerins principle accords with Jesus' promise, that true doctrine is that which has been taught consistently yet developed since the Apostles' times. The effects and witness of that teaching are seen not only in the inspired Word of God in the New Testament, but also in the next generation, the Apostolic Fathers and in their successors.
I've always thought that our personalities have a huge impact on what we believe (not that they control it, just that they make some beliefs WAY easier to swallow than others). So someone who likes authority is going to have a lot easier time becoming Catholic. Some people are very concrete, tangible, thinkers, which may make them more likely (maybe "susceptible") to something like atheism. I've also always thought that church-of-origin is important as that influences how you think about that group. Like some people go to Catholicism because they see it as "richer" or whatever, but they started out in a very shallow protestant group. I know Catholics who moved to protestant groups because their initial experience was very strict and impersonal.
Maybe a good comparison is a relationship. It's very common for people to just feel things for someone else and then justify those feelings after the fact.
One of the greatest strengths of protestantism is that you can admit how hard some of these issues are and have grace for those who come to different conclusions. Not saying that all, or even most Protestants actually give this grace. Unfortunately, we are often just as dogmatic and close-minded as those we see as dogmatic and close-minded. However, viewing the true church in a way that transcends visible institutions makes room for these differences and allows the church to be united on the fundamental doctrines of the faith, rather than on one's view of historical establishment and development and choosing the right institution.
I'm very happy to have seen the development there has been in Protestant/ Roman Catholic/ Eastern Orthodox dialogue. In my opinion, this is drawing the church nearer to the ideal the reformers had in the first place.
True! It can be liberating to be honest about the difficulty
Interesting to hear this video now...this was from the scripture reading this past Sunday "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another..." 1 Peter 3:8. It seems that St Peter is identifying unity with compassion...so no doubt you are on to something. Amen, Christ is the point...all these things must find their source, center, and terminus in Him.
I agree. I've been trying to figure things out as well. Church history is super complicated to say the least. But it's not like everyone was in unanimous agreement since the church started. Even in the early church, there were already outside influenced and heresies and disagreements etc. that the apostle Paul had to address in his letters. Even back then and throughout all history, you have humans...all with varying perspectives, ideas, opinions, etc. I lean toward the idea that it's the heart of the gospel that matters, and how we live our lives, not so much rituals or institutions.
Which gospel? Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all have a different view.
There is a core group that was very vocal about the heresies that popped up. Many of them knew the Apostles or were friends, students and acquaintances with people that knew the Apostles. I would challenge you to take three colors, orange, yellow and blue.
Read Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon, and use blue to highlight when they clearly affirm the need for a Bishop or an Elder, the importance of Apostolic Succession, the need for baptism, the need for the Eucharist. Use yellow when it could go either way and use orange when they explicitly speak against the importance of these things.
I’ve already converted to the Catholic Church. Newman was a huge part of it. His Grammar of Assent is something that would be really interesting to dive deep into
I'll have to check it out!
Newmann is a very interesting case. I'm looking forward to reading some of his works and what lead to his conversion.
@@etheretherether His Apologia Pro Vita Sua was very influential for me. The Development of Christian Doctrine was a great read, and his novel Loss and Gain was also very good. I was an evangelical for a while, then Anglican for a few years - discerned the priesthood - and then finally was convinced of the Catholic claims. He has been a great conversation partner for me and I'm sure he will be for you too!
@@GospelSimplicity Hi Austin, Newman's 'Grammar of Assent' is spot-on for your questions, though it can be quite dense. If you're trained in philosophy and comfortable with 19th-century texts, you'll manage. If not, his University sermons cover similar ideas more accessibly. Newman highlights that certainty isn't necessary for strong belief or what he calls "real assent". Think about how we confidently dress in winter, expecting the sun to rise based on past experience, even without certainty. Faith works the same way.
Time is short, eternity is long.
Interesting. Newman was a huge part of me rejecting catholicism. His invention of the development hypothesis because he knew history wasn't friendly to Roman Catholic claims, and his rejection of papal infallibility (but forced to accept it) was extremely off putting. Now we see the pope calling for Latin Mass to cease. So much for the constant faith for 2000 years. It's a myth. Any objections to Rome can now be met with "slap some Newman on it."
Called swallowing your pride
In the end you are left with two choices:
Trust the church that God has founded. Or trust your ability to study and do research into this subject and come to your own conclusion about the Bible.
Protestantism encourages everyone to do their own research, which is admirable. However, the average person cannot be expected to be able to interpret the Bible nor information about the early church and come to a clear and definite conclusion.
Well, the problem is "trust the church God has founded" begs the question, "which church did is the one God has founded?" and "how do we know that a church claiming to be the one God founded is indeed the one God founded?" To answer these questions, we either have a fideism which says, "we just trust" or we're back to examining the evidence.
@@GospelSimplicityeither way, this seems to be the fundamental question that would do most to solve the other questions.
@@GospelSimplicity you are right, but in the end, either you trust like a child, or you have to come to your own conclusion. I’m not passing judgment for either choice I think both are reasonable.
@@Jerome616 The amount of text and data that needs to be parsed to figure out which Church is the True Church is much much larger than the amount of data that needs to be parsed to find the creeds in the Bible.
I'm finally at the point where I think I half way understand the arguments on either side of the filioque, and I still don't know where I land on the issue.
"Trust like a child" probably better described my faith when I was an Evangelical non-denom. Where most questions where answer like this:
Q: How's communion work? What does Jesus mean by "this is My Body?"
A: It's a mystery that we won't know until we're in heaven.
Q: How's the Trinity work, how can there be 3 Persons and only 1 God?
A: It's a mystery that we won't know until we're in heaven.
Q: Who's saved and who isn't?
A: People who say the believe in God, the Trinity, and the Physical Resurrection, and have been baptized are Christians. We won't know which ones where actually saved until we see them in Heaven.
Where I am now is something more like:
Q: How does the Trinity work?
A: Well there's the Father, the Son, and and the Holy Spirit. They all originate eternally from the Father for complex reasons that involve defending against ancient heresies like modalism. The Holy Spirit was sent to us by the Son, but doesn't originate from the Son proper. Or does He? For complex platonic reasons, saying He does originate eternally from the Son could result in polytheism, according to St Photios. For complex platonic reasons, saying He doesn't originate from the Son results in Unitarianism, according to St Thomas Aquinas. But also, it could've just been a translation issue. If that's the case, there's still the problem of the Pope changing the creed without going through the proper channels. Maybe if he'd waited to discuss it in a council, the translation issue would've been settled. Or maybe it wouldn't have because actually.......
I often look to the Berean Jews from Acts 17 as the example we should follow. If they merely followed the institution of authority in their time they would have deferred to the Rabbis, Pharasees, and Saducees. They didn't. They searched the Scriptures (OT) to verify if what Paul was teaching about the Scriptures (OT) were true. It doesn't mean one should merely dismiss teaching from elders or those more learned, but it does show an example that even common Jews were capable of studying Scripture (OT) and discerning whether what Paul taught aligned with their ability to interpret and understand it. To say only a few have the special knowledge of truth revealed to them is the epitome of gnosticism.
Well i definitely just left it on in the background during my morning exercise. Already subscribed. As a publishing Christian scholar and lifelong Catholic, it's not that I've never had doubts. It's not that i never tried to follow my individual reasoning abilities, which are objectively high, to find the true religion or true denomination. RATHER, I've bumped up against the limitations of Intelligence, my own, my intersubjective communal intelligence, and artificial intelligence models, to find limits that are pretty darn insurmountable. If choosing the right denomination were a matter of tortuous internal consistency and scientific analysis, already large chunks of the human population would be barred from salvation because of biological limits, being born with the wrong material brain matter, and maybe every human because of our species biological limits. I've come to believe we're saved by Grace instead. Grace which inspires faith and works and hope and love and wisdom and my own scholarship of creation. And your work too. Sustained every second. I don't know where my thinking leaves room for institutional conversions of denominations as being a priority when we are faced with deep seated Conversion of the soul and spirit of the universe.
Just pray. No one objective will see universal jurisdiction or infallible charism of St Peter in first 1,000 years of the Roman papacy. They will see overwhelming evidence that refutes those claims. Rome is a dead fantasy that looks beautiful on the outside, but is dead on the inside.
None of the Protestant sects make a persuasive claim to the faith once delivered to the saints.
You have two options:
1) DIY church
2) open your heart to holy orthodoxy
This video risks confusing and dividing Christians. Placing doubt about God, under the rubric of "it's complicated", into the minds of those seeking the truth and implying what is being sought is a solution to a personal faith problem is a big miss for me. I do NOT think you are intending this consequence, but it is a consequence of the video. Remember Satan's infamous line: "Did God really say..."? Doubt was Satan's main weapon.
The Church is NOT primarily an institution or a collection of like-minded individuals who agree on 'main things'. The Church is an undivided truth, it is a Who.
The types of questions this video could lead to include: Who made the prudential judgement about which books are in the bible? Were those judgements trustworthy? Who made the judgement that Sunday became the day of worship when the bible (the 10 commandments) says to "keep holy the Sabbath", which is Saturday? And many more.
When everything is doubted, then nothing is real and Satan has his day. Have FAITH in Christ and His Mystical Body - the Catholic Church!!
Intellectual humility. I like that
Love this video! Points 1 and 2 were true for me when I was converted. I don’t think I was specifically trying to solve a problem but that’s because I think that point applies to those who are converting from one denomination to another more than it applies to those who are converting from a non Christian background.
I was converting from a non Christian background. Once I was convinced of the truth of Jesus, I wanted to be in the Church closest to Jesus. After reading the Bible and then reading Protestant confessions and core beliefs on denominational websites, I knew Protestantism was not an option. Sola Scriptura can’t get you a Scripture and was therefore completely impossible.
I love Austin, but Trent's perspective always echoe in my mind.
Protestants tend to over analyze over criticize if Catholicism is True
Protestants do not hold the same standards with their denomination
Same with sentiments of Protestants towards Atheism
Atheists tend to over analyze if Christianity is True
Atheist do not hold the same standards with absence of God
Haven't watched the video yet, but I will say one thing: fantastic hat, brother.
Unity is found in none other than Oneness with Christ (John 17:21) by His Life IN us (John 6:53) which is WHY He came (John 10:10) !
Mary said Yes. Hopefully you are not rejecting LIFE (worshipping Molech) keeping you in the outer darkness and apart from Oneness with Him!
I can 💯 relate. I’ve come to the conclusion that we Protestants are fundamentally mistrustful of people. This is born out by the fruit so prevalent now of Protestants rejecting church entirely. We trust/mistrust first THEN accept evidence after to affirm that trust/mistrust.
i think that the conversion is not an intellectual exercise but something existential. it happens when God approaches you and presents Himself to you as He is.....and you understand with all your being that He is the (personification of) ultimate Truth , the answer to all your questions, the source of your being...the Truth which exceeds all understanding.....and you cannot do anything else than to reply with all your being..... that said - till we die, conversion never ends.....
“It is not what man does which counts in eternal life, but what he is; whether his is like Jesus Christ, our Lord, or if he is different and unlike Him.” -St. Simeon the New Theologian
I feel like too much of our security lies in finding a true church or intellectually assenting to the correct doctrine instead of where it should lie. I don’t think that our salvation depends on passing a theology exam. I found that obsessing about what the truest tradition is was making me focus on pursuing truths about God rather than pursuing Him. I was using the same mindset I had used when I went through a few years of existentialism. I became a Lutheran not because I was gung-ho about it but because I felt much freer to pursue Christ. I felt split between eastern mysticism, the protestant evangelical spirit, and a scholasticism deriving from Catholicism which views the universe as rational and discoverable. All of these are present in Lutheranism and so I became LCMS. Ultimately while I obviously am an advocate for true doctrines I think that spiritual development is the most important factor. Where will you become the most like Christ? It might be at a local church which you have some disagreements with but you will be taught patience humility and can offer a different perspective that others need to hear. I think learning to be Christlike through building relationships and emptying yourself in service to others is way more impactful upon someone’s growth as a Christian than whether you are a Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox or whatever. Obviously there are limits and I would caution against becoming a Baptist or something that says the sacraments are symbolic or sects which have few roots in tradition.
I appreciate this perspective
@williampeters9838 I can't tell you how much this comment has blessed me this morning. I feel you have perfectly articulated what I have been feeling for a long time in my walk as I have been trying to find the "truest tradition." I have been trying to pursue truths instead of pursuing God and I have been fully aware of it. Our walk is about following and relying on Him for all things, not mostly trying to find the most water tight theology to follow because the end of that road only leads to a dry, parched, dead faith. The pursuit of God is of the mind and the heart not one or the other, and that middle road has been the subject of my studies this whole time. My father was a pastor in the LCMS all growing up and as I pursue my faith in deeper ways I am finding that I am more Lutheran than I thought. I agree that there is a beauty to the way that Lutherans approach the faith that I find freeing as well. Thank you for your encouragement brother, I hope you have a blessed day!
@@fishyrischeThanks man! That was really thoughtful!
The problem with a Protestant viewing the magisterium as something that could “solve the problem” of disunity, is that it implies that disunity existed first and the magisterium came along and might solve it. In reality the magisterium existed long before the Protestant rebellion and is one of the things that prevents church disunity. Protestant need to humble themselves and get back to the things that pre-existed them and which can and do prevent the problems they identify.
. . . and that’s why the Church as Mother makes sense . . . that’s why the gift of faith is nurtured by growing into a lifestyle . . . that’s why understanding FOLLOWS faith . . . so pray for more faith.
I don't know if it's that hard. What are your presuppositions? You have to be aware of them and see if they make sense. Sure, if you're unaware of your starting point that's a problem, but it doesn't mean you can get a very clear idea of what truth is.
For me it's what did the early church teach. I assume that the church was teaching the right way because it's makes no sense to think the early church is all wrong. If you're trying to ascertain the truth of Christianity and you're prepared to say the early church got things wrong, you should consider whether Christianity is even true. If you believe God came to earth, became man, built a church to teach His people, and then it went to hell 50 years later and for the next 1974 years people have been entirely lost, you should have no problem with God sending His son to die on a cross to redeem people and an asteroid comes and kills everyone, so Jesus isn't crucified and never resurrects. This line of thinking that the early church can be corrupt or that God will let His Church be corrupt is totally absurd. It's incomprehensible that a person would believe in Christianity and believe that for 2000 years the church has been lost.
At some point faith will have to come into play. Trust that the grace of God through the Holy Spirit will guide you.
This could be an entire book published by Gospel Simplicity: Church, Are You Asking the Right Questions? ...In Humility? My questions are similar to yours. I want to know how to follow Jesus well, successfully, to persevere my whole life. I want to know how to be confident in salvation - can I really out-sin Christ's perfect once-for-all sacrifice of grace, or does he "keep that which I've committed to him"? Is there enough humility in Christ's church ever to see real unity? Is a personal approach because of reasoning with matters of truth best? ...or is going along with a church community/denomination/expression best because there certainly are things beyond me? Is perfect theology and ecclesiology necessary for justification and perseverance?
Yes, Church History doesn't tell the whole story. It only tells the story of whose argument won, not who was correct.
🤔When faced with the evidence what did the Apostle choose? When presented with evidence despite their doubts they made a choice. In John chapter 6 we see the example of disciples who when presented with evidence chose their doubts.
Also, from a Christian perspective, if you have your Nous clouded, you will not be able to evaluate the evidence.
Is pieity synonomous with Theosis? If not then how are they different ?
Someone who converts on the basis of rational thinking has probably missed the point of conversion and/or not yet TRULY converted…
Oh! You’re an O’s fan! 🧡🖤
My conversion to the Catholic Church was mainly from reading the lives of the Saints. No religion produce as many holy and virtuous men as the Catholic Church. I also read Orthodox saints but Matthew 16:18 clinched it for me.
Matthew 16:18 is one of those issues mentioned in the video where your interpretation depends heavily upon who you consider to be authoritative. The modern Latin interpretation follows what was a minority position among the fathers, so depending on who you are more inclined to follow, magisterium or the majority of the fathers, you will interpret the verse differently.
Peter never overcame hades though, Jesus did (revelation 1:18). Something to think about, we see the first time Peter made the confession of faith in John 1:38-42, it was based on flesh and blood. This is why Jesus here did not say upon this rock I will build my church. But in Matthew 16:17, the Father did something. 1 John 5:1 helps us better understand what happened. It is a spiritual matter, you might want to look at it more this way. Thank you.
@@theowilmot1841 That depends. If you go to the Fathers’ abstract interpretation out of thin air, not many people produced interpretations of what you would call the “Latin” one. But whenever context was given, and I’m talking about specific turmoils concerning the risk of schismatic processes, so that the Church universal should be discerned from the schismatic branches that left the vine, then NOT only in the Fathers but MOSLY in the very documentos of ECUMENICAL Councils it is there. In an honest search for the evidence, one could easily mention Ephesus/431 (St Cyril of Alexandria constituted by Pope St Celestine a Roman legate in the Ecumenical Council, using every inch of Roman authority against fellow Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, with Philip the Legate in his famous Petrine affirmation of the Roman prerrogatives); Chalcedon/451 (Pope St Leo’s nullification of the so-called Robber Council, the Tome in all its doctrinal affirmation of authority, the specific Chalcedonian mode of reception of the Leonine Tome and the rebellion of Dioscorus), the Acacian Schism (and the Hormisdas Libel or “Formula”), 3rd Constantinople (and the Monothelite attempting of reuniting the Empire with the Pre-Chalcedonians and the huge acclamations of Pope St Agatho concerning the Petrine authority and the divine protection perpetually tied to the Roman See as a way to unify both orthodoxy and governance) and 2nd Nicea (and the Imperial pressure for Iconoclasm, with the heroic intervention and affirmations of Pope Hadrian concerning his own See and the acclamation received at the Council), for example. They all vindicated the Petrine promises EXACTLY in the Catholic position, to which the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is alien (and a denial of those very instances). To be out of the doctrine of the Councils is the inevitable conclusion of the radiography of history.
@theowilmot1841 Those interpretations, as I said, where not given out of thin air, but they are clear ENOUGH whenever schismatic processes happen. In the context of the so-called “Meletian schism”, St Jerome clearly addressed how to discern the ONE universal church in a famous letter to Pope St Damasus:
*St Jerome of Stridon, Eastern monk who lived in the West (347 AD - 420 AD)*
_”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of ROMAN MAJESTY withdraw. My words are spoken to the SUCCESSOR OF THE FISHERMAN, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_
(St Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2).
God bless your journey, my friend!
@@theowilmot1841 Only Eastern texts:
*St. John Cassian, Eastern monk who lived in the West (c. 430)*
_“That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, _*_who wielding the government of the ROMAN CHURCH POSSESSED THE PRINCIPLE AUTHORITY IN FAITH AND IN PRIESTHOOD. Tell us, therefore, WE BEG OF YOU, PETER, prince of Apostles, TELL US HOW THE CHURCHES MUST BELIEVE_*_ in God”_ (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276)
___________________
*St Jerome of Stridon, Eastern monk who lived in the West (347 AD - 420 AD)*
_”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of ROMAN MAJESTY withdraw. My words are spoken to the SUCCESSOR OF THE FISHERMAN, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_
(St Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2).
____________
*St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)*
_“TEACHING US ALL ORTHODOXY and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, _*_I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings AS PROCEEDING FROM THE MOUTH OF PETER the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul_*_ ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church”_ (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)
_“Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other _*_UNTIL YOU COME TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE (Rome), where are the FOUNDATIONS OF THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of THAT THRONE the questions agitated among us._*_ Cease not to pray and to beg them _*_UNTIL their apostolic and Divine wisdom SHALL HAVE PRONOUNCED THE VICTORIOUS JUDGMENT_*_ and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy”_ . (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, 893)
___________________
*St. Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople* (466-516)
_“Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that _*_such a step WITHOUT an Ecumenical Synod PRESIDED OVER BY THE POPE OF ROME IS IMPOSSIBLE”_* (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)
___________________
*John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)*
_“The Pope of Rome, _*_the HEAD OF THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD_*_ , whom in Peter, the Lord commanded TO CONFIRM HIS BRETHREN”_ . (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
___________________
*St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)*
_“WITHOUT WHOM _*_(the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a A DOCTRINE BROUGHT FOWARD IN THE CHURCH COULD NOT, EVEN THOUGH CONFIRMED by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, EVER OBTAIN FULL APPROVAL OR CURRENCY. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and *who have received into their hands THE DIGNITY OF HEADSHIP AMONG THE APOSTLES”_* (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
___________________
*St. Athanasius (362)*
_“Rome is called _*_THE APOSTOLIC THRONE”_* . (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35)
___________________
*St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424)*
_”They (the Apostles) strove to _*_LEARN THROUGH ONE, that PREEMINENT ONE, PETER,”_* . (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736).
___________________
*St. Eulogius of Alexandria (581)*
_“Neither to John, _*_NOR TO ANY OTHER OF THE DISCIPLES, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee THE KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven,' BUT ONLY TO PETER”_* . (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)
___________________
*St. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)*
_“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade _*_the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo the Great) TO USE HIS APOSTOLIC POWER,_*_ and to order me to hasten to your Council. _*_For THAT MOST HOLY THRONE (Rome) HAS THE SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL THE CHURCHES THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE on many grounds”_* . (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).
_”If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, *how much more DO WE, POOR AND HUMBLE, RUN TO THE APOSTOLIC THRONE (Rome) to RECEIVE FROM YOU (Pope Leo the Great) HEALING FOR WOUNDS OF THE CHURCHES. For it PERTAINS TO YOU TO HAVE PRIMACY IN ALL THINGS; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives”_ . (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)
___________________
*St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Salamis (385)*
_“Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; *and the same (Peter) furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting IN THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES, that firm ROCK UPON WHICH the CHURCH OF GOD is built, and the gates of hell shall NOT PREVAIL against it. The GATES
OF HELL ARE HERETICS and heresiarchs. For in every way WAS THE FAITH CONFIRMED IN HIM WHO RECEIVED THE KEYS OF HEAVEN* ; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. HE WAS AIDED BY THE FATHER SO AS TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF THE SECURITY (firmness) OF THE FAITH. He (Peter) heard from the same God, 'feed my lambs'; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master”_ . (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor).
___________________
*Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-565)*
(the creator of the not-theological concept of “Pentarchy”):
_“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, _*_as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole EASTERN district, and to UNITE them to the See of Your Holiness, for WE DO NOT ALLOW of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since YOU ARE THE HEAD of all the holy Churches_*_ ”_ . (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
________________________
*Byzantine Emperor Justin I (518-527)*
_“Let your Apostleship show that you have _*_worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the LORD WILL WORK THROUGH YOU, AS SUPREME PASTOR_*_ , the salvation of all”_ . (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Emperor Justin to Pope Hormisdas).
You are missing the forest from amongst the trees. You need to be asking the right questions.
@brainwoodman1646
It would be a lot more helpful if you actually stated what those "right" questions were!
I would agree with Paul is the unification stems from the Gospel. What I see from studying church history is the fact that human beings in leadership want to restrict or force a certain aspect when Scripture very clearly teaches freedom within the confines of what pleases God.
Example, the dates of Easter in 150 ad is just ridiculous. Why in the world should it matter if one church celebrates Easter on a certain date vs another church celebrates Easter on a different date. What matters to God is we honor him and give thanks to him for all things. Therefore, stop restricting or forceably submit a position that can't be traced back to the Appostles and at best and or use best discernment giving God the proper thanks without being trapped by occasional sin.
But if Jesus established a Church that has the authority to bind and loose on heaven and earth, isn’t going against that Church essentially going against Jesus?
As childish as that is, I truly believe that is the crux of the debate.
The Symbolic World has a great episode with some guy named Rohlin on the importance of celebration in forming culture, community, and how it is used to pass down teaching. It’s eye opening on why we should want to celebrate together. And also why we should be mindful of what we celebrate.
I am pretty simple. In 1Cor. Paul coveys to us the confession of faith given to him by the post resurrected Jesus “as of first importance “. That is the core (tree trunk) of our faith. All who hold to that confession are united (and have always been) in Him. Everything else are ornaments (purgatory, Marian dogma etc). Some are beautiful. Some obscure the tree. But they are all secondary.
I love this channel. However, this channel is almost 5 years old and still at the same point as the start. One would say to coming to a conclusion would be nice. Yes, one can change their mind but now it feels like flirting with different denominations for X amount of years just to return to the same question and perspective, Paralysis. Don't get me wrong, the videos are amazing but its too much of the same.
I agree with your statement. This channel came across my feed yesterday and I watched some of his content. The tour of St. John Cantius was my favorite. To see that some 5 years later, this guy is still not convinced by anything he’s heard from Catholics or Orthodox makes the whole thing seem disingenuous. He was either searching bc something in his faith tradition was lacking or he’s presenting all of this as an exercise in comparison just for its own sake, like entertainment. I could be wrong but something about this content creator, he presents himself in a very scientific, almost atheistic way. Idk, I don’t wish to spend any more time seeing what Austin is going to do. Is he going to convert, is he not? Don’t know and don’t care
It may be just what you said, he hears from Catholics and Orthodox. It’s like pick one or the other. One has to be true. The orthodox don’t affirm the biggest part about Roman Catholicism, the PAPACY! This is a huge thing to come to a disagreement in as, well you see history. It’s like you both are saying, why haven’t you chose one or the other? That is a very hard thing to hear when either one of them could be wrong. You can say they have similarities but fundamentally there is still a schism. Maybe they need to figure things out between themselves first, then we can see the One true church. One afirmas the other but the other doesn’t recognize this papal authority. Who’s right? Y’all can debate each other. I’ll gladly listen.
Regular empathy is already causing all kinds of horrible things in civilization. Please don't add intellectual empathy to the water.
My question has been, “Which church has 2000 years of demonstrable fruit in transforming sinners into Christ-following, holy people?” This question has clarified much for me. I cannot justify separating myself from that church if I can answer it with confidence, unless I believe it has undergone such a significant decline that holy people are no longer present within it.
Catholicism or Orthodoxy? I see good fruits from both even some from Protestants, though I am Orthodox.
@@ryank2740 Orthodoxy. I am not yet in a position to officially convert, but “Thinking Orthodox” by Eugenia Constantinou was fundamental in helping me resolve the question. It comes down to continuity vs development, and I believe that only Orthodoxy has been continually making saints in the same way, with the same mind, for 2000 years. That is not to say there aren’t faithful Christians in Catholicism and Protestantism. I simply see the fullness of the early church in Orthodoxy.
I like the idea of seeking piety, but it can be difficult to navigate because it’s easy to treat the presence of pious actions and feelings as indicators of how close one is growing (or not growing) to God, and to become overly-attached to these things. I’ve been reading The Ascent of Mt. Carmel by St. John of the Cross, which goes into this in depth, and I think you’d really enjoy it.
Re: conversion. If you don't believe in protestant tenets like once saved always saved then you have another issue - The problem of infinite progression.
Sanctification and/or theosis imply that you can be more converted than someone else. How converted are you? At what point does your conversion and knowledge base cause you to question your church and the limits of its theology?
Christ taught that eventually, we could be worthy of the 2nd Comforter, IE that He (Christ) would personally manifest himself to us. Most believers don't realize their "conversion" keeps them from receiving this 2nd comforter.
In my case it was easier. Grew up Catholic, wasn't well informed and educated, converted to Lutheran because I thought that's so much better, educated myself about the Catholic curch, learned what it is about, missed our rich traditional heritage and converted back to Catholic. Never been happier. ❤
Fantastic thoughts. While all out agnosticism and relativism are dangers to watch out for here, I don’t agree with those who perceive in this video. What a great point that Scripture itself creates and informs the various concerns and questions people have about unity, tradition, doctrinal purity, etc. I didn’t hear you suggest that each person’s decision is suddenly equally valid, Christ-honoring, or wise because of this; rather, as you said, this “elevates the conversation” so we can be more tuned into legitimate concerns. Now, maybe some concerns/questions should be valued more than others - like love over knowledge in 1 Corinthians - and yet even that requires discernment.
I'm glad you enjoyed this! Thanks for seeing the distinction between a level of subjectivity(i.e., we all bring unique concerns to the evidence) and relativism (our conclusions are equally valid). I think this distinction is often lost, and perhaps I could have explained it better in the video.
Paul didn't say to look to tradition. He said to hold fast to what we already taught (the original gospel) not the way Catholics interpret.
He also said “look to the Church which is the pillar and bulwark of truth”
2 THESSALONIANS 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.”
@@benjaminsisson5808 He also wrote in Galatians 1:6 that the Church in Galatia had strayed and were following another Gospel than the one the Apostles had taught to them. What is the pilar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)? Paul gives an early creed in v16
"He was revealed in flesh,
vindicated in spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed in throughout the world,
taken up in glory."
At this time in Church history, there was no "institution" of the Church. The Church was the body of believers who received the true Gospel as proclaimed and taught by the Apostles. The authority of teaching was based on whether it came or could be traced to an Apostle's teaching either through word or through writing. It was the early church's memory of receiving the teaching from the Apostle(s) that made the teaching infallible.
@@jadtucker1972 I agree mostly with everything you’ve just said, only I believe that the apostolic teaching is found most fully in the Catholic Church.
@@jadtucker1972Now ask yourself who were those historical disciples and what faith do they profess in union? You’ll only get two answers, Catholic or Orthodox.
John Vervaeke has really interesting content on psychological combinatorial explosion you may like. Rather than seeking Cartesian indubitable certainty, I think it's sound to find the most coherent worldview and adapt accordingly. The Commonitory was helpful for me in articulating my salience philosophy bc it basically says that regarding content that bears universality, antiquity and consent should be preferred to content without said features.
It's partly because I realized piecing together my own theology through just research was an impossible task that I accepted there must be a correct system. Orthodoxy has proven to be the most coherent of them
Disagree.
It didnt take long to find the answers were pretty clear. Very few things werent.
Further, once youve proven all but 1 church wrong after just a few doctrines, then it becomes obvious that if Jesus didnt lie, and you beleive him, you must be part of that Church until someone provides you evidence that that single church is wrong.
Ultimately this video comes across as more of a way to justify not wanting to follow the evidence
Good stuff Austin. Staying humble is a really good first step. We all could stand to be reminded of that. Also, that is a fine hat indeed. Maybe sometime I'll see ya downy Ohshun for some pit beef and Thrasher's fries.
This was excellent, great insights. Very pastoral. Time for you to pursue an MDiv/PhD.
I'll have to finish my MA first, but - cost aside - I'm never opposed to more schooling
I’m not sure how Paul’s exhortation to Christians to hold fast to tradition and to not believe the gospel except what he preached to them would change how one views/is inconsistent with Christ’s prayer that we be one. If anything it would seem to reiterate the same desire. Paul preached one specific gospel message and handed down one set of traditions…. That one tradition, that one gospel, that one Church, is undeniably the Catholic Church. All should be Catholic.
Seriously, solid take. Thank you!
My pleasure!
What problem are people trying to solve. Excellent question!
At the end of the day, though, we must allow the Scripture to speak to us in its fullness as it was intended to. Instead of building a theology of repentance from sin, how about we actually repent from sin, in other words. :)
And it seems like the more we submit to and obey the Word, the closer we come to the Truth, doctrinally and experientially.
Pray, fast, if you're seeking the Truth, He won't deny you, praying and fasting in secret is the surest way to know you're walking with, and ever towards a deeper relationship with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The rest comes naturally, not through the intellect, but through the Spirit. He will naturally draw you closer, and into a deeper friendship and union. Eventually you may find that the only treasure on earth that comes close to filling your spirit on this journey is the Eucharist. May God's graces and blessing be upon you and your journey.
Evidebtialism doesn't work because different people are going to evaluate the strength of the evidence differently. That's perfectly fine. I found Orthodoxy quite compelling, but I am not infallible, all my reasonings are fallible, and therefore all my conclusions are fallible. We humans are simply fallible, and we cannot know things with 100% logical certainty.
But we have to take that into account for our worldviews. If evidence is evaluated differently by different people, then when it comes to Biblical evidence, we EITHER need a normative authority to establish what the correct standard of evaluating the evidence is so that we can arrive at the same conclusion (most interpretative differences arise because different people find different explanations more compelling) OR we must accept all variations in interpretation.
But wait, why do we need to accept ALL variations? Why can't we say "accept all within reason?" Well, who's reason are we going with? Who gets to decide the objective standard of reason? We would need to identify that, too.
The problem is that among the three major branches, the RCC and the EOC have a solution to this dilemma: the authority is the Vatican and/or the Ecumenical Councils, respectively. Protestantism meanwhile has no solution to this dilemma, instead wanting to normatively enforce things like the Trinity and the canon if scripture as necessary beliefs, but being unable to actually justify that normativity.
One can’t just follow the evidence. There are other qualities of Christ that rise above evidence. One thing, Catholics and orthodox have a sold, inflexible idea of what is meant by gods love. This is different than that of Protestants. Just take my residency here at my senior center. For three years now I’ve attended mariners evangelical church services here weekly. After 3 years services, prayers, etc. I can’t recall the visiting lay ministers or our residents ever mentioning the word “love” in any capacity including god is love. With Catholics love is constantly spoken of. “Gods love” is praised, defined, explained, partialled out in bits and. Catholics are inundated with what gods love is and how it takes place in our life. The word “love “ is bounced around like a ping pong ball. We live it even if we don’t realize it. Or, we try to. The evangelicals constantly hammer away saying you must have faith. This frosts my bones. I thought I declared faith in grade K in Catholic school, plus communion, confirmation. Again and again at mass. But Catholics are always saying you must have love.
Follow this evidence...where is the Body and Blood of Christ physically alive and present? Which of these Churches is, perhaps despite internal friction and strife, still One and not many?
It seems that maybe you also think that the Church came form the scriptures, and this is not the case, the Scriptures came from the church. There is not such thing as a "protestant" before Martin Luther, and as far as I am concerned the whole "reformation" is an abomination and a sin against Christ, like a divorce in the Body of Christ almost. It is one thing to change wrongs of the church from within, but not to "become your own pope" and start your own. I pray you keep searching, because without the catholic Church, you don't have the Eucharist, and without that, well we turn to St. Ignatious of Antioch who before the "bible" came into being said,
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
When i came back to Christ after a dark period in my life, I began to study, and in that study it was not long before i could not deny the Eucharist of my youth, and now i finally understood it as the Truth as given to us by Christ Himself.
This reminds me of when I was generally an agnostic towards Christianity…
I agree that the heart plays a role, and a person will be led by his or her own unique relationship with Christ. That said, when I was searching, John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine laid out what I found to be a pretty unimpeachable argument. I'd love to hear Austin's review of it.
You say you are more concerned with “personal piety”but what constitutes “personal piety” will change based on whether someone is Catholic or Protestant. A Protestant wife can pop birth control pills like it’s candy because her and her husband love money so much and don’t want to bear the cost of the number of children that she could have naturally, while feeling perfectly pious. Whereas a practicing Catholic could not do that without believing that they are in grave sin (which they would be because contraception is evil).
As a protestant I agree ith you but the basis of that conviction is the Bible, rather than RCC dogma/statements
@@tuckerchisholm1005 if the basis of your conviction were the Bible you would be Catholic. The Bible ironically never says that the Bible should be the only basis for your convictions. The Bible says Jesus started a Church (not many churches), he prayed that we would be one, Saint Paul says we should be perfect of the same mind with no schisms. The Bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
I need to ask a local priest from a Catholic Church near me if he agrees with you about birth control. Or I’ll ask a few to make sure. And I should also ask if any woman there are on birth control. Are any in your church on birth control at the moment?
@@jdruiz_95 Just read the Catechism, I can assure you that it explicitly states that contraception is a sin. And of course there are disobedient Catholics who use contraception. There are 1.6 billion Catholics in the world, and we all sin. Do Protestants sin? What’s your point?
Excellent and thoughtful Video
Glad you enjoyed it!