My husband and I (protestant) are both researching catholicism and orthodoxy as well and the term "ecclesiastically homeless" struck a chord. We just don't feel like we are necessarily protestant anymore either....I wish we could become convinced in one way or another. Prayers that you find peace in your search! - Christie
I, as an Orthodox, am very pleased with your content. You're not a source of good entirely for Protestantism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, but for Christianity as a whole and I deeply respect that. Also, your voice is incredibly soothing! I could sleep like a baby listening to it.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 Christ literally fed the crowd fish... Don't you people ever get tired of using the same foolish arguments to shove your religion down everybody's throats? It is not respectful and I am not your "brother. This is not how you convert people.
@@theguyver4934Your Quran came 600 years later than the Gospels, Your beliefs are just a bunch of made up bs, a mixture of Arabic paganism, heretical Christian beliefs and Jewish legends that your prophet thought to be authoritative😂 Your Allah and your Quran even thought the Trinity was the Father, the Son and the Virgin Mary😂😂😂
@@Matdrox Woah man hold on i never said i wanted to see you or anyone covert to islam far from it on the contrary i actually want to see chrsitianity flourish in it's pure form and be praised by others may not convert but respect it's teachings and principles but you can't do that with these false very late misinterpretations ( trinity, atonement, original sin & hell ) because they polluted and contaminated the gospel ( Injil ) massage when it couldn't be farther from the truth So that's i say christianity needs a revival both inside and out May Allah swt protect and preserve the true and pure form of christianity and make it's massage be witnessed but at the right moment place and time the secred text of the bible say ye shall know them by their fruits So too that i say to my christian brothers & sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a muslim ( line of ismail )
Coming from a Catholic: I think it's a good thing that you're taking your time. Too many people rush into conversion before they are really ready, and that causes a whole host of problems. I hope you find your permanent spiritual home some day, till then thank you for your great content.
You said pretty much what I would say. I'd much rather a person be a good protestant than a half-hearted Catholic. We have to many "Catholic in name only" who never attend Mass except for Christmas and Easter, never go to confession and don't raise their children to do so either.
As a Protestant, I also relate to this immensely. I admire both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and think Evangelicals have much to learn from them. But, as I’ve studied and listened, my conviction for the purpose and reason for the Reformation remains strong. But, also like you, I feel like a misfit in my church, a bit, though it is still my home. God bless.
What was the purpose and reason for the reformation, do you think? We all know the standard answers which refer to the alleged "corruption of some individuals. If that is your position, you expect perfection from people. Then what of christology and ecclesiology?
Haha. Keep going to where God leads you. Only there you will find true peace. And I believe you already know where you are going to stay at the end. God bless you protestant brother😊
Not reformation whatsoever it was a clean rebellion against the Church of saints that Jesus established under the stewardship of Peter and the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced instead and then many idiots like Calvin Smythe Zwingli Henry Ellen Knox Wesley Russell etc started to interpret the Bible on their own wild imagination and even adding their wishful thinking or twisting historical facts or even worse they even tried to manipulate the holy Bible itself in order to make their satanic theology fit into it and after five centuries by now about fifty thousand heretic churches are contradicting each other all the time bringing chaotic anarchism to Christianity
It is incredibly refreshing to see this level of honesty. Much respect. (I converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago after being Reformed for about 25 years)
Believe in Christ, Repent of your sins, follow Him. This is the core of how to get on the path of salvation. The fullness of Christianity is found in the Ark of Salvation, the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (The Apostle Paul) @@AllforOne_OneforAll1689
You are quite handsome. 😊 I'm trying to find an orthodox church closer to me. I've known a few eastern and coptic orthodox and they always seem so confident in their faith. I hate how Catholics are CONSTANTLY trying to prove their authority. I rarely ever see this from orthodox Christians. This defensiveness actually pushed me to check out orthodoxy. That and being treated like an outsider at many catholic churches. Quite an unfriendly bunch
Thanks for sharing that, Austin! I am a Protestant and I can relate to many things you say in this video. I also have contemplated converting away from Protestantism for some time, but even after years of studying the arguments, watching dialogues and debates, attending non-protestant church services, and talking to non-protestant believers, I still find myself to be unconvinced. Throughout this journey, your videos have been a great resource for me, so I want to thank you for the great contribution you are making! Keep up the good work! I'll pray that you'll receive wisdom and piece of mind in your decision. May God bless you!
I'm right there with you. Just a few too many barriers to entry in terms of a few dogmas that I can't affirm with intellectual honesty and be in good conscience. The Kingdom is bigger than any one denomination, fortunately, and God's grace abounds all the more.
@@LWNightmareSheriff A better question is why would you be involved with a church that baptizes people in open sexual sin? Protestantism is the obvious conclusion that flows from the NT. Give it to an untouched tribe and they will become Protestant, not JW's, not Mormons, and certainly not Catholics with all their added man made baggage.
@@telleroftheone That's a big thing, the dogmas they insist that you have to believe. I'd be lying to say I believe them in order to convert. W/ most protestant denominations, they only have you affirm the fundamentals of the gospel and rarely beyond that to become a church member.
I'm Orthodox, and Nicaea II was probably fhe biggest hangup for me in entering the Church. What eased my mind was that the faithful are required only to affirm the theology of the ecumenical councils. I didn't need to accept every argument presented for a doctrinal conclusion, or that the bishops (and emperors) were well motivated or well behaved, or that the canons were somehow all divinely inspired. Orthodoxy's relative dogmatic minimalism and flexibility on many issues combined with its theological richness and mystical depth really appealed to me, over and against Catholicism's overdogmatization and "check the encyclopedic catechism" approach. I'm sure that is comforting to some people who want official pat answers to all their questions, but I prefer Orthodoxy's open-endedness on all but the essentials. (You just better have good reasons to depart from the thinking of the church fathers and mothers on secondary doctrine and prepare to face pushback if you promote a non-mainstream view.) To me, the Orthodox Church was the "best" place to be. It was either that or remain a generic "Protestant Not-Otherwise-Specified," and I knew there was no escaping a tradition of some kind. I could have defaulted to my Evangelical background and been an outlier in my own hybrid, custom school of one, but I longed for a Christian community with an ancient pedigree. As I saw it, Orthodoxy was the most balanced between head and heart, the most theologically sound, the most philosophically serious, the most consistent with and faithful to the apostolic teaching, the most spiritually mature, and the most beneficial for discipline and growth in the Christian life. I wish you the best on your ecclesial journey and pursuit of Truth. 🙂
Thank you. tis is helpful, though I'm not seeing much of the flexibility in much of the orthodox information readily available. I find myself with much in common with Orthodoxy, but several serious concerns to work through.
Austin, thanks for your honesty; protestant here, and I feel that I'm in the exact same boat as you. This journey has become 1000X more complex than I would have ever imagined, but it is what it is lol.
Yeah man. I remember when Gavin Ortlund stated that he's so respectful to other traditions because men and woman who love God and people who are far smarter than him have studied these same issues and all come to different conclusions. As a Protestant, I can say I respectfully understand why someone would become a Catholic or Orthadox. It makes sense to me, I'm just personally not convinced. I am greatful for this journey sense I now have no hostilities twords these groups. Blessings Brother ✝️
It takes as long as it takes. I was an inquirer into Orthodoxy for 10 years. I don't think it *had* to take that long in my own circumstances. In my case, I thought I could read and reason my way all the way into the Church. I would solve every mystery, answer ever question, settle every lingering doubt and *then* I'd become Orthodox. After 10 years of reading and study I finally realized this was a pipe dream. Heck, I've now been Orthodox for 10 years and still haven't accomplished the above. The point I did reach was, knowing that remaining in the Protestant/Evangelical world wasn't a tenable solution and "Where else can I go...?". There was an unavoidable 'leap if faith' element to the final decision. I can say, just over 10 years in now, I've never regretted that decision. You can't toss reason to the wind, but it will only get you so far. The faith is not ultimately a matter of the brain/intellect but a transformation of the heart (in the ancient sense). May God bless your search and grant you what you need to follow His will.
Thanks for that great reminder,, that many of us may try to intellectually try to reason our way and try to find that silver bullet. For some they may find that one thing that is the deciding factor, but for others maybe not. Good to mention the faith factor also..very wise comment thank you..👍🏽🙏🏽❤️🩹
This from Ambrosiaster is enough proof that the Orthodox church is not unchanged since the time of the Apostles. This man boast boldly about changing the Apostolic tradition. This also became law within the Orthodox church for centuries. Later he was found to be 'pseudo' and not the real person. Yet it has become a tradition that overrides scripture and true apostolic tradition. The tone of his writing seems to be triumphant and mocking. It is off putting. 11And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, By apostles Paul means bishops, and by prophets he means expositors of the Scriptures. It may be true that in the early days there were prophets like Agabus and the four virgins, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, but this was in order to support the beginnings of the faith. Nowadays it is interpreters [of Scripture] who are called prophets. The evangelists are deacons, as Philip was.46 Although they are not priests, they are free to evangelize without their own pulpit, just like Stephen and the above-mentioned Philip. The pastors may be readers, who instruct the people with readings, because man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.48 The teachers are the exorcists because in the church they are the ones who restrain and beat the unruly. They are also the ones who used to teach children their lessons, a custom which is found among the Jews and which was inherited by us, but which has become obsolete through neglect. Among these people, who came after the bishop, it is further to be understood that there were those who were said to prophesy because they expounded the hidden meaning of Scripture, particularly because they brought out the words of future hope, which is not the function of the presbyterate. All the orders are found in the bishop, who is the chief priest, that is to say, the prince of the priests, as well as the chief prophet, evangelist and so on, in order to fill the offices of the church’s ministry. However, once churches were established all over the place and offices set up, the system changed from what it had originally been. At the beginning they had all preached and baptized on whatever day and at whatever time was convenient. Philip did not fix a day or a time for the eunuch’s baptism, nor did he assign a period of fasting beforehand. Paul and Silas did not waste any time in baptizing the jailer and all his household,50 nor did Peter have clerks or set a day when he would baptize Cornelius with all his household. He did not do it himself in fact, but ordered the brethren from Joppa who had gone up with him to Cornelius to do so. Up to that time too, no one had been ordained, apart from seven deacons. It was to allow the people to grow and multiply that at the beginning everyone was allowed to evangelize, to baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the church. But when the church became established in every place, congregations were formed and rectors and other officials were appointed, with the result that after that no clerk who was not ordained would dare perform a function which was not appointed or assigned to him. Thus the church began to be governed by a different order and system, because if everyone could do it, there would have been chaos and the whole thing would have looked vulgar and improper. This is why nowadays deacons do not preach in public nor do they (or laymen) baptize, nor are believers anointed on any day whatsoever, unless they happen to be sick. Therefore not everything written by the apostle coincides with the order of things which now exists in the church, because the apostolic writings describe what happened at the beginning. For example, Paul calls Timothy, whom he had made a presbyter, a bishop, because at first presbyters and bishops were the same thing, and when he eventually left the scene Timothy succeeded him. Even today in Egypt presbyters perform confirmations if the bishop is not present. But because succeeding presbyters were not fit to hold the chief offices, the system was changed by judicious foresight, so that it would not be his order but his merit which would create a bishop who would be elected by the judgment of many priests. This was done in order to prevent some unworthy person from claiming the office and becoming a scandal to many. In the law priests were Levites born into the tribe of Aaron. But now everyone belongs to the priestly tribe, as the apostle Peter says: For we are a royal and priestly nation, and therefore anyone can become a priest. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon, ed. Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, trans. Gerald L. Bray, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2009), 48-50.
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Even if you never convert, you've come a long way in terms of understanding what both traditions teach. Had it not been for an invitation to a Catholic men's breakfast, you might never have had any intention of learning about the Catholic faith. Most protestants' "knowledge" of the Catholic Church is at best based on second hand claims from other non-Catholics. You've taken an honest, unbiased approach, which has given you a genuine appreciation of our doctrines, devotions, etc., even if you don't fully agree with them. Kudos!
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689, I believe I can shed some light on the topics in the first half of your question (purgatory, papal infallibility, and papal succession), but it might help if you could let me know beforehand what your church background is and what your beliefs are regarding the essence/formation of Christian doctrine. Regarding the second half of your question, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "and would agree with what they taught". Thank you in advance for your response.
@@davidpope2189 I want to know if the Apostles taught these concepts and if those concepts would agree with what they already taught regarding soteriology and ecclesiology in their epistles.
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689, OK, fair enough. But again, knowing what your church background is and what your beliefs are regarding the essence/formation of Christian doctrine will help me immensely in framing my answer. Are you a Catholic now or were you one at some point in your life? Or have you always been a non-Catholic? If you are not a Catholic, what church/denomination/religion (if any) do you belong to? Regarding the essence/formation of Christian doctrine, do you believe in Sola Scriptura, or do you believe that some Christian doctrines can develop gradually, based on something that was taught by the Apostles, regardless of whether it appears explicitly in the Bible? And what exactly is your understanding of how the Apostles themselves formed their teachings on soteriology and ecclesiology? Once again, thank you in advance for your response.
@@davidpope2189 I'm non catholic and have not been convinced to say the least and need these doctrines to be supported by the Apostles epistles that they left the church as their traditions were preserved both by word of mouth and were written down as shown in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Written tradition (Epistles) and oral tradition must agree or else something has gone awry. I look forward to your answer. Thanks in advance!
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
One big mistake I was making just generally was this idea that I could have epistemic certainty about things that I really couldn't have certainty about. It seems like you've got a grasp on that though, you seem to understand that as much as we might want it, we aren't going to have absolute or even near-certainty about our beliefs. It's not easy to come to grips with, because it means you either have a ton of work ahead of you which may still lead you down the wrong path, or you have to throw in your lot with some creed without reasonable certainty that you made the right choice. It's a difficult position to be in, even if it is an inevitable part of critically examining our beliefs. If I'm being honest, when I converted to Catholicism I felt very certain about it at a time when I had the least reason to be certain about it. I don't regret my choice, but I could never really justify it to anyone else in hindsight. One thing I have been thinking about a lot lately is, given the diversity of creeds out there, I find it hard to believe that Jesus will hold us completely accountable for every exact doctrine. Am I going to learn ancient Greek? No. Am I going to study every ancient manuscript? No. Not only do most people not have the means to do this, most people, if we're being honest, simply aren't intelligent enough to do this - I count myself in that group. I find it more helpful to focus on building charity in myself and those I love, and properly following as best I know how. What else can you do when you consider the monumental epistemic challenge we have today? Idk, I don't want to come off as a relativist, I think we can't just accept everyone and everything just because it's hard to figure out what's true, but I'm just saying that on your journey to making the choice it seems to still be possible to grow in faith and love for God and that might have to be good enough, at least for a little while.
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
I get where you're coming from. As a fellow ecclesiastical hobo myself, I've noticed that older faiths like Catholicism or Orthodoxy can make the Gospel seem more complicated than it needs to be. Even if we don't dive into the history stuff, all the strict "dogmatic" beliefs can make it tough for someone who just wants a straightforward view of the Gospel. Many blessings.
@@svrsl7819 The Church translate the Bible from Greek to Latin to allow people to read the Bible in their own languaje, this is why the name is Vulgata.
@@svrsl7819 I wouldn't say that is so much the case today. A generation or more ago, it was still the case. Catholics think the way it is now is the way it always was. Ask some elderly Catholics and they still adhere to the old ways. My grandma came right out and told me she doens't read the bible, because she doesn't want her head to get screwed up like me, lol. That was the teaching in her day. You can't understand it on your own, just do whatever the church tells you, and it's up to the church to interpret it for you.
@@svrsl7819Right... let me guess, you believe that the first vernacular translation was the Luther bible. News flash: the bible has been translated into vernaculars for obvious reasons in an unbroken line. Not usually the entire bible, but that's beside the point - even after the canon(s) were established, it was exceedingly rare for the entire set to exist in a single codex. Usually there was multiple codices. That aside, "the bible," if we are honest and talk about biblical texts rather than the whole thing as we know it, has been translated into every major European vernacular long before the Reformation. This isn't even revisionist history, it's simply wrong.
makes it feel like you have to have a masters degree in orthodoxy or Catholicism in order to understand it all. How does a normal person come to convert without deciding to do so before you actually understand all the beliefs?
Really appreciate this sharing! As a Chinese Christian I’ve become increasingly aware of the need for intellectual satisfaction for a Western mind. As much as I am going through pretty much the same thing, not fitting in with Protestants anymore, strongly leaning towards Orthodoxy, but still there’s something holding me back from fully converting. The reason is not so much a lack of intellectual persuasion. That’s hardly ever been an issue for my Asian mind. I love the depth of the East, yet I insist that the zeal of the West to grow in breadth should be emphasized as much. I really look forward to seeing that one final version of Christianity emerging, where Christians would have the depth of Orthodoxy while sharing the zeal of the Catholics and Protestants to get out there and preach the gospel at all cost.
I've often thought of this, but recently I realized that we Orthodox have done tremendous missionary work. From the beginning with the Holy Apostles, the the conversion of entire kingdoms and empires, to the work of St Herman of Alaska, St John of Sanfrancisco and Shanghai or St Raphael of Brooklyn. Maybe one issue is that I as a laymen can't just decide to go out and be a missionary. There's a process and maybe that makes it seem like there's less fervor among Orthodox to evangelize. Also, we seem to be more focused on working out our own salvation and in many ways I think that's a good thing. Not really sure to be honest, just speculating.
Have you considered the Eastern Catholic churches? Eastern Christianity but in communion with Church of Rome? They are remnants of what the church looked like prior to the Great Schism of 1054 and centuries before Protestantism was ever heard of. I think that the Orthodox are much more like national churches like the Anglicans are as we can see from the schism between Russian Orthodox and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on account of the latter recognizing the independence/Autocephaly of the Ukrainian church. And of course the Russian Orthodox Church are 100% in support of Russia's leaders while those of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine totally condemn Russia's invasion. That Great Schism is one of the key reasons why Orthodoxy lost so much of its heartland and people to Islam including the Hagia Sophia, once the greatest church in Christendom but now a mosque.
When you say, "depth of Orthodoxy", could elaborate more, are you commenting on the Orthodox rites? If you meant 'rites', then might I suggest you explore the Eastern Catholic Churches? You will experience a rite that is more aligned with Orthodox Churches but communion with the Pope. Eastern Catholics can give former Protestants without antipapacy bias, some room theologically. For example, Eastern Catholics do not recite the 'filioque' in their Creed and do not have to follow Rome's form on the rites and pastoral approaches (Eastern Catholic leaders have advised for example, that Fidducia Supplicans does not apply to them). God bless you and hope you find the fullness of truth.
While looking for the history of missions for evangelism in both aspects, I think it comes to different reasons for this appearance of "less evangelism". The Roman Catholic Church was established in countries which had easier access to the oceans, and ended up discovering the Americas, which, naturally, led the religion to expand further to the natives. Furthermore, I've found that the RCC used more military and political force to bring about conversion of the masses, not only in the Americas, but also very much so in european countries. How can the gospel of peace be preached by a sword? Meanwhile, the Orthodox seem to always have had a more peaceful approach to evangelism, all while also bearing much more persecution from the Ottoman Empire and the communist regime. So, the Orthodox have been more repressed than the RCC, have had less political and military power and also ended up in countries with less colonialism, but, even so, they're still thriving. For me, at least, that has been a meaningful sign. The RUclipsr Ubis Petrus has a long list of videos covering specifically many Eastern Orthodox evangelism missions. I think, you'd like those!
As a catholic convert , I really enjoy your channel . I cannot stress this enough , but please take your time and keep doing what you do! if you stay Protestant , that is the decision that comes with the free will god gives us . God bless!
What got me over the top to ultimately leave Protestant ministry in 2011 was that I could collectively trust the ancient, apostolic churches more. With the papacy aside for the moment which is distinctive claim of Catholicism, there really is a deep unity in the Faith that we all have with one another even if not fully united. I understand it can be quite excruciating to choose between the Apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic/Oriental, Assyrian Church of the East, etc), but I think the reward of going with one of them is way worth it. I just couldn't imagine being in church without monasteries around the world or in possession of the relics of the apostles or inheriting their churches where they preached. There is this living memory in the apostolic churches that cannot always be proven from what remains of history and this requires a level of trust. The Dormition of Mary and honoring icons are the most difficult historically speaking but deep down, I do think Mary's body was translated out of here as the Ark of our Lord and that kissing the cross on Good Friday or the Face of our Lord on the shroud is something that the Apostles would commend and be cool with. We can't miss the forest for the trees. We have one life to live and cannot live in limbo forever. Obviously, I am just speaking for my journey and appreciate your transparency.
I would also add that I cannot prove historically everything that happened in my own life but its hidden in my memory and soul. The Church is very similar in this regards which is why from Spain to India they embraced honoring icons and Mary's Dormition. There is something about this quote by Lossky that rings true: "It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries which the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness.... The Mother of God was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world, the mystery of His Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church.... It is not so much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition..." [Panagia, in The Mother of God, ed. E.L. Mascall, p.35].
@@barrelagedfaith I kind of a similar experience. I mean I do still have moments of doubts, I believe most if not all of us have. But when I start pondering about the alternative, for example Protestantism, with everything I know now I just can't see me going that way ever. I can feel content with not knowing everything, but putting trust in the Church for these matters. When I read St. Irenaeus for example, or other saints like St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, or simply reading a book about the depths of the faith, I know that this is so compelling! And I simply just don't see a Protestant church in history. If evidence of early attestation would be my radar, then I'm not sure which direction to go, as I don't find these things as a whole in history. Sure, maybe you'd find parts that may resemble certain things like Sola Scriptura or something, but when looking at the whole the parts just don't seem to fit. You could point to how highly St. Irenaeus regards scripture, how he keeps going on and on citing scripture, St. Paul this, Matthew that, John the apostle this, etc, etc. But you also see an assumption of a universal church, a consistent unity in teaching and agreeance, apostolic succession, an exalted view of Rome and Peter. That said, it are tough things to deal, strictly intellectual I'd be lost.
True, I can't live without worshiping monks, the bones of the apostles, or or committing idolatry. Go read some books brother, or maybe the Bible. @@johnthr33
I don’t think I’ve ever related to a video more. Thank you for putting into better words than I can how I feel! Ex: I’ve described it to my husband I feel like I’m either Protestant but “adding” things or Catholic and “removing” things for lack of better words. Better way to describe it is I feel too Catholic to be Protestant and too Protestant to be Catholic
Yes! Beautifully put! I'm of a Pentecostal tradition, much of which I affirm, but steer very close to Orthodoxy in many other areas, and near Catholic in a couple. Thank God His Kingdom is bigger than any one denomination!
I feel the same but towards orthodoxy. I disagree with prayer to saints, marian theology and icons but i do agree salvation is theosis. So am i protestant or Eastern orthodox? I believe in being counted righteous in Christ by faith apart from works (romans 3 and 1 clement 37) but i believe in judgement by works. I believe we can actually obey by the Spirit. I believe those who walk by the flesh will perish regardless of their profession of faith (gal 5). I think a Christian is one who walks in the Spirit obeying all Jesus taught and trusts in Christ for the forgiveness of sin (being counted righteous in Him). Its a relationship with Jesus. Union with Christ aka theosis. I just call myself a Christian.
@@Aaron637 I do wonder how so many Catholics and Orthodox stay convinced of the practices that you mentioned you can't sanction any more. There are all sorts of apologist channels that do deep dives into why you should do all those things. I don't find them convincing, but they are interesting.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 to be clear, im a Protestant. Ive never prayed to saints or venerated mary etc. just to be clear. But I agree with theosis as the path of salvation.
I'm glad you made this video and appreciate your honesty as others have stated in the comments. I've been on a similar journey alongside you, but really, I have further confirmed my Protestantism. Yet I truly adore the traditions in art and liturgy as well as the more solemn and sacred feel to an orthodox service. Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites is another channel I've found, equally offering sincere discovery, explanation, and fairness to arguments while at the same time showing much grace.
Ditto, as former agnostic I'd rather be Buddhist than be Orthodox despite having strong spiritual experience in childhood. Took me 3 years of almost 24/7 learning before I walked into Orthodox Church despite it being few miles away and saw almost every day
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Great video, I have always respected your candor. I am Orthodox and was never protestant. I went from raging atheist straight to Orthodoxy. I have noticed that others in my circle had a much longer and harder road of having to unlearn their old mindset and beliefs even after being baptized into Holy Orthodoxy, and I consider myself grateful for learning the Orthodox way from the ground up. If you don't believe in Orthodoxy, don't convert, I think this is a good mindset. That being said; we only have a limited amount of time on Earth and it is impossible to have a complete understanding of all doctrinal and historical matters relevant to making a decision. I myself am still after going on 4 years in the Church, learning constantly. I am Orthodox, not because I accept a list of beliefs that my Church accepts, but because I believe in the Church itself. I believe our Lord's promises that the Church will prevail forever, and that the Church is no less than his mystical body on Earth. I answer Saint Paul's rhetorical question "Is Christ divided" with a resounding "NO" meaning that if people are divided by practice, and doctrine, then they cannot be part of the body of Christ. I have learned that if my personal beliefs contradict the Orthodox belief, then it is I who need to change and not Christ. I'm sure my Roman Catholic friends would feel similarly but I hope that helps you understand where we are coming from a bit more. It's not necessarily a list of theological ideas that makes me Orthodox, but the ecclesiastical belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and it's divine authority. God bless.
I have many issues with your comment. You may be surprised to find out how many Protestants and Catholics are indeed part of the Mystical Body of Christ. The same Holy Spirit has been working in our churches and in our Saints as well
@dawn2508 It fits in the life of the very Church that compiled and canonized it, the Church in which God's word lives and breathes in its fullest context. Christ foremost established and gave us a Church, not a book. "I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). "The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The Bible is a fruit of the Church, and yet all the little popes (Protestants) see fit to interpret it for themselves and have since divided into approximately 30,000 registered denominations. This was not God's intent when, in fact, the faith was fully and completely given at Pentecost. "The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
@@dawn2508 The Bible is the inerrent, written Word of God - All Catholics and Orthodox believe this. Notice how he talks about "Our Lord's promises that the Church will prevail forever" - That's a reference to Matthew 16:18-19. Notice how he talks about St. Paul's question of "Is Christ divided?" - That's a reference to 1 Cor. 1:13. I understand the defensive impulse to constantly return to "What about the Bible?", especially when dialoging with non-Protestants, because I was a Baptist for most of my life. But often you'll find that when you look closely, Catholics and Orthodox are referencing Scripture without citing verse numbers as many Protestants do. Also, it's important to note that "Word of God" does not apply only to the Bible. We see it applying to three things in Scripture: Jesus Christ, as the fullest expression of the Word. Sacred Scripture, which is the written Word of God. Finally, Tradition, which is the spoken Word of God St. Paul instructs us to hold fast to in 2 Thess. 2:15. Tradition isn't simply a set of customs - It's the teachings of the apostles handed on, including how the Church has always interpreted certain passages of Scripture, like Matthew 16:18 for example. Without Tradition to help elucidate Scripture, we'd be back to individual people trying to interpret Scripture for themselves and reaching wildly different conclusions, as Protestants are forced to do. This was a factor in my own conversation - I recognized quickly I wasn't nearly wise or discerning enough to interpret all of Scripture myself of establish my own systematic theology. I started to realize God must have installed a divine interpreter of His divine revelation.
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@christsavesreadromans1096 1 Corinthians 3 does not teach purgatory. Go learn to read again. Hmm, 1 Timothy 3:15 should be read in light of the preceding verse that actually proves "scripture alone." In verse 14 Paul very clearly states if he is delayed it will be his writing that will direct Timothy's conduct in the church. Again learn to read. As for Matthias. that is absolutely not what I was asking for. That was still when the church was forming and Matthias fulfilled scripture when he took over Judas' place. TRY AGAIN!
@christsavesreadromans1096 Huh? Can you seriously not read? That does not say the person will be burned, only the person's works will be burned up but they will be saved as through the fire.
@christsavesreadromans1096 Again, you cannot read nor reason apparently. Paul is an apostle and he clearly tells Timothy that if he is delayed or not present that it will be his writing that will direct Timothy's conduct and doctrine in the church. “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” I Timothy 3:14-15 NKJV
It took me 6 years before deciding to enter the Catholic Church, and God taught me so much along the way - I'm so grateful for that journey and my time as a Protestant Christian. One thing in my own discernment I needed to realize was that even as a Christian it is easy to remain a skeptic. At some point I had to make an informed decision with faith (ie. If Christ really did establish the Church, then I believe the Church's teaching on the Assumption of Mary etc. without it needing to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt). An understanding of apologetics, being able to know and defend our faith, is good (faith seeking understanding) but it can also lead a person down a road of taking a skeptical approach to everything, in which we will never truly trust God, but rather our intellect. To agree with a claim is not the same thing as faith... If all I have is agreement, then the next time I have a question, I won't believe until someone convinces me, until the next time I have a question, and so on. Faith is not just intellectual agreement, but trust that doesn't just live in our heads but affects the way we live. This is true not only in becoming a Christian but in Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic discernment I believe. We need to ask questions, but skepticism begins by demanding something be proven before being willing to accept it, and from my experience that gives the enemy a foothold to steal our joy. I think Eastern Orthodox theology is far superior to the western mindset in this area and we can learn a lot from them. I share this as something I went through and learned in my discerning becoming Catholic or remaining Protestant, and it might not be the same story for you. I will be praying for you Austin, may Jesus lead and guide you to the Eucharist and always closer to His Sacred Heart.
The church is all those on Christ. When the word is used in a physical sense it’s 2 or more gathered in his name. Church history doesn’t hold up for me there are way to many contradicting messy political things and just not enough information to make y’all’s claim of succession with confidence. Too many mediums to Christ etc. the apostles were the only infallible authority and their writings handed down. The Catholic Church has taken way to many liberties adding onto and “improving” the apostles teachings and foundation. Infant baptism etc. This is what Jesus has to say about Mary 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 they can’t nor can they in the first 150 years during the persecutions and underground churches set up where non of that was happening
One thing I've learned as an Orthodox, it's not always best to know how everything works. I don't understand how cars work, or how my phone works, I just know that it does work.
Would you mind unpacking what you mean by “not best?” Do you just mean that it’s not necessary to understand the complex inner workings of certain theological ideas, or that knowledge of those things is actually harmful?
Same here but it was super duper easier for me to become Episcopalian- they embrace all of the forms of apostolic sacramental Nicene liturgy, but without medieval baggage tacked on. However, sometimes the demythologizing hits a nerve and goes too far, so these days I am concerned that the creeds are voiced without conviction and the Bible is disregarded. I doubt there is much of a future with TEC.
It probably behooves you to understand how worldly tools work. There's a reason why modern technology is viewed with such suspicion in many Orthodox parishes and certainly in the monastic tradition. Your iPhone is not a Holy Mystery.
Couldn’t empathize more Austin. My journey over the last two years has been extremely similar and as someone who has recently graduated college, considering church leadership, and planning an engagement, I’ve had several difficult conversations about this topic specifically. Feeling alienated based on either what I consider important for Church Life or whether I would convert (from a Non-Denominational/Historical Baptist), and how that would impact my closest people and my future, Lord Willing, fiancé. All I know is that I seek to follow Jesus where He leads and I love being ecumenical in my approach to other brothers and sisters and lastly, is a much more complicated topic than I was prepared for nor did I expect not too long ago.
This from Ambrosiaster is enough proof that the Orthodox church is not unchanged since the time of the Apostles. This man boast boldly about changing the Apostolic tradition. This also became law within the Orthodox church for centuries. Later he was found to be 'pseudo' and not the real person. Yet it has become a tradition that overrides scripture and true apostolic tradition. The tone of his writing seems to be triumphant and mocking. It is off putting. Finding things like this in my study has really kept me grounded and away from being boxed. Michael Heiser once said "I would rather be outside the box seeing what is in it, rather than being in the box unable to fully investigate'. 11And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, By apostles Paul means bishops, and by prophets he means expositors of the Scriptures. It may be true that in the early days there were prophets like Agabus and the four virgins, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, but this was in order to support the beginnings of the faith. Nowadays it is interpreters [of Scripture] who are called prophets. The evangelists are deacons, as Philip was.46 Although they are not priests, they are free to evangelize without their own pulpit, just like Stephen and the above-mentioned Philip. The pastors may be readers, who instruct the people with readings, because man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.48 The teachers are the exorcists because in the church they are the ones who restrain and beat the unruly. They are also the ones who used to teach children their lessons, a custom which is found among the Jews and which was inherited by us, but which has become obsolete through neglect. Among these people, who came after the bishop, it is further to be understood that there were those who were said to prophesy because they expounded the hidden meaning of Scripture, particularly because they brought out the words of future hope, which is not the function of the presbyterate. All the orders are found in the bishop, who is the chief priest, that is to say, the prince of the priests, as well as the chief prophet, evangelist and so on, in order to fill the offices of the church’s ministry. However, once churches were established all over the place and offices set up, the system changed from what it had originally been. At the beginning they had all preached and baptized on whatever day and at whatever time was convenient. Philip did not fix a day or a time for the eunuch’s baptism, nor did he assign a period of fasting beforehand. Paul and Silas did not waste any time in baptizing the jailer and all his household,50 nor did Peter have clerks or set a day when he would baptize Cornelius with all his household. He did not do it himself in fact, but ordered the brethren from Joppa who had gone up with him to Cornelius to do so. Up to that time too, no one had been ordained, apart from seven deacons. It was to allow the people to grow and multiply that at the beginning everyone was allowed to evangelize, to baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the church. But when the church became established in every place, congregations were formed and rectors and other officials were appointed, with the result that after that no clerk who was not ordained would dare perform a function which was not appointed or assigned to him. Thus the church began to be governed by a different order and system, because if everyone could do it, there would have been chaos and the whole thing would have looked vulgar and improper. This is why nowadays deacons do not preach in public nor do they (or laymen) baptize, nor are believers anointed on any day whatsoever, unless they happen to be sick. Therefore not everything written by the apostle coincides with the order of things which now exists in the church, because the apostolic writings describe what happened at the beginning. For example, Paul calls Timothy, whom he had made a presbyter, a bishop, because at first presbyters and bishops were the same thing, and when he eventually left the scene Timothy succeeded him. Even today in Egypt presbyters perform confirmations if the bishop is not present. But because succeeding presbyters were not fit to hold the chief offices, the system was changed by judicious foresight, so that it would not be his order but his merit which would create a bishop who would be elected by the judgment of many priests. This was done in order to prevent some unworthy person from claiming the office and becoming a scandal to many. In the law priests were Levites born into the tribe of Aaron. But now everyone belongs to the priestly tribe, as the apostle Peter says: For we are a royal and priestly nation, and therefore anyone can become a priest. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon, ed. Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, trans. Gerald L. Bray, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2009), 48-50.
@@Sonwalkers247The Orthodox position is that there is freedom and authority in the Apostolic Church (and precedent in the New Testament-see Acts 15) to order her own household with the help/leading of the Holy Spirit to meet the needs of changing circumstances. This does not change her dogma or essential sacramental understandings of the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, the Eucharist, and of Bishops, Priests & Deacons. I would encourage you not only to read the commentary edited by Protestants that you cite, but to read also what Orthodox and Catholic scholars teach about such things and to read directly whole writings of the early Church Fathers who expound on these organizational developments so you have more context in which to understand what is meant by “unchanged” from an Orthodox (or Catholic) perspective.
This is actually a direct quote from an Orthodox source. Sorry you are in error and justifying a lie. This is a called a ‘delusion’ or rather a searing of the conscience in a specific area. Triumphalism proves nothing. Oddly enough you guys all use more random quotes to justify yourselves, proving you guys had almost 800 years of doctrinal development. One has to only read the first 300 years of church history to find the bright blinking lights of contradiction. For instance you guys did have a teaching of deification but it was not even a developed theology until the 19th century then it was everywhere. The problem is you have a box theology that only pulls from the box you are in. You can never fully investigate the box from the inside. The proof of salvation is the departure from iniquity not the beauty of orthodoxy. Paul argued with those who rejected the power of God in favor of Greek philosophy and counterfeit humility with false ascetics in Corinthians as well as Colossians. Unfortunately despite all the epistles being listed prior to the second century as useful you guys triump over that by telling everyone your group gave us the scriptures rather than confirm what was in use by all the saints throughout the known world. I do believe your sect is very old but years of study have led me to believe it is a refined sect of Judaism mixed with Greek philosophy that Paul continued to warn about in his epistles. I mean come on you guys even re-wrote the gifts of the spirit and continually coming against them outside of extra biblical miracles such as relics and bleeding icons, and the few monastics, which again contradicts the early monastics who went to the desert to escape a corrupt Orthodox Church who married themselves to politicians. It is my prayer that you have a true encounter not with wood and paint but the living God that you may have a relationship with Him likened to fire.
Definitely appreciate this a lot. I feel like I am in a very similar place of having a much deeper appreciation for church history, orthodoxy/catholicism, sacrementalism, etc; but at the same time not fully being convinced and ending up in this weird middle-ground ecclesially that doesn't really fit in with anything. I also appreciate you saying that you have stayed with your current low-church evangelical church while you are on this journey, that is the same situation I am in with my wife and daughter. It definitely helps me feel not quite as alone in the wandering, so thank you for this 🙏🏻
Im with You on that same journey. ;) I grew up as a catholic and event wanted to be a priest. Than I was interested in orthodoxy and ended as protestant even I know about its problems.
@@ukaszkrawczyk6260Wow we are like mirrors😂. I grew up protestant in Germany and converted to catholic in December. Only difference is I do not want to become.priest
In Orthodoxy, you are in communion with God. I heard it once compared as this: Say God is a tree in this scenario… the West will examine the fruit, cut the tree down to count the rings, be very analytical about things. But the East will play under the tree, get married under the tree, and get buried under the tree. I know this may not change your heart, but the Holy Spirit led me to the Orthodox Church nearly 5 years ago and it changed my life. I went from Agnostic and drug addicted to now having a husband and two beautiful babies. During my journey, I also got to reconcile things with my father whom I hadn’t spoken to in over a decade, that was now battling lung cancer. I asked God for one thing and it was to please let me make up for lost time with my Dad and I will forever be His servant - mind you I was agnostic at the time and this was the first time I ever really prayed. And God answered my prayer! Two years together and it truly changed the both of us. I’m forever in debt to God for giving me so many blessings which I do not deserve, but He is a good God that loves mankind. I hope my testimony can open your hearts to the true faith. Thank you! You both will be in our prayers ❤
😂😂😂 the Bible is a church tradition… the ignorance of y’all is ridiculous once you know there no bible without the church there isn’t staying Protestant sorry. You guys are the ones with new traditions. Not the traditions Paul pass down to Timothy.
@@EliteBaby-bh7zq No, not really. two thirds of it existed long before the consolidation of the many autonomous churches came together under the command of Constantine to standardize Christian doctrine, teachings and scriptures. It wasn't the Roman Catholic church, but autonomous churches that had various minor and some major differences then and the Bishop of Rome was the same as any other bishop. God guided the men at this council to put together an agreed upon New Testament to add to the already existing and established Old Testament, which the church had nothing to do with. Not only that, but they had a major crisis on their hands with Arianism and what to do with it. There was no Papal Decree, Bull of Dogma that came out against Arias, but a creed that was agreed upon by the many bishops present. The beginnings of what is known as the Roman Catholic Church really didn't come into being until after St Augustine, after his works laid a basic foundation for what would become modern Catholicism. Finally, even if the New Testament was a product of the church as it is taught by Catholicism and Orthodoxy, then why does the church not follow many of the teachings found in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible is the Constitution of the church and I'm sorry to say, but many of the so called Dogmas of the Church are a bit unconstitutional. Any thing any church comes up with to be tradition should be held under the light of Scripture and verify if it complies with the teachings in Scripture or is against the teaching of Scripture. Anything that takes away glory and honor from God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not of God, and there are too many things in Catholicism and Orthodoxy that take the place of what is the Triune God's only. Even if the Church is given the final Authority, it is not reasonable to proclaim a Dogma that doesn't comply with Scripture. Scripture tells us to test the Spirits and teachings of others as the Bereans did as an example. When Paul sent letters to the churches the believers at Berea searched the scriptures (then the Old Testament/Septuagint) to verify his teachings and they were commended for it. If you can feel comfortable with the various Catholic doctrines such as Marian veneration and the "Immaculate Conception" and "Bodily Assumption" of Mary (which wasn't dogmatized until around 1850) and see no contradiction in God's Word, then good for you. That is just one example, but I pray for all of us to seek to know the Lord more and that is why I study both my Bible, history (both ecclesiastical and secular) daily to learn and absorb all I can about Jesus, my savior.
@@pl1guru keeping it short and sweet Ik you don’t know what your taking about because you said we didn’t get the ot from the church I guess you mean we get the ot for the Jews.😂 no we don’t we get the ot from the Jews we get it from the church that’s we our cannon is 76 and not 66 because the church didn’t follow and listen to Jews who reject the Christ. For some reason you think it’s valid to get the cannon from the Jews and killed and rejected Jesus but not his church who was killed for his name sake. Btw I’m orthodox not catholic so don’t bring up anything catholic. If you want to talk about mother Mary what do you what to know that she’s the mother of god or queen of heaven because that’s in your short bible (66 books). Also we did y’all take books out the Bible. Until you go to the orthodox faith you have no grounds to believe the Bible. Most surely not a cannon from Jews who think Jesus was a false prophet😂 you sound like a Muslim. “ we have same one god”😂😂
Austin: Fairly conservative Catholic in Chicago here, who attends St. John Cantius, a church with which you have some familiarity. You're fine just as you are. Kepp following Christ and you won't be led in the wrong direction. You're our brother in Christ, regardless of where you worship on a Sunday morning. I have the utmost respect for the way you have sincerely approached all of these things you cover in your videos. May God continue to bless you.
@ljones436 In charity, what you're saying is a rejection of the truth of Christ. The Church anathematizes anyone who says that the faith of Rome does not need to be held.
@@j.knight9335 There is nothing in the CCC that states salvation is found only in the Church. Indeed, the Church doesn't own salvation and therefore cannot limit Grace.
@@ljones436 The CCC is not our infallible rule of faith. The Magesterium is. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.” Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed). That's dogma.
@@ljones436 The CCC is not our infallible rule of faith. The dogmatic definitions of the Magesterium are. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.” Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed). That's dogma.
As a non-resistant non-believer myself I really appreciate the honesty of this video. Sometimes, despite really wanting something to be true we are not convinced by the evidence to believe that it is true. I know personally how emotionally and spiritually taxing this can be, wishing you the best no matter where you end up
I don't mean this as a denigration, but your own words speak volumes: "we are not convinced by the evidence to believe that it is true". I'd say you already believe in your own parameters as to what counts as ''evidence" to be true and are convinced of your own powers of discernment. It's circular as all human-based logic is. Christ isn't the conclusion of of a logical chain, but logic's very foundation (as Logos), and thus its very Mystery. Human logic without Christ can neither lead to Truth nor salvation due to the inherent circularity of which your own words give ample demonstration. In addition, when we follow that circularity around we die spiritually in (at least) two ways. First, through contradiction due to our 'search' only within that circular movement as we find ourselves far too often 'convinced' of a position we once held opposite to another of which we were once equally 'convinced,' thus we neither find Christ nor do we uphold our principles of logic: that of non-contradiction. Secondly, we stop searching altogether and end in nihilism and/or some totalizing ideology or fundamentalism. Neither of these speak to the pride which, I believe, is the foundational motivation here. Like you I was once a non-believer. I placed great value on what I counted as my 'hard agnosticism' and the primacy of human reasoning. Again, I don't mean these words to denigrate you in any way, but to point out the fact that in all honesty, you do seem actually and to actively believe in yourself as the arbiter of Truth. Recognizing this very motivation in myself is part of why I became an Orthodox Christian. God bless you!
Yep, I do think so (although on an intellectual level I'd probably have some qualms with, it has convinced me emotionally/spiritually). I currently would call myself an Agnostic Christian, my beliefs are that of an agnostic but I am trying to live as a Christian would. I've been going to Church (which I did before I de-converted a few years ago), reading the Bible, praying to God, and trying to follow Jesus as best I can. I've personally been using the Book of Common Prayer (1662 International Edition) as at the moment if I did become convinced of the creed I'd become an Anglican as that is where I have landed theologically, but also because it's a great prayer book. Do you have any tips for someone actively taking pascal's wager? @@hjc1402
I've already tried to reply to this once, but it doesn't seem to have worked so I'll try again. Yes, I think I am a good candidate for Pascal's wager! I am currently taking the wager and describe myself as an Agnostic Christian. My beliefs are those of an agnostic but I am trying to live my life, to the best extent possible, as a Christian. I have restarted praying to God (if there is one), reading the Bible, Going to Church and trying to follow Jesus and his teachings. If you've got any advice for someone taking the wager, I'd love to hear it!@@hjc1402
Even when I became Catholic, I wasn’t completely intellectually convinced, I just knew it was the only way and I decided to humble my intellect a little and trust the Fathers and the saints that have gone before me. It was when I dove in and submitted myself to the Church, and began living the life of the Church, inwardly and outwardly, that the Faith became more and more alive, and the missing puzzle pieces started coming together, and they still are. I realized people can debate endlessly and there can always be objections to anything. There comes a point when one just has to DO what he knows is right and true, regardless if he’s fully grasped its understanding. Beware of paralysis by analysis.. Hope that helps.
Not gunna beware of that that’s being like the bereans one of the reasons I’m not catholic or orthadox too much trust in a messy contradicting fallible muddy history. No offense but it’s not an issue of humility.
@@shaner2114 same feelings. when you actually dig into church history too it’s so misleading contradicting political and messy. When I was looking into orthadoxy it was the “succession” and “history” that actually deterred me. It is almost sad that people buy into it especially when most of the important ordinances and practices don’t appear anywhere till 200 ad and onward and have people arguing over it and getting on to people practicing said thing in question. mind blowing. especially infant baptism imo
@@shaner2114 for us Catholics the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. So submitting to the Church is actually submitting to Christ and viceversa. That does not mean to blindly obey and do everything that any priest or other Church authority says, however we believe that the Church is being led and guided by the Holy Spirit and that its definitive teachings are valid. Maybe from outside it can look like we are putting Church above Christ himself, but for any faithful Catholic that is certainly not the case as we percieve Christ as the Head of the mystical body we call Church. Hopes that helps you out. God bless all fellow Christians out there!
@@shaner2114Jesus indeed is the Way. And he established a Church on earth which is his body. You cannot have a head without the body. To follow Jesus is to live within His Church.
My conversion to Orthodoxy from Reformed protestantism was not intellectual and I was not convinced of a lot of Orthodox doctrines. In fact, I was uneasy and even offended by a lot of Orthodox doctrines when I started attending my parish. It was a spiritual process, based on real experience of Christ, and truthfully I am still converting even years after I was received into the Church. Don't rush your spiritual life, God is patient. Pray, be humble, and if you feel the need to discern Orthodoxy then I would recommend faithful attendance of the services for at least a year in order to begin understanding.
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
i had a period where i was reading more than i ever had before and while i learned a lot i just grew numb from it, i stepped back for a while and just meditated on the most simple aspects of the faith for a while and when i returned to my studies they were much more profitable, not trying to say anything about your situation this is just what i experienced
That's where I am now - stepping back from the intellectual debates and focusing on the basics. Gavin Ortlund talks a lot about intellectual anxiety and the craving for factual clarity that is rooted in the soul, rather than in the nature of facts.
I have never seen anyone articulate my thoughts on this matter more! Thank you for your content, it’s been comforting watching your journey alongside of my own.
I appreciate your authenticity and gracious engagement as you seek to understand those who see the faith differently. I wish I knew you while you were a student at Moody! God bless your ministry, brother.
With the help of your videos I have embraced holy orthodoxy and joined a parish! And have taken my faith seriously. So thank you for all that you do, seriously huge fan! P.S. still rooting for you to come to holy orthodoxy ☦️☦️
Dude, thank you. I feel the same way. I love so many things from the old churches, but I simply haven’t found enough evidence to convince me to convert (despite my best efforts).
Thank you so much for sharing your journey with us, Austin! I am totally with you on this. I started my own exploration of Catholicism and Orthodoxy over a decade ago with a genuine openness to convert. Your channel has been very helpful! The way it was put to me by Catholic apologists was if I wanted to learn why there is no historical precedent for Protestant distinctives all I had to do was read the Church Fathers. So, I took this at face value and dove in. My conclusion? The more I read of the Church Fathers the more I realized that the Reformation was, while imperfect, inevitable. Modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy simply paints themselves and their faithful into corners with more non-negotiables than I am able to intellectually ascribe to given what I know of history. You gave some great examples I agree with. I love iconography, too, by the way! Lastly, I sympathize with the often awkward loneliness that comes with being ecclesiastically homeless. Many folks interested in patristics do not agree with me and many folks I agree with are not interested in patristics. What to do? The reason I am now a settled Protestant is that its tradition is, for better and worse, more flexible. In my view, it is very difficult for Catholic and Orthodox faithful to follow the truth wherever it leads. For me, that is a non-negotiable.
@@yeahnothx-e9l I grew up in Baptist churches and am comfortable staying there. I have been blessed to find a congregation with a growing appreciation of the church calendar, liturgy, and sacraments. Thank you for asking. I welcome questions. Always happy to support a fellow traveler. 🙂
Born and raised Catholic, I intellectually knew the Catholic Church’s teachings. I never truly understood the faith until I encountered the true Jesus in Eucharistic Adoration.
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 Thank you for the question and remaining respectful. Many people like to use the platform with disrespect. In light of 1 Timothy 3:15 (the church is the pillar of truth): 1) purgatory: Matthew 5:26, Matthew 12:32, 1 Corinth 3:11-15, (and other verses found in what is called the apocrypha) 2) papal succession: Acts 1:12-26 (example of the need to replace Judas), 3) papal infallibility: Luke 10:16, Matthew 16: 17-19, (and other basic traditions and all Christians honor, such as the belief that, though the writers of the Gospels and letters were flawed humans, we believe their writings are infallible.)
I can relate to how you're feeling. 🙂 As a cradle Roman Catholic, the RCC did a great job of catechizing me on Catholic doctrine. But not so much on the Bible. And really almost nothing about interacting with the indwelling Holy Spirit. One day I asked God to fill me with His Spirit (not expecting any bells or whistles, obviously!) and was shocked to actually feel and "hear" Him begin communicating to me in 'thought pictures' so rapidly I could barely keep up. I've never been the same since. After 8 years of resisting the Lord's guidance, I finally left the RCC and attended evangelical protestant churches for 30+ years. I learned so much more about God and my faith in evangelical circles. I truly feel that protestant churches in general do a better job than any other churches of bringing people to true faith in Jesus Christ. But then God led me to return to a liturgical church with traditional hymns, reverent worship, and communion every Sunday. It's an ACNA Anglican parish. I'm not saying it's perfect (no denomination is perfect, and even if there were a perfect one it would become imperfect once I joined it!) but I do feel at home and planted in it. It's catholic with a small 'c', minus almost all of the RC baggage: no legalisms, no "you must do this and you must believe that," and emphasis on trusting in Jesus Christ's propitiation/redemption rather than on church membership, sacraments, etc. 😊
I really appreciate this and am right there. I have been chasing Orthodoxy for two years. At times my desire to be Orthodox is intense. My preferneces and theology don't "fit" well in my non-denominational protestantism. I have become more sacramental. I think sola scriptura has some big issues. However, I find myself in a similar position. I am not fully convinced. I love what God is doing in my protestant church. My gifts, calling, and family also fit well there.
I recognize that there isn't quite as firm a foundation for Sola Scriptura as I would like. The Church did manage to muddle along until they solidified their choices of what to include or exclude. But lacking a Canon left them wide open to heresy, until they could point to written authority to counter it. Later, with the Scriptures in place, they set an irrefutable standard. The only question comes with interpreting some points that seem obscure. Yet, the obligation to base all doctrines firmly on Scriptures has a salutary effect to keep the accumulation of unnecessary doctrines at bay. Once we have a Canon, the authorities of the Church should feel the need to obey it, not to claim a right to use it as they wish. The Scriptures are our Constitution, and the Church's leadership has no more authority than the royal house under a Constitutional Monarchy. The Pope can't declare a chapter of the Gospels to be no longer valid, and he cant add another chapter to the book of Revelations. The claim to Infallibility, and the additions to dogma, do exactly that, add and subtract to the content of belief. I can't go along with that. So, while I hear the argument that the Canon was dependent on the Church, I insist today that the Church must be dependent on the Canon.
@@lukasmakarios4998 Belief in the primacy of the word of God, above the church and all governing bodies is the heart of sola scriptura, I don't think it fully has to do w/ a formally compiled canon, since we clearly didn't always have that. The Catholc/Orthodox belief is that their church and their councils are equal to the word of God. I really doubt any of the apostles would have declared their meetings to hash things out to be equal w/ scripture and Jesus' teaching. I just can't fathom them presuming that. Yet that's the development of "the one true church". People forget about politics and lust for power, as if that never came into play.
Hi Austin. As an Orthodox Christian, I can attest to a way understanding many canonical statements (such as the historicity of icon veneration that you mentioned) that is a re-framing of how we Westerners often think of "evidence." The Eastern "heart first" approach is different from our Western "rational" approach; not contrary necessarily, but different. As Nicea II proclaims, icon veneration is the "faith" inherited from the Apostles. It doesn't claim that the praxis is the same and unchanged. There is most certainly a variety of "development" that is recognized by Orthodox leaders, but within the Apostolic "faith." Hard to describe. Thank you for your great content and wonderful heart.
I felt a large cognitive barrier initially especially to Catholocism although i was surrounded by it in college and it had "convinced" my now hudband. Ultimately we both settled on Orthodoxy where I still struggled with some beliefs initially but I grew into it and learned to trust with less guilt about some of my cognitive hesitancies in the eastern framework. When we knew it was the right decision, we knew, but it certainly wasn't a completely painless decision, neither was it a fully intellectual decision. Discernment can be a long prayerful process. Thanks for sharing. God Bless.
@pedrohenriquemendonca1655 Nice! My guess was because of the English speaking pastors and theologians’ influence inside Baptist communities in Brazil! I owe much of my conversion (in the sense of ‘metanoia’) to this faithful Baptist friend, a good educated Christian who once was on the seminary. Since I’m more attracted to the intellectual side of the faith (this friend, for example, can’t read other idioms) and he is more into the pastoral side of it, we kind of helped each other’s journeys, so to speak. Long story short: he tried to convert me since day one of our friendship, but now - not to boast myself, but only to praise Our All Merciful God - he in on a personal journey to Catholicism after six years of studying with me, mostly ecclesiastical history and theology, marrying a Catholic girl (he said that would be absolutely impossible) - with whom he had two babies - and praying for the Holy Spirit to guide his path. So my great respect here! God bless!
@masterchief8179 great to hear how he's helped you! I also started studying church history, the Fathers, but that only made me more Protestant 😅. At the end, the greatest gift was to know how to appreciate, respect and read Catholics more than I used too, and seeing how God is acting in all churches. Let His name be praised!
It took me 20+ years of poking the bear until I finally entered into the Orthodox Faith. We are all on our own path - and I pray God blesses your journey!
Also one point to make: Orthodoxy is best learned and understood in Liturgy. We can talk to all the brightest, read all the best books...but we really start making the connections in context of Liturgy.
I, deeply appreciate you, making this video. Something about your presentation here makes me think of John 6, particularly when Peter says "wherelse can we go Lord, you alone have the words of eternal life"
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 huh? I don't see justification for those doctrines in scripture. I personally think Eastern Orthodoxy has a much better claim than the RCC. They also don't seem obsessed with Mary. I still have problems with EO though, such as exclusivity claims, icons, and general prayer to the saints. They do have some good deep Christology though.
@@huntsman528 I ask that question to prove a point of catholicism not being truly apostolic as they make like to make the claim. Now, in EO how does one become saved?
Looking forward to this. I often ask this question myself. Thanks for your book recommendations btw. I’m making my way through life in the trinity an introduction to theology with the help of the early church fathers. Amazing
I completely understand the ecclesiastical homelessness. I would not consider myself stuck in the Orthodoxy or Catholic realm but I feel more drawn to Anglican and Presbyterian church life but I've been Baptist my entire life. Maybe one day I'll be convinced of one rather than the other, but for now we just follow the Lord and let Him keep us where he wants us until that changes. Thanks for your honesty!
I really appreciate your honesty. Similarly, the historical claims of Orthodoxy & Catholicism are difficult for me to accept, even as I appreciate the devotional literature and historical theology. I have come to see this situation as analogous to the journey of faith. I appreciate my own tradition even as my pride in it has fled with my loss of certainty in every one of its particular claims. It seems I may have grown in faith even as I have lost certainty.
Hey brother. I hope you see this. I've followed you along this journey since before I converted, and am now Orthodox myself. Having dealt with every issue you mentioned (and many more) over the course of 4 years, allow me to share the perspective of one on the inside looking out. Any number of individual areas of theology could be listed that you take issue with which keep you unconvinced, indefinitely. Respectfully, I'd say you have the order of the investigative process backwards, if we bare in mind that faith precedes being open to evidence (e.g. the Pharisees were direct eyewitnesses to every manner of evidence, but were not convinced. Needless to say, it wasn't the evidence itself that was insufficient, it was that their standard of the "burden of proof" was continually adjusted to disqualify the evidence for failing to satisfy their personal criteria.) Please don't think I'm calling you a Pharisee or accusing you of intentionally discrediting the evidence--I believe you are sincere--I'm just saying it's an important parallel to consider. Because in the same way that we aren't in a position to put the Son of God on trial by insisting He prove Himself to us, we're no more entitled to say His Church (which is His Body, which cannot be separated from the Master himself) is subject to our private judgment. Faith, as such, can't be reduced to a subjective intellectual exercise. The intellect is involved, of course, but with less priority than the Church's Holy Traditions which are a direct manifestation of the will of God, since we affirm that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. You must "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" as it were. Let me get to the point. The manner of convincing you need is not of the evidenciary variety, but on a much more fundamental basis at the paradigm level.There is just *one* thing you need to see that you can't unsee, after which you'll recognize that even if you don't fully understand or agree with XYZ theological claim, the witness of the historic, apostolic Church will still remain the only logical conclusion possible. In deference to your channels theme, I'll try to present the case with simplicity: Step I: Understand that Protestantism is systemically flawed at such a foundational level that it is untenable as a paradigm. It's prudent that you mentioned your tensions are with the Church's pronouncement of dogmas, because this entire issue--the thing you need to see that you can't unsee--all comes down to authority, and who has it. Who actually *has* the authority to proclaim, "this here is sound doctrine, that over there is false doctrine", and (this part is crucial) to then also have the authority to *bind the consciences of all the faithful* to that particular doctrinal position, to such the extent that to deviate from it necessarily renders you a heretic or apostate outside of the boundaries of established Christian doctrine? Is it just anyone with a Bible, or is it specific individuals whom God has appointed to serve in those roles of apostolic authority that determined precisely how to understand the Trinity, Christology, Baptism, the Eucharist and what the structure of the Church even is that dictate which perspective is considered Christian? It's the same question concerning the canon of Scripture; do you or I have the authority to unilaterally decide to issue our own biblical canon because we aren't convinced the Church that wrote and compiled it has satisfied the burden of proof that the list of canoncial books is correct? I think you'd agree, we don't have that right. We don't have that authority. But then, that means that someone did. There was a Council which resulted in an infallible collection of books, which means necessarily that the decision itself was infallible. The bishops in those Councils weren't Protestant, but rather belonged to One, Universal Church with a conciliar, apostolic structure that made the Bible possible. And yet, in Protestantism, no standard of normative authority exists--in fact, it doesn't even *posit* such a mechanism. So, no one is ever morally bound to accept *any* particular aspect of the faith as dogmatic, any Council or particular canon of Scripture, since every individual's private judgment serves as the final authority on how to interpret Scripture and which Ecumenical Councils to accept or reject, which ultimately reduces Christianity to theological relativism because the process itself is entirely subjective and thus arbitrary. Hence, the endless fragmenting into mutually exclusive denominations, each claiming to follow the Holy Spirit after a doing a plain reading of Scripture. So again, who has the authority? Everyone (and thus, no one)? Or select individuals who've submitted themselves to the canonical process of Apostolic Succession established by the earliest Christians and accepted by every subsequent generation up until the Reformers? Even *heretics* considered the Church's hierarchical structure as a given. As an add on to this, another important question to ask is, who *gives* authority? In a system where all authority is self-appointed like in Protestantism rather than handed down from above, there is only one coherent answer to this question that is consistent with the account both Scripture and Church history give us, and only after answering this should you proceed to other areas of inquiry. Otherwise, you'll be perpetually putting the cart before the horse. Step II: If/when you've grasped the significance of the impasse Protestantism creates for itself at the paradigm level with its false Ecclesiology, you can then go on to do what I did and address all the various things you have questions or doubts about. Because, just like reading Scripture, I learned that if there's something that doesn't make sense to me or doesn't satisfy my question, that the problem never exists in the material itself but in my flawed understanding of it. So I just had to spend more time on it doing research, asking other people, reading other books, examining my presuppositions, and praying for clarity and discernment until eventually one day "eureka!" Things suddenly clicked, and I realized what was missing from my perspective the whole time. The key was maintaining humility throughout, admitting it felt somewhat arrogant to even consider that I knew better than 1500 years of Church Fathers who were pious and holy men and women of supreme virtue and intellectual prowess whose lives were rife with examples of the fruits of the Spirit, who actually lived in the cultures and spoke the languages and communed with the Apostles themselves. Surely their witness supercedes my personal opinions and preferences. Whether or not we ultimately believe them is literally just a matter of choice. What I'm recommending is basically like if an alcoholic wants to not drink that liquor in front of them, they have to go pour it down the drain. Or the person standed at sea who's unsure if they can make the swim to the far away island, until they see the raft is on fire and have no other choice. I'm saying you have to remove Protestantism as even being an option of something to retreat back to, because any time you encounter something that leaves an uncomfortable question mark, there will always be the temptation to flee back to the safety of familiar territory. For me, I couldn't unsee the fundamental problem with Protestantism at the paradigm level, and so once I realized it was false as a system, there was no way but forward, regardless how long I had to marinate on the evidence for any particular claim made by Orthodoxy. It took time. But ultimately, one must realize, it just doesn't make any sense to trust the Bible while not trusting the Church that gave it to us. It's a matter of faith first, *then* evidence weighed in light of that faith. So if the Holy Spirit used the Church to produce the Scripture, why would He abandon that same Church right afterwards when He specifically promised not to? I hope that was helpful brother, and forgive me if I've said anything that offends. May the Lord continue to guide you in your pursuit of the Truth. God bless you and keep up the good work.
Thank you, Austin. What a beautiful contentment in Christ. Your ongoing content of this honest nature has really helped me as a recovering Christian, as my atheism and life imploded a few years ago. I really mean it. I’ll pray for you, please pray for me. 🙏 PS - I grew up fundamentalist non-denom Evangelical before all that, now a gratefully content, long-time Antiochian Orthodox catacumen with intention to be baptized.
That's an interesting way of putting it. As I read it, before you "converted" you realized that you were no longer where you started. That makes sense to me
I’m in the same boat. I can be on board with 99% of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It’s the Marian prayers that I really wrestle with. I can find no proof of them before AD 250
@@jamesb6818Really? It's not the denial of penal substitution, original sin and sola fide? It's not the veneration of icons? It's not the mariology? It's not the claim to be the "One True Church?" Your only reason is you don't like the anathemas?
@@jamesb6818 I initially had the same perception, but once I started to regularly visit a congregation and talk to the priest and laity, that feeling quickly rubbed off. Everybody has treated me with love and respect. Most Orthodox internet warriors don't give a complete theological picture of the Church🤭. ... That being said, the Orthodox Church stands firmly against liberal ideologies of the surrounding age and culture. And the concept of heresy is used more than in any other denomination I've been part of. But even saying that something is heretical, has a "softer" meaning than I previously thought, heresy simply means a new teaching or a new interpretation that deviate from historical Christian teachings, i.e. orthodoxy.
I converted to Roman Catholicism suddenly and unexpectedly - one morning, I literally woke up Catholic. One should search for the truth honestly while making an effort to get rid of their own biases and negative emotions (I was strongly anti Roman Catholic), then the Holy Spirit will do the rest.
Exactly right, if you have an open heart and mind and are truly seeking the truth, the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest. Welcome to the truth and beauty of the Catholic church.
Austin, your honesty and humility humbles me. I pray that, in God's time, you will find your ecclesiastical home. The Lord is using your faith journey Faith journey to lead many closer to him.
As much as I value my own Catholicism, as good as I believe it would be for all to profess the Catholic faith in union with the bishop of Rome, I worry that your ministry of unity-which I believe to be a great force for good in the Church-might suffer were you to plant your flag either side. Coming from an evangelical background as your "default," you have an immense opportunity to assume a place of neutrality that few of us can claim. It's been wonderful to see what you've done with that opportunity, despite all of us leering at you. I grieve for your homelessness-that's agonizing. I pray you find a home that serves for you and Eliza as greater disciples!
Agreed. I believe there is strength, and UNITY, in your current position. Unity to the one true Church that includes Christians of many different backgrounds and traditions. Doesn't mean you will lose unity if you convert or just stay put. Praying for you regardless of where you worship!
I agree. His echumenical stance is much more important overall. Channels like this are pretty uncommon and really bring us all together in better understanding.
Former Protestant pastor for over a decade with a master’s in theology here… I converted because Sola Scriptura (and foundational Protestant claims) isn’t tenable. I totally get what you’re saying about the bodily assumption, but the foundation Catholic/Orthodox is built upon is sound, so the beliefs that are harder to grasp can be accepted because the foundation is good. Either way, we are brothers having an in family discussion! I think it is easier to accept Marian dogmas (even if they are later), than to accept that the true church was reformed/restored in the 16th century. Protestant claims are attested far later than Marian ones and yet we have no issue accepting them. Much love and respect to you my beloved brother in Christ. Thank you for everything Austin.
Thank you for sharing and the intellectual honesty that it took to make the realisation regarding Sola Scripture. Glory to the Holy Spirit who is almighty and has moved you closer to the Truth.
Well said. To me, one of the last stumbling blocks was calling Mary the Theotokos and Queen of Heaven. However, when I came to understand that the objection to the title "Theotokos" actually comes from arianism, I noticed right away I was in the wrong and, in fact, truly Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, there's no circumventing it. When it comes to the title "Queen of Heaven" it took me a while to be convinced that in the old testament, the queens were the mothers of the kings. When I was convinced of the "queen mother" title, then it just becomes a logical sequence that, since Jesus IS the King of Heaven, His mother would be the queen.
@@fantasypvpvideos I think we should add some Bible here to buttress that very good explanation. John sees the literal Ark in heaven and IMMEDIATELY after, sees a woman with a crown on her head. While the 'queen' can have a symbolic meaning, she retains a literal meaning because John says, he first sees the Ark and then the Queen - Why would God show him the literal Ark first if not to make the connection between Mary and the Ark. Revelation 11:19 - 12:1 19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. 12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
As a former Protestant, what is your opinion about Orthodoxy (and also Roman Catholicism) being too Judaizing in its rites and practices? Luther would say that they "transform Christ into a Moses", by not understanding justification by faith, by imitating Jewish worship, and by creating divisions between the ecclesiastical priesthood and the laity. Furthermore, there are other arguments as well. But how did you position yourself in the face of all this? Was it hard for you?
You have summed up my situation entirely. I can't go back to being completely Protestant, but cannot completely convert to Orthodoxy, either, no matter how much I have come to deeply appreciate it. Orthodoxy is like no other type of Christianity I've ever encountered. It speaks to the deepest, non-verbal, "spiritual heart" of a person and can bring deep healing and growth there. Protestantism, in some cases, has lost the concept of spirituality...Protestantism is "knowing about" rather than "knowing." Following from this, though, some of Orthodoxy's major feasts involve incidents in Mary's life that, while they are powerful on a symbolic/metaphorical/spiritual level, they may not be factually true. It is the same with some of the stories of the Saints. While some are clearly historical figures and are people of deep piety, others are probably amalgamations, and some of the Saints leave a literal-minded person scratching his or her head. I think the Church always struggles to meld the solidly logical/historical/physically factual WITH the spiritual/metaphorical; the Apostles and the early Church Fathers/apologists seem to have tried. In any case, being in the liminal space between two camps isn't easy.
The spiritual truths of the stories and “amalgamations” trump any appeal to forensic “facts”. Despite risking sounding like a postmodernist, I believe that far more important than the factual events are the spiritual realities communicated by the stories. Any framing of historical events involves interpretation and bias. There is no such thing as an objective, non-interpreted science of history. This is not to say that discerning between more specific material events and symbolic patterns is unimportant, but that once you realize that the spiritual reality is more true than the obsession with “historical fact”, it’s all much easier to grasp and accept. Even the lens you’re describing of valuing the objective factual account above the truths communicated in the stories is a spiritual state. There is no escaping the human perspective. The crime scene style investigation of neutral facts as some kind of objective reality is a false pursuit because of this. Christ, among infinite other things, shows us the proper way to mediate between heaven and earth. Holding “factual” history as primal is a failure to do this, in my view. All earth, no heaven. Of course, there is also the danger of being all heaven, no earth. The Incarnation is where these things meet in their fullness and perfection. Forgive me for my long-windedness and audacity. Just stating the way I see things on the off chance that they offer you a different perspective. All love. ☦️
Forgive me, but if the story of a saint conveys spiritual truth and is having a real impact on your ability to connect with the faith, why does it matter if the event described would hold up to modern standards of scientific scrutiny or not? As Christians we already profess a belief in a spiritual reality that will never meet modern scientific empirical standards.
I so appreciated your honesty and diligence. I grew up protestant then walked away from the faith for over a decade. When the Lord brought me back home I was thinking for a long time that I need to change my tradition. I was drawn to EO and was looking for an EO church near me but the closest one is 2 hours away and their services are in Greek only. So I was stopped in my urgency to make a change which led me to look into it more deeply before I could make a decision. This is when i first discovered your channel. As of now there are two things that keep me from converting to either the EOC or RCC, the first one is their vehement claims of being the one and only true church and the other one is that I know so deeply, with so much certainty that I am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.
You could look for an Anglican church in your area, whether it’s a continuing Anglican church or an ACNA church. The usual issues that dog the EO and RCC churches are not present in the Anglican church, and yet there is the liturgy, the high view of the Eucharist, the best prayer book (in my estimation), and wonderful hymnody. My husband and I both came from Evangelicalism, he was ordained in a couple of different denominations, and we finally moved “home” into an Anglican tradition, and he is now our priest. We consider it a “Deeper conversion”.
About the claims of being the one true Church, what I would say is that the Catholic Church makes a qualified statement about that, since all baptized believers are in the Church in some form or another, but as that catechism says, that the primitive church _subsists_ in the Catholic Church. The issues about Rome specifically are a bit dramatic in my opinion, if somebody has such a problem with the geographical location they could become of any Eastern Catholic rite or join the Anglican ordinariate
What brought me to seriously consider Orthodoxy, as a baptist, was: 1) that I become self-aware, in the sense that I cannot trust my own consciousness and intellect completely to affirm that I'm saved or not, since I've seen and heard this same kind of statements from people who are in theological error. After all, "the heart is deceitful above all things" 2) That, even if I am saved as a Baptist, I want the fullness, 100% of the faith, not only just enough that I'm saved. I want to truly get closer to God serving Him in the way He deems best and with the traditions He guided. In looking for that fullness of faith, my mind was more at ease, because it was easier to see that the way I worshipped and the Church worked lacked much of the beauty which the early martyrs and Christians were immersed into.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj What makes you say that? I would encourage you to read Saepius Officio (aka Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII) written in 1897. Anglicans do, in fact, have apostolic succession. Most of the EO primates affirmed as much in the 1920's.
Catholic here. I find your position to be totally fair. At one time I left the Church for similar reasons, "As much as I may like to, I simply don't believe in God" was how I put it at the time (though your longer explanation puts it better, something along the lines of that there are truth claims which to be Catholic would be saying I believe, which I could not do). I think something which changed in me was that I realised that there was a potential disconnect between what I believed to be true, and things I could have faith were true based on my other beliefs. An example may be that from my perspective: My intellect points me to the truth of God Then it points me to the truth of the Apostles attestation about Jesus Then to the Christian faith Then in particular the Catholic faith After that I can look at particulars like the assumption of Mary and say "The evidence here is inconclusive. It maybe even more against it than for, but as a dogmatic teaching I will submit to the wisdom of the Church on this topic". This isn't to say that you necessarily believe it to be true, but that you submit that despite your intellectual belief in its likely falsehood, you can acknowledge that the Church has made a definitive claim, which you adopt. An example of this in Church history might be St Jerome submitting to the biblical canon of the Church, whilst himself believing some of them not to be of the same position. Obviously this is assuming that one has already concluded that the Catholic Church is the one true Church from other means, and if one were to find an abundance of evidence against the fundamental beliefs one aught recognise and address these (leave the Church if you find that it is not what it claims to be). Indeed where I say one is submitting above, that is in itself an intellectual endeavour, where one aught be trying to understand the Churches position and why and shouldn't be a mere dismissal. I think it is fair that you have not found the claims of the Church regarding the Papacy to be true, and if false I think that undermines the Catholic position enough to not accept it (ie it is a teaching which is a foundation for the faith rather that a teaching that follows from the faith). Good luck with your journey wherever it leads you.
At some point it boils down to us all having a choice. We either go our own way or follow the path Christ laid out for us. May God guide you. Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us all! ☦️
Austin, I'm totally with you on all your thoughts. I can't go back but can't seem to go forward. Stuck! I'm orthodox in my heart but I need my head to come with !
I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this topic. I am protestant as well but have been studying church history, catholicism and orthodoxy as well. The burden of proof is also a significant factor for myself and my wife. I really related to your comment regarding "ecclesiastical homelessness". Each of these branches of the Christianity has helped move and sustain the Christian faith over time. Perhaps we all get some things right, and some things wrong. Thank you so much for your channel and sharing your journey.
This is twice you’ve put out a video explaining your journey and where you are at on these things and it has been just about the exact same for me. You put into words exactly my thoughts and feelings of my own journey. I can’t become catholic or orthodox even though I like those traditions because I can’t betray certain intelectual and theological convictions. But taking that deep dive into history and study has changed my views on many things as well. I grew up baptist and am currently attending a Pentecostal church simply because of life’s circumstances, not because I myself am Pentecostal. But theologically I have moved to lutheran and hope in the future eventually I will be able to attend. But I don’t feel rushed or that I have to force it to work right now. I’ll keep attending my low, evangelical church.
That’s amazing! I started attending my LCMS Lutheran church in late 2022. I absolutely love it. I come from an evangelical/reformed background as well. May the peace of the Lord be with you! And I pray that you could get plugged into a church home soon. I had a “placeholder” church as well right before I found mine. The Lutheran faith is so beautiful and rich ☺️
@@alisterrebelo9013 It would be interesting to see what his hedges are, but it's likely the usual ones that you have to believe like purgatory, praying to saints and mariology,
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Perhaps you are right. I didn't comment on it the first time around, but I would add that there IS an overwhelming need to move with speed (not necessarily rush or without carefulness) to determine the truth. The number of our days in unknown to us, people should take this more seriously.
@@alisterrebelo9013 If I am right about his hedges (it's a guess based on many other in similar situations), then why would he need to move w/ urgency? Believing in those things are not salvific matters. Believing on Christ and his atonement to save us the one and only thing that actually saves us and redeems us to God.
My conversion into Orthodoxy was not so much a head thing ( although I did extensive reading) as it was a pull at my heart and also my desire for beauty. No church will be perfect. Can I live with some unresolved issues? Yes…. And I am at peace spiritually, at last.
I'm right there with you. Most of my life I have been Protestant but I didn't establish a Church home when I relocated. Once I tried to find a new Church home I found most of Protestant Churches had changed from what I grew up in. That along with moral drift in so many Churches, embracing sin because it is the current culture. Surprisingly the service most like my non denominational community Church that I grew up in was an Orthodox Church that has been rather Americanized. They stick with traditional moral teachings an I enjoy the Liturgy. Almost two years of attending leaves me with the same issue of Mariology. The traditions seem to be based in The Protoevangelium of James which simply isn't a legitimate document. Besides it's about Jesus and no one else. The Priest understands that I don't accept all the tradition but I accept the Nicean Creed. Many Orthodox Churches teach that the Creed is the only Dogmatic part of Orthodoxy. The only Dogmatic parts of Mariology are virgin birth and Theotokos because they speak to the divine nature of Christ. This is an approach I can live with and my particular Priest, and local Orthodox Church support it. It makes a good Church home even if it doesn't agree with everyones version of Orthodoxy.
I feel glad I'm not the only one in this boat. "I'm not comfortable with certain elements of the papacy" gets interpreted as "So what you're saying is you reject all tradition," or "I'm not so sure about icons" gets misconstrued as "so what you're saying is that you reject the bodily incarnation of our Lord."
This is what my Greek Orthodox priest said. I'm an Orthodox Catechumen now after 4 years of searching. Even a priest at a Serbian church which is more traditional said the same thing. Nicene Creed and not to have a problem with other people venerating icons. It's not that one has to venerate them as much as you shouldn't accuse others of idolatry if they do. You don't have to believe the Protoevangelium of James. Even though there's a Feast Day of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple! It's kind of amazing, but I think Orthodoxy is more welcoming of a diversity of thought than people give it credit for. It does try to define right belief, but actual practice doesn't require you to believe every statement ever made in a church service.
I can relate with you on coming back to the protest church after many years of being away. Yes the change of it is concerning. And will it continue to be pushed wherever the culture sways it. For some people that’s reason enough to convert to Orthodoxy. They no longer enjoy the unfirm foundation of Protestantism. For me this would be one reason I’m considering Orthodoxy..🧐
@@tystovall6574 when I talked to the Priest I told him I understood veneration wasn't necessarily worship but could be if the heart or understanding of the individual was wrong. I wasn't sure the benefit was worth the risk of anyone falling into idolatry. I don't question others motives when they venerate Icons but I don't personally as I feel it could lead away from the worship of the true God. I do show appropriate respect towards the Saints represented and have a few Icons of my own. The Priest had no issues with my interpretation of the tradition or hesitancy to anything I felt may risk leading towards sin.
@@OrthodoxInquirer I generally skip the the Feast of the Entrance of Mary into the Temple because I don't believe in the Protoevangelium of James. It's pretty well established as a Gnostic forgery. Using it leads to raising Mary to a position that starts to rival Christ and runs the risk of falling into idolatry of Mary. You see some of the Roman Catholics that fall into what is referred to as the cult of Mary that clearly step over a line into idolatry of Mary. I imagine some Orthodox may fall into this trap without being as visible. It's the responsibility of every believer to honor the Theotokos without allowing her to become an idol. Protestants run the risk of forgetting her and Catholics run the risk of idolizing her.
I would also add that I don't believe that it's a mental conversion but a spiritual one. I was initially seeking through history and rationality then realized that Western churches have reduced Christianity to a mental problem. This Western materialist reductionist approach has minimized the role that the church should play in our lives. I think the problems of our modern times are the same, spiritual. listen to Fr Seraphim Rose living an Orthodox worldview.
I too, have been studying church history and am drawn to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. As a a former Lutheran, ( I’m now evangelical) Rome seems like a better fit. But with the recent uproar over same-sex blessings and the apparent watering down of church teachings, I find myself more drawn to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church seems to hold fast to it’s doctrines, which really appeals to me.
As a Catholic, of course I would like you to become Catholic, however, I just want to say that the “Same-sex blessing” isn’t an actual blessing for “same-sex” relationships. It is actually blessing a sinner who requests a blessing wether it be a transgender, gay, fornicator, etc. The Catholic Church affirms over and over again that marriage is between one man and one woman. Also, when it comes to “watering down” teaching, well that needs to be specified as to what teaching is being watered down.
There is no such thing as “Roman Catholicism”. There is only one ”Catholicism”. The Catholic Church does not refer to the Roman Rite of Catholicism as “Roman Catholicism”. That phrase was created as an insult by Anglicans.
The Pope is not infallible unless declaring ex cathedra a dogma. You should not make a.decision.based on who currently is in the seat of Peter. As a convert to catholicism I think the latin rite is incredible, there are some theological differences to Orthodoxy. Despite everything you said I think the dogmatic approach of the church is still intact the sexual morality indeed unchanged. For example catholics are not allowed to use contraception while in orthodox churches it is different
I used to be tempted with Protestantism, until one day in an Orthodox Church I saw inside the holy Communion, and saw flesh and blood. Bruh.. I went full Orthodox after that event, It's one thing to have faith, but orthodoxy is living every moment in worship, everything is symbolic worship!❤️ I love you all my brothers in Christ!
Thats very true ! The orthodox church is the single church whitin everything is alive...bcs the Holy Spirit is in there , working, transforming , cleansing, giving life and much more.
I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism. Your testimony is beautiful. Although I went with Catholicism, I truly believe the Orthodox to be the other lung of the Church. I pray someday for all apostolic and sacramentalist churches to be in full communion with each other.
I hate to shit on your experience because I myself know miracles to be real. But with that comes the responsibility to not fleetingly believe everything is a miraculous work of God with little to no rigor. Jesus didn't perform vague feats that gave people an impression thag it might be miraculous. Everything he did was hyper apparent that it was a miraculous work by thr power of God. With this being known I have to ask did you have any way of verifying that the actual transformation took place because all you said was that you seen inside it and seen the flesh. If you had been able to verify it wasn't in there prior to the communion, and ritual, and that anything that was placed in there durring was not flesh, and there was no way of concealing flesh to place in there unseen then I'd say you have a decent case, and if it does meet all that criteria then so be it, but I wasn't there so you have to honestly evaluate this to yourself. And if you are asking if I really think the church leaders would b willing to fake something like this, I unfortunatly have to say yes, because proven hoaxes in times past are a great reason why we have to be so rigorous in our examination of things that are supposedly miraculous.
Now that I've watched the video, I resonate so much with the difficulty of accepting certain dogmas as obligatory. I could fairly comfortably entertain certain Marian teachings and the veneration of icons as well, but to REQUIRE them on pain of damnation goes against every fiber of my being. I would contend, for example, that a person can be hesitant to venerate icons but still affirm the incarnation (which I believe is the whole point of the argument of icons in the first place).
I was seriously exploring the Catholic church for a while, and the thing that really made it seem impossible for me was that missing mass is a mortal sin. I just couldn't wrap my head around that.
@@yeahnothx-e9l Completely agree. I get that skipping out on church is serious, but to say that it is damnable is terrifying. There is a big difference between "I need to go to church for the benefit of my soul and the benefit of my brothers and sisters" and "If you don't go to church one time, you're going to hell unless you confess to a priest."
@@brennendavis3283 They do allow for missing church is you are sick or handicapped. Generally though, missing Mass is a mortal sin. This is never, even remotely stated in the bible. Biblically, it's as protestant churches teach, that it's for your growth and spiritual healthy, but never stated as a sin. I do wonder if this doctrine didn't come from political and power reasons. If you have a captive audience, you have a constant source of funding too.
I relate heavy. i am recently saved, just becoming christian this past 7 months. i've done hundreds of hours of reserach and I def lean catholic HEAVY and am intellectually convinced but something is still not fully clicking, maybe my habits, but i have faith that God will lead me home, wherever that is
Im currently a Catechumen, i came from an atheist background, so Protestantism was never really a contender for me because the claims that began to force me to believe weren't present, or were watered down. After alittle over two years struggling between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, i had to stop using my brain because, for every argument, there was a counter, and there were decades' worth of research if i wanted to "be right", but i want to be in communion with Christ. In the end, my heart and my eyes guided me to the Church that i knew would guide me closer to Him. God made a promise to Abraham that his people would have a land, but it would not be fulfilled in his lifetime. However, God gave him a sign so that he would trust in Him. I think Orthodoxy has the signs that allow you to trust and believe that Christ is present in that Church, but whatever you choose, ill keep watching you, and praying for you. God bless.
I left evangelicalism and ended up in a very conservative Lutheran church that does a liturgical divine service every week, with the lectionary and chanting of the Psalms and so on. They even promote private confession. For three years I had anxiety about my decision and was thinking I would eventually become Orthodox. But I have come to satisfied with no church being perfect. If I moved and couldn't find a church like mine I would seriously consider going Orthodox. But right now I am where I am, and I believe leaving, unless I was 100% convinced I couldn't stay, would be wrong. But I do love my Orthodox and Catholic brethren. And even my evangelical brethren.
Not trying to attack you, but I think you need to make a distinction between the theology and practices of a Church. I bet you can find a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon Church that is equally small 'o' orthodox but their theology is wrong. I believe such is a problem with the Lutheran church but not as severe as JWs or LDS. For me, the theology has to be correct, if it is not, it doesn't matter that I am part of a conservative community. I do think Lutherans and any trinitarians are my brothers and sisters in Christ, so I would never condemn you. I just think that unless you are in an Apostolic Era church, you are quite far from the fullness of truth.
May I ask what made you stay in the Lutheran Church for now? To me, a third party who knows nothing about your personal journey, it seems you value highly the traditions which are upheld by the Orthodox Church and the Divine Liturgy and the way it's celebrated. Knowing that what you found in part in the Lutheran Church could be found in full in the Orthodox Church, wouldn't it be better to follow that desire for beauty to the fullest? May the Lord Jesus bless you.
For me it was all about the Eucharist. Coming from a low church it’s just a symbol tradition and reading the church fathers it’s seems impossible to stay Protestant, maybe Lutheran?? But then I went to Divine Liturgy and saw how they treat the Eucharist and the reverence to me that was it.
As far as I understand, the Lutheran and Anglican churches also have a high view and offering of the Eucharist. Of course, the Divine Liturgy is unique, though one can find a high view of the sacraments and sacred tradition while still finding their home in the high church Protestant churches. What led you to Orthodoxy specifically over Luthernism or Anglicanism?
@@tobiassednef4977 i honestly just kept asking myself the question of if I was to time travel to 500AD or something and went to church what would it look like? What would my fellow Christians be doing. The more I read into church history I don’t know to me it just seemed so obvious but that’s me
Hi i wanted to say as a ex protestant the big thing about orthodoxy that was attractive was the actual liturgy. I found that it was very hard to find a good Anglican church in England that had a good eucharist whereas the divine liturgy was more consistent and the same in multiple churches. I hope you do good on your journey god bless
@Viktor.18 As far as I understand, the true canonical nature of the "Apocrypha" has been debated since the inception of the church. The early Luttheran and Anglican churches recognized them. This is definitely an issue I'd love to look into more!
I have been researching different Protestant branches and kept not being able to find one I resonated with but I kept researching orthodoxy in the side… and now I feel sure that I am converting to Orthodox… I had some experiences of transformation related to St Mary or Egypt and then next was the image of Mother Mary during my cat dying… and it just happened… and “click” I felt like I was Orthodox… Been looking for years at Baptist, Lutheran, and feeling like that was for sure my way, but just couldn’t fully find my home there. And then Orthodox just clicked. No one is more surprised than me.
Thank you so much for this. It’s kind of put into words something I’ve been feeling after the last three years of studying the Eucharist and the sacraments and church history. There’s so much I love about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but there is also so much that just historically that doesn’t match up. I am non-denom and so often I feel out of place, but above all God is good and he leads his children into truth.
I feel the same way. Over the last year, my theology has been very much influenced by Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism, but I attend a Baptist church.
10 месяцев назад
Sounds like you are still sitting on the fence be careful the devil owns the fence. Christ disciples have to be willing to carry your cross then follow Jesus and seek the face of God. In regards to the Eucharist true bread from heaven and needed for eternal life John chapter 6 The holy face of Jesus is hidden in the Eucharist you will meet Christ there. God Bless and take your plunge in the Jordan as the TRUTH will set you free.
"my theology" sounds completely satanic tbh. Theology is an objective reality, you can't make it up as you wish. We should be humble and accept divine revelation. Pray for Truth, be willing to follow where it will take you. @@SwampFox4939
I recently saw this video ruclips.net/video/ii0jJecSIFw/видео.htmlsi=QB9U_uUhbYvL7dZn As a Catholic, I think it does a decent job at explaining why there are so many apparent discrepancies between Catholics and Orthodox, and why the differences might be fewer and less consequential than we think. Many Orthodox may disagree, but I think that is because part of their Church’s identity lies in superficially imposed anti-Catholicism. Historically, though, at their core, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are two parts of the same Church.
Thank you so much for giving words to my experience! I am in exactly the same place right now- I *want* to be convinced, so I have somewhere to stay! I’m currently caught between the evangelical church that brought me to Christ, containing the closest friends and mentors I have, and Catholicism, where I have a love of the tradition/history/etc, but no community. And of course, I am simply not convinced. Ecclesiastically homeless indeed! Not to mention my Protestant pastor father… but it is a journey. I’m anxious to see where it goes next as well. Thank you for your insights!
I grew up Catholic but after reading the Bible could not stay there. Now Bible believing Christian, what I guess would be called evangelical. I can’t understand how someone could read the Bible and then think Catholicism was on the mark
@@dawn2508 Because the Catholic Church not only existed before the Bible but compiled it. I can't understand how anyone can read the early Church Fathers and think Protestantism aligns with historical Christianity.
@@dawn2508 It is perplexing that some come out of Catholicism and have a deeper faith, having come out. Some go into Catholicism, coming out of bible centered protestant faiths, but somehow become convinced of the Catholic way of salvation. I'm still a sola scriptura Christian, but have since challenged the belief that most of us are raised w/ that Catholics aren't saved somehow. That does not seem to be the case, any more that we have to have the sacramental system and "the one true holy and apostolic church" in order to be saved as well. It is always through Christ that we are saved.
Im protestant and I love orthodox tradition so much - I think for the most part I can agree with almost everything you said in this video especially icon veneration. I don’t have icons and personally I don’t think I’ll own any soon but I can understand why they use icons. I appreciate this video brother. Also, your voice is really calm and chill 😂 you should do a bible reading series or something
You might like the work of Thomas Torrance. He was a Reformed theologian from Scotland who was very immersed in patristics and in reformed Orthodox ecumenical dialogue.
@@kristing5215 I do see a lot of people comment on his calm and soothing voice. I wonder if he will look into doing readings professionally, as people keep suggesting. Could be a nice sideline job for his other ministries.
You have articulated my current personal thoughts and feelings too. I have done nowhere near the amount of research that you have, but I have transitioned from being anti-catholic to realising that they are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I have a lot to learn from them. I still have a lot of questions, but whenever I listen to Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Bishop Barron or Matt Fradd, etc. I come away feeling closer to them but still not convinced that I should convert. Converting would raise a lot of eyebrows (to say the least) within my family and church family but I really don't think that's the main reason for my hesitation. I want to be sure it is God's leading from Scripture, from experience, from History (Church Fathers, etc.) and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The Church is much bigger to me now and more beautiful though.
I totally get this. I converted to Orthodoxy from the PCA (really from atheism/agnosticism) and I understand just needing that intellectual piece. So I empathize with your struggle. Let me just offer, though, a thought: the Sacraments are real and efficacious and they help tremendously with this. You’re trying to figure it out and get it all squared away on your own, and I get that because I tried to do that too. But that isn’t necessarily our job. Our job once we have found the church and the gospel is to live the Christian life, pray, attend services, and participate in the sacramental life of the church. Assenting to intellectual beliefs is great but often it comes with time. It’s also a very protestant thing to worry about. You do not need to have all your intellectual boxes checked to join the church. Allow the church to guide you once you have joined.
Hey Austin, it's eerie how close my process/experience has been to yours. I bet it's similar to a lot of people's experience, which is in itself comforting that there are so many people experiencing the same thing. This is what I'm struggling with/thinking about: The more I experience life, the more I am seeing that actions precede belief, as opposed to beliefs preceding actions. Or, it is at least as true to say that actions cause beliefs at least as much as beliefs cause actions. What do you (or anyone else in the comment section) think of this? I am also non denom, attending a non denom church. However I read from an orthodox prayer book, and that itself already makes my mind more amendable to orthodoxy. I increasingly trust my own judgements less and less, though I know one cannot escape eventually using your own mental faculties to make a final decision (I know Gavin Ortlund and Trent Horn have discussed this phenomenon). Thoughts?
I have discovered this exact same thing. I’ve been thinking about this a lot too. I’ve noticed it in the same way you have, through prayers, etc., but super early in my discovery of liturgy I also noticed that this truth as baked into the very essence of liturgy itself. In the liturgy we express our worship and beliefs through our actions, of course, but the very actions of the liturgy also TEACH us what we ought to believe. For instance, Catholics genuflect before the tabernacle because they believe Christ is present; but conversely, performing the action of genuflecting before the tabernacle teaches us to believe that Christ is present. I also think of a little kid growing up and learning to say “thank you,” even if he isn’t thankful or is too young to truly mean it. But by this action, he learns to be thankful. Just some thoughts I’ve had, maybe this is in line with what you’ve been discovering too? Of course, I’m the kind of person who doesn’t trust my own mind and psychs myself out, that what if I’m only coming to believe the things I’m coming to believe, because I’ve duped myself into it by living it!?🥲😅 But on the other hand, I think it is not a bad thing and is instead of GOOD thing, that in our incarnated, integrated body/soul life, the physical is just as much a part of our formation as the nonphysical! Hang on… that all kind of makes sense. Soul-Body BeliefActions FaithWorks Sorry for the train of thought ramble! 😂
I'm at the point where my introduction to the Catholic church last Summer (largely due to Austin's "Protestant goes to mass video" since I went to the same church per his recommendation) was so providential that the experience may be the tipping point. If the stars seemingly align, maybe that's a sign from God. But as a mathematician and pedantic lover of truth, this reasoning infuriates me
Was Baptist/reformed but recently was baptised orthodox and it has been a blessing. Some of your videos definitely was a part of that awakening. There definitely was a difficult part of the journey too be it family friends and lots of personal fears and suspicions. Wasn't a small leap but it was a conscious and deliberate one that I believe was an answer to prayer to love Christs church and understand who Gods is as Trinity. May God guide and bless you on your journey!
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
My husband and I (protestant) are both researching catholicism and orthodoxy as well and the term "ecclesiastically homeless" struck a chord. We just don't feel like we are necessarily protestant anymore either....I wish we could become convinced in one way or another. Prayers that you find peace in your search! - Christie
Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells
Book by Matthew Gallatin would be perfect for both of you :)
After 20 years of being evangelical I concluded that if orthodoxy isn’t true than Christianity isn’t true.
I just wish we had a more unified option.
@matthewsargent9497 what the heck?
What do you think of Lutheranism and Anglicanism?
I, as an Orthodox, am very pleased with your content. You're not a source of good entirely for Protestantism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, but for Christianity as a whole and I deeply respect that. Also, your voice is incredibly soothing! I could sleep like a baby listening to it.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 Christ literally fed the crowd fish... Don't you people ever get tired of using the same foolish arguments to shove your religion down everybody's throats? It is not respectful and I am not your "brother. This is not how you convert people.
Orthodoxy *is* Christianity as a whole.
@@theguyver4934Your Quran came 600 years later than the Gospels, Your beliefs are just a bunch of made up bs, a mixture of Arabic paganism, heretical Christian beliefs and Jewish legends that your prophet thought to be authoritative😂
Your Allah and your Quran even thought the Trinity was the Father, the Son and the Virgin Mary😂😂😂
@@Matdrox Woah man hold on i never said i wanted to see you or anyone covert to islam far from it on the contrary i actually want to see chrsitianity flourish in it's pure form and be praised by others may not convert but respect it's teachings and principles
but you can't do that with these false very late misinterpretations ( trinity, atonement, original sin & hell ) because they polluted and contaminated the gospel ( Injil ) massage when it couldn't be farther from the truth
So that's i say christianity needs a revival both inside and out May Allah swt protect and preserve the true and pure form of christianity and make it's massage be witnessed but at the right moment place and time
the secred text of the bible say ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that i say to my christian brothers & sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a muslim ( line of ismail )
Coming from a Catholic: I think it's a good thing that you're taking your time. Too many people rush into conversion before they are really ready, and that causes a whole host of problems. I hope you find your permanent spiritual home some day, till then thank you for your great content.
If it were within my power, I would require all new converts to the Catholic Church to take a 10 year vow of YouYube silence!
You said pretty much what I would say. I'd much rather a person be a good protestant than a half-hearted Catholic. We have to many "Catholic in name only" who never attend Mass except for Christmas and Easter, never go to confession and don't raise their children to do so either.
Looks like he already is at home dont make it look like he needs to be a Roman Catholic to get home
amen
@@DanielHernandez78398 I vote for Ukranian Catholic, but it would be fun if he joined the Ethiopians! :P
As a Protestant, I also relate to this immensely. I admire both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and think Evangelicals have much to learn from them. But, as I’ve studied and listened, my conviction for the purpose and reason for the Reformation remains strong. But, also like you, I feel like a misfit in my church, a bit, though it is still my home. God bless.
What was the purpose and reason for the reformation, do you think?
We all know the standard answers which refer to the alleged "corruption of some individuals.
If that is your position, you expect perfection from people. Then what of christology and ecclesiology?
@austinray2138 I can relate to your misfit comment. Its one of the reasons I left the Protestant church. I am now a catechumen at an Orthodox Church.
Haha. Keep going to where God leads you. Only there you will find true peace. And I believe you already know where you are going to stay at the end. God bless you protestant brother😊
I can relate to feeling a misfit and I am also hanging in there brother.
Not reformation whatsoever it was a clean rebellion against the Church of saints that Jesus established under the stewardship of Peter and the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced instead and then many idiots like Calvin Smythe Zwingli Henry Ellen Knox Wesley Russell etc started to interpret the Bible on their own wild imagination and even adding their wishful thinking or twisting historical facts or even worse they even tried to manipulate the holy Bible itself in order to make their satanic theology fit into it and after five centuries by now about fifty thousand heretic churches are contradicting each other all the time bringing chaotic anarchism to Christianity
It is incredibly refreshing to see this level of honesty. Much respect. (I converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago after being Reformed for about 25 years)
Welcome home, brother ☦️
How does a person get saved in EO?
Believe in Christ, Repent of your sins, follow Him. This is the core of how to get on the path of salvation. The fullness of Christianity is found in the Ark of Salvation, the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (The Apostle Paul)
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689
You are quite handsome. 😊
I'm trying to find an orthodox church closer to me. I've known a few eastern and coptic orthodox and they always seem so confident in their faith. I hate how Catholics are CONSTANTLY trying to prove their authority. I rarely ever see this from orthodox Christians. This defensiveness actually pushed me to check out orthodoxy. That and being treated like an outsider at many catholic churches. Quite an unfriendly bunch
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689you can probably Google tbis
I am attending an Orthodox service for the first time tomorrow. Please pray for me.
God bless you! May the Holy Spirit touch your soul and guide you on the right path of faith which is orthodoxy.
May God bless you and keep you. There has been preserved the fullness of the Faith.
How was it? 🙂
How'd it go?
Updates pls🙏
Thanks for sharing that, Austin! I am a Protestant and I can relate to many things you say in this video. I also have contemplated converting away from Protestantism for some time, but even after years of studying the arguments, watching dialogues and debates, attending non-protestant church services, and talking to non-protestant believers, I still find myself to be unconvinced. Throughout this journey, your videos have been a great resource for me, so I want to thank you for the great contribution you are making! Keep up the good work! I'll pray that you'll receive wisdom and piece of mind in your decision.
May God bless you!
What convinces you of Protestantism though?
I'm right there with you. Just a few too many barriers to entry in terms of a few dogmas that I can't affirm with intellectual honesty and be in good conscience.
The Kingdom is bigger than any one denomination, fortunately, and God's grace abounds all the more.
That it is the closest understanding of what the bible teaches. @@LWNightmareSheriff
@@LWNightmareSheriff A better question is why would you be involved with a church that baptizes people in open sexual sin? Protestantism is the obvious conclusion that flows from the NT. Give it to an untouched tribe and they will become Protestant, not JW's, not Mormons, and certainly not Catholics with all their added man made baggage.
@@telleroftheone That's a big thing, the dogmas they insist that you have to believe. I'd be lying to say I believe them in order to convert. W/ most protestant denominations, they only have you affirm the fundamentals of the gospel and rarely beyond that to become a church member.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't owe any of us an explanation. But I will still tune in as you always have interesting things to say.
I'm Orthodox, and Nicaea II was probably fhe biggest hangup for me in entering the Church. What eased my mind was that the faithful are required only to affirm the theology of the ecumenical councils. I didn't need to accept every argument presented for a doctrinal conclusion, or that the bishops (and emperors) were well motivated or well behaved, or that the canons were somehow all divinely inspired.
Orthodoxy's relative dogmatic minimalism and flexibility on many issues combined with its theological richness and mystical depth really appealed to me, over and against Catholicism's overdogmatization and "check the encyclopedic catechism" approach. I'm sure that is comforting to some people who want official pat answers to all their questions, but I prefer Orthodoxy's open-endedness on all but the essentials. (You just better have good reasons to depart from the thinking of the church fathers and mothers on secondary doctrine and prepare to face pushback if you promote a non-mainstream view.)
To me, the Orthodox Church was the "best" place to be. It was either that or remain a generic "Protestant Not-Otherwise-Specified," and I knew there was no escaping a tradition of some kind. I could have defaulted to my Evangelical background and been an outlier in my own hybrid, custom school of one, but I longed for a Christian community with an ancient pedigree. As I saw it, Orthodoxy was the most balanced between head and heart, the most theologically sound, the most philosophically serious, the most consistent with and faithful to the apostolic teaching, the most spiritually mature, and the most beneficial for discipline and growth in the Christian life.
I wish you the best on your ecclesial journey and pursuit of Truth. 🙂
Thank you. tis is helpful, though I'm not seeing much of the flexibility in much of the orthodox information readily available. I find myself with much in common with Orthodoxy, but several serious concerns to work through.
It is your choice. Not my choice though. Amen
@@AABB-ii6hfwho asked you? :)
Interesting, I shall take this into consideration
Austin, thanks for your honesty; protestant here, and I feel that I'm in the exact same boat as you. This journey has become 1000X more complex than I would have ever imagined, but it is what it is lol.
Yeah man. I remember when Gavin Ortlund stated that he's so respectful to other traditions because men and woman who love God and people who are far smarter than him have studied these same issues and all come to different conclusions. As a Protestant, I can say I respectfully understand why someone would become a Catholic or Orthadox. It makes sense to me, I'm just personally not convinced. I am greatful for this journey sense I now have no hostilities twords these groups. Blessings Brother ✝️
It takes as long as it takes. I was an inquirer into Orthodoxy for 10 years. I don't think it *had* to take that long in my own circumstances. In my case, I thought I could read and reason my way all the way into the Church. I would solve every mystery, answer ever question, settle every lingering doubt and *then* I'd become Orthodox. After 10 years of reading and study I finally realized this was a pipe dream. Heck, I've now been Orthodox for 10 years and still haven't accomplished the above. The point I did reach was, knowing that remaining in the Protestant/Evangelical world wasn't a tenable solution and "Where else can I go...?". There was an unavoidable 'leap if faith' element to the final decision. I can say, just over 10 years in now, I've never regretted that decision. You can't toss reason to the wind, but it will only get you so far. The faith is not ultimately a matter of the brain/intellect but a transformation of the heart (in the ancient sense). May God bless your search and grant you what you need to follow His will.
Thanks for that great reminder,, that many of us may try to intellectually try to reason our way and try to find that silver bullet. For some they may find that one thing that is the deciding factor, but for others maybe not. Good to mention the faith factor also..very wise comment thank you..👍🏽🙏🏽❤️🩹
This from Ambrosiaster is enough proof that the Orthodox church is not unchanged since the time of the Apostles. This man boast boldly about changing the Apostolic tradition. This also became law within the Orthodox church for centuries. Later he was found to be 'pseudo' and not the real person. Yet it has become a tradition that overrides scripture and true apostolic tradition. The tone of his writing seems to be triumphant and mocking. It is off putting.
11And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, By apostles Paul means bishops, and by prophets he means expositors of the Scriptures. It may be true that in the early days there were prophets like Agabus and the four virgins, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, but this was in order to support the beginnings of the faith. Nowadays it is interpreters [of Scripture] who are called prophets. The evangelists are deacons, as Philip was.46 Although they are not priests, they are free to evangelize without their own pulpit, just like Stephen and the above-mentioned Philip. The pastors may be readers, who instruct the people with readings, because man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.48 The teachers are the exorcists because in the church they are the ones who restrain and beat the unruly. They are also the ones who used to teach children their lessons, a custom which is found among the Jews and which was inherited by us, but which has become obsolete through neglect. Among these people, who came after the bishop, it is further to be understood that there were those who were said to prophesy because they expounded the hidden meaning of Scripture, particularly because they brought out the words of future hope, which is not the function of the presbyterate. All the orders are found in the bishop, who is the chief priest, that is to say, the prince of the priests, as well as the chief prophet, evangelist and so on, in order to fill the offices of the church’s ministry. However, once churches were established all over the place and offices set up, the system changed from what it had originally been. At the beginning they had all preached and baptized on whatever day and at whatever time was convenient. Philip did not fix a day or a time for the eunuch’s baptism, nor did he assign a period of fasting beforehand. Paul and Silas did not waste any time in baptizing the jailer and all his household,50 nor did Peter have clerks or set a day when he would baptize Cornelius with all his household. He did not do it himself in fact, but ordered the brethren from Joppa who had gone up with him to Cornelius to do so. Up to that time too, no one had been ordained, apart from seven deacons. It was to allow the people to grow and multiply that at the beginning everyone was allowed to evangelize, to baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the church. But when the church became established in every place, congregations were formed and rectors and other officials were appointed, with the result that after that no clerk who was not ordained would dare perform a function which was not appointed or assigned to him. Thus the church began to be governed by a different order and system, because if everyone could do it, there would have been chaos and the whole thing would have looked vulgar and improper. This is why nowadays deacons do not preach in public nor do they (or laymen) baptize, nor are believers anointed on any day whatsoever, unless they happen to be sick. Therefore not everything written by the apostle coincides with the order of things which now exists in the church, because the apostolic writings describe what happened at the beginning. For example, Paul calls Timothy, whom he had made a presbyter, a bishop, because at first presbyters and bishops were the same thing, and when he eventually left the scene Timothy succeeded him. Even today in Egypt presbyters perform confirmations if the bishop is not present. But because succeeding presbyters were not fit to hold the chief offices, the system was changed by judicious foresight, so that it would not be his order but his merit which would create a bishop who would be elected by the judgment of many priests. This was done in order to prevent some unworthy person from claiming the office and becoming a scandal to many. In the law priests were Levites born into the tribe of Aaron. But now everyone belongs to the priestly tribe, as the apostle Peter says: For we are a royal and priestly nation, and therefore anyone can become a priest. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon, ed. Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, trans. Gerald L. Bray, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2009), 48-50.
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Even if you never convert, you've come a long way in terms of understanding what both traditions teach. Had it not been for an invitation to a Catholic men's breakfast, you might never have had any intention of learning about the Catholic faith. Most protestants' "knowledge" of the Catholic Church is at best based on second hand claims from other non-Catholics. You've taken an honest, unbiased approach, which has given you a genuine appreciation of our doctrines, devotions, etc., even if you don't fully agree with them. Kudos!
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689, I believe I can shed some light on the topics in the first half of your question (purgatory, papal infallibility, and papal succession), but it might help if you could let me know beforehand what your church background is and what your beliefs are regarding the essence/formation of Christian doctrine. Regarding the second half of your question, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "and would agree with what they taught". Thank you in advance for your response.
@@davidpope2189
I want to know if the Apostles taught these concepts and if those concepts would agree with what they already taught regarding soteriology and ecclesiology in their epistles.
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689, OK, fair enough. But again, knowing what your church background is and what your beliefs are regarding the essence/formation of Christian doctrine will help me immensely in framing my answer. Are you a Catholic now or were you one at some point in your life? Or have you always been a non-Catholic? If you are not a Catholic, what church/denomination/religion (if any) do you belong to? Regarding the essence/formation of Christian doctrine, do you believe in Sola Scriptura, or do you believe that some Christian doctrines can develop gradually, based on something that was taught by the Apostles, regardless of whether it appears explicitly in the Bible? And what exactly is your understanding of how the Apostles themselves formed their teachings on soteriology and ecclesiology?
Once again, thank you in advance for your response.
@@davidpope2189
I'm non catholic and have not been convinced to say the least and need these doctrines to be supported by the Apostles epistles that they left the church as their traditions were preserved both by word of mouth and were written down as shown in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Written tradition (Epistles) and oral tradition must agree or else something has gone awry.
I look forward to your answer. Thanks in advance!
As a Catholic convert, I appreciate your honesty and struggles. You have to make the decision that your conscience leads you to, and I respect that.
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
One big mistake I was making just generally was this idea that I could have epistemic certainty about things that I really couldn't have certainty about. It seems like you've got a grasp on that though, you seem to understand that as much as we might want it, we aren't going to have absolute or even near-certainty about our beliefs. It's not easy to come to grips with, because it means you either have a ton of work ahead of you which may still lead you down the wrong path, or you have to throw in your lot with some creed without reasonable certainty that you made the right choice. It's a difficult position to be in, even if it is an inevitable part of critically examining our beliefs. If I'm being honest, when I converted to Catholicism I felt very certain about it at a time when I had the least reason to be certain about it. I don't regret my choice, but I could never really justify it to anyone else in hindsight. One thing I have been thinking about a lot lately is, given the diversity of creeds out there, I find it hard to believe that Jesus will hold us completely accountable for every exact doctrine. Am I going to learn ancient Greek? No. Am I going to study every ancient manuscript? No. Not only do most people not have the means to do this, most people, if we're being honest, simply aren't intelligent enough to do this - I count myself in that group. I find it more helpful to focus on building charity in myself and those I love, and properly following as best I know how. What else can you do when you consider the monumental epistemic challenge we have today? Idk, I don't want to come off as a relativist, I think we can't just accept everyone and everything just because it's hard to figure out what's true, but I'm just saying that on your journey to making the choice it seems to still be possible to grow in faith and love for God and that might have to be good enough, at least for a little while.
I really appreciate your honesty in this. Thanks for a very thoughtful comment
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
I get where you're coming from. As a fellow ecclesiastical hobo myself, I've noticed that older faiths like Catholicism or Orthodoxy can make the Gospel seem more complicated than it needs to be. Even if we don't dive into the history stuff, all the strict "dogmatic" beliefs can make it tough for someone who just wants a straightforward view of the Gospel. Many blessings.
don't forget: if it were up to the roman and hellenistic cults, reading the bible is taboo for the laity.
@@svrsl7819 The Church translate the Bible from Greek to Latin to allow people to read the Bible in their own languaje, this is why the name is Vulgata.
@@svrsl7819 I wouldn't say that is so much the case today. A generation or more ago, it was still the case. Catholics think the way it is now is the way it always was. Ask some elderly Catholics and they still adhere to the old ways. My grandma came right out and told me she doens't read the bible, because she doesn't want her head to get screwed up like me, lol. That was the teaching in her day. You can't understand it on your own, just do whatever the church tells you, and it's up to the church to interpret it for you.
@@svrsl7819Right... let me guess, you believe that the first vernacular translation was the Luther bible. News flash: the bible has been translated into vernaculars for obvious reasons in an unbroken line. Not usually the entire bible, but that's beside the point - even after the canon(s) were established, it was exceedingly rare for the entire set to exist in a single codex. Usually there was multiple codices. That aside, "the bible," if we are honest and talk about biblical texts rather than the whole thing as we know it, has been translated into every major European vernacular long before the Reformation. This isn't even revisionist history, it's simply wrong.
makes it feel like you have to have a masters degree in orthodoxy or Catholicism in order to understand it all. How does a normal person come to convert without deciding to do so before you actually understand all the beliefs?
Really appreciate this sharing! As a Chinese Christian I’ve become increasingly aware of the need for intellectual satisfaction for a Western mind. As much as I am going through pretty much the same thing, not fitting in with Protestants anymore, strongly leaning towards Orthodoxy, but still there’s something holding me back from fully converting. The reason is not so much a lack of intellectual persuasion. That’s hardly ever been an issue for my Asian mind. I love the depth of the East, yet I insist that the zeal of the West to grow in breadth should be emphasized as much. I really look forward to seeing that one final version of Christianity emerging, where Christians would have the depth of Orthodoxy while sharing the zeal of the Catholics and Protestants to get out there and preach the gospel at all cost.
I've often thought of this, but recently I realized that we Orthodox have done tremendous missionary work. From the beginning with the Holy Apostles, the the conversion of entire kingdoms and empires, to the work of St Herman of Alaska, St John of Sanfrancisco and Shanghai or St Raphael of Brooklyn. Maybe one issue is that I as a laymen can't just decide to go out and be a missionary. There's a process and maybe that makes it seem like there's less fervor among Orthodox to evangelize. Also, we seem to be more focused on working out our own salvation and in many ways I think that's a good thing. Not really sure to be honest, just speculating.
Have you considered the Eastern Catholic churches? Eastern Christianity but in communion with Church of Rome?
They are remnants of what the church looked like prior to the Great Schism of 1054 and centuries before Protestantism was ever heard of.
I think that the Orthodox are much more like national churches like the Anglicans are as we can see from the schism between Russian Orthodox and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on account of the latter recognizing the independence/Autocephaly of the Ukrainian church. And of course the Russian Orthodox Church are 100% in support of Russia's leaders while those of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine totally condemn Russia's invasion.
That Great Schism is one of the key reasons why Orthodoxy lost so much of its heartland and people to Islam including the Hagia Sophia, once the greatest church in Christendom but now a mosque.
Amen!
When you say, "depth of Orthodoxy", could elaborate more, are you commenting on the Orthodox rites?
If you meant 'rites', then might I suggest you explore the Eastern Catholic Churches? You will experience a rite that is more aligned with Orthodox Churches but communion with the Pope. Eastern Catholics can give former Protestants without antipapacy bias, some room theologically. For example, Eastern Catholics do not recite the 'filioque' in their Creed and do not have to follow Rome's form on the rites and pastoral approaches (Eastern Catholic leaders have advised for example, that Fidducia Supplicans does not apply to them).
God bless you and hope you find the fullness of truth.
While looking for the history of missions for evangelism in both aspects, I think it comes to different reasons for this appearance of "less evangelism".
The Roman Catholic Church was established in countries which had easier access to the oceans, and ended up discovering the Americas, which, naturally, led the religion to expand further to the natives. Furthermore, I've found that the RCC used more military and political force to bring about conversion of the masses, not only in the Americas, but also very much so in european countries. How can the gospel of peace be preached by a sword?
Meanwhile, the Orthodox seem to always have had a more peaceful approach to evangelism, all while also bearing much more persecution from the Ottoman Empire and the communist regime. So, the Orthodox have been more repressed than the RCC, have had less political and military power and also ended up in countries with less colonialism, but, even so, they're still thriving. For me, at least, that has been a meaningful sign.
The RUclipsr Ubis Petrus has a long list of videos covering specifically many Eastern Orthodox evangelism missions. I think, you'd like those!
As a catholic convert , I really enjoy your channel . I cannot stress this enough , but please take your time and keep doing what you do! if you stay Protestant , that is the decision that comes with the free will god gives us . God bless!
What got me over the top to ultimately leave Protestant ministry in 2011 was that I could collectively trust the ancient, apostolic churches more. With the papacy aside for the moment which is distinctive claim of Catholicism, there really is a deep unity in the Faith that we all have with one another even if not fully united. I understand it can be quite excruciating to choose between the Apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic/Oriental, Assyrian Church of the East, etc), but I think the reward of going with one of them is way worth it. I just couldn't imagine being in church without monasteries around the world or in possession of the relics of the apostles or inheriting their churches where they preached. There is this living memory in the apostolic churches that cannot always be proven from what remains of history and this requires a level of trust. The Dormition of Mary and honoring icons are the most difficult historically speaking but deep down, I do think Mary's body was translated out of here as the Ark of our Lord and that kissing the cross on Good Friday or the Face of our Lord on the shroud is something that the Apostles would commend and be cool with. We can't miss the forest for the trees. We have one life to live and cannot live in limbo forever. Obviously, I am just speaking for my journey and appreciate your transparency.
I would also add that I cannot prove historically everything that happened in my own life but its hidden in my memory and soul. The Church is very similar in this regards which is why from Spain to India they embraced honoring icons and Mary's Dormition. There is something about this quote by Lossky that rings true: "It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries which the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness.... The Mother of God was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world, the mystery of His Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church.... It is not so much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition..." [Panagia, in The Mother of God, ed. E.L. Mascall, p.35].
@@barrelagedfaith
Phenomenal quote and explanation. 🎯
@@barrelagedfaith I kind of a similar experience. I mean I do still have moments of doubts, I believe most if not all of us have.
But when I start pondering about the alternative, for example Protestantism, with everything I know now I just can't see me going that way ever. I can feel content with not knowing everything, but putting trust in the Church for these matters.
When I read St. Irenaeus for example, or other saints like St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, or simply reading a book about the depths of the faith, I know that this is so compelling!
And I simply just don't see a Protestant church in history.
If evidence of early attestation would be my radar, then I'm not sure which direction to go, as I don't find these things as a whole in history.
Sure, maybe you'd find parts that may resemble certain things like Sola Scriptura or something, but when looking at the whole the parts just don't seem to fit.
You could point to how highly St. Irenaeus regards scripture, how he keeps going on and on citing scripture, St. Paul this, Matthew that, John the apostle this, etc, etc.
But you also see an assumption of a universal church, a consistent unity in teaching and agreeance, apostolic succession, an exalted view of Rome and Peter.
That said, it are tough things to deal, strictly intellectual I'd be lost.
Sounds like you can't live without idolatry.
True, I can't live without worshiping monks, the bones of the apostles, or or committing idolatry. Go read some books brother, or maybe the Bible. @@johnthr33
I don’t think I’ve ever related to a video more. Thank you for putting into better words than I can how I feel! Ex: I’ve described it to my husband I feel like I’m either Protestant but “adding” things or Catholic and “removing” things for lack of better words. Better way to describe it is I feel too Catholic to be Protestant and too Protestant to be Catholic
I'm so glad to hear this resonated with you
Yes! Beautifully put!
I'm of a Pentecostal tradition, much of which I affirm, but steer very close to Orthodoxy in many other areas, and near Catholic in a couple.
Thank God His Kingdom is bigger than any one denomination!
I feel the same but towards orthodoxy. I disagree with prayer to saints, marian theology and icons but i do agree salvation is theosis. So am i protestant or Eastern orthodox? I believe in being counted righteous in Christ by faith apart from works (romans 3 and 1 clement 37) but i believe in judgement by works. I believe we can actually obey by the Spirit. I believe those who walk by the flesh will perish regardless of their profession of faith (gal 5).
I think a Christian is one who walks in the Spirit obeying all Jesus taught and trusts in Christ for the forgiveness of sin (being counted righteous in Him). Its a relationship with Jesus. Union with Christ aka theosis.
I just call myself a Christian.
@@Aaron637 I do wonder how so many Catholics and Orthodox stay convinced of the practices that you mentioned you can't sanction any more. There are all sorts of apologist channels that do deep dives into why you should do all those things. I don't find them convincing, but they are interesting.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 to be clear, im a Protestant. Ive never prayed to saints or venerated mary etc. just to be clear. But I agree with theosis as the path of salvation.
I'm glad you made this video and appreciate your honesty as others have stated in the comments. I've been on a similar journey alongside you, but really, I have further confirmed my Protestantism. Yet I truly adore the traditions in art and liturgy as well as the more solemn and sacred feel to an orthodox service. Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites is another channel I've found, equally offering sincere discovery, explanation, and fairness to arguments while at the same time showing much grace.
Change is hard, praying for you ☦️
-Formerly resistant convert
Ditto, as former agnostic I'd rather be Buddhist than be Orthodox despite having strong spiritual experience in childhood. Took me 3 years of almost 24/7 learning before I walked into Orthodox Church despite it being few miles away and saw almost every day
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Great video, I have always respected your candor. I am Orthodox and was never protestant. I went from raging atheist straight to Orthodoxy. I have noticed that others in my circle had a much longer and harder road of having to unlearn their old mindset and beliefs even after being baptized into Holy Orthodoxy, and I consider myself grateful for learning the Orthodox way from the ground up. If you don't believe in Orthodoxy, don't convert, I think this is a good mindset.
That being said; we only have a limited amount of time on Earth and it is impossible to have a complete understanding of all doctrinal and historical matters relevant to making a decision. I myself am still after going on 4 years in the Church, learning constantly.
I am Orthodox, not because I accept a list of beliefs that my Church accepts, but because I believe in the Church itself. I believe our Lord's promises that the Church will prevail forever, and that the Church is no less than his mystical body on Earth. I answer Saint Paul's rhetorical question "Is Christ divided" with a resounding "NO" meaning that if people are divided by practice, and doctrine, then they cannot be part of the body of Christ. I have learned that if my personal beliefs contradict the Orthodox belief, then it is I who need to change and not Christ.
I'm sure my Roman Catholic friends would feel similarly but I hope that helps you understand where we are coming from a bit more. It's not necessarily a list of theological ideas that makes me Orthodox, but the ecclesiastical belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and it's divine authority. God bless.
I have many issues with your comment. You may be surprised to find out how many Protestants and Catholics are indeed part of the Mystical Body of Christ. The same Holy Spirit has been working in our churches and in our Saints as well
I would love to hear the story of your conversion
And where does the Bible fit in all this? Because to me it’s the word of God so takes precedence
@dawn2508 It fits in the life of the very Church that compiled and canonized it, the Church in which God's word lives and breathes in its fullest context. Christ foremost established and gave us a Church, not a book. "I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18).
"The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
The Bible is a fruit of the Church, and yet all the little popes (Protestants) see fit to interpret it for themselves and have since divided into approximately 30,000 registered denominations. This was not God's intent when, in fact, the faith was fully and completely given at Pentecost. "The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
@@dawn2508 The Bible is the inerrent, written Word of God - All Catholics and Orthodox believe this. Notice how he talks about "Our Lord's promises that the Church will prevail forever" - That's a reference to Matthew 16:18-19. Notice how he talks about St. Paul's question of "Is Christ divided?" - That's a reference to 1 Cor. 1:13. I understand the defensive impulse to constantly return to "What about the Bible?", especially when dialoging with non-Protestants, because I was a Baptist for most of my life. But often you'll find that when you look closely, Catholics and Orthodox are referencing Scripture without citing verse numbers as many Protestants do.
Also, it's important to note that "Word of God" does not apply only to the Bible. We see it applying to three things in Scripture: Jesus Christ, as the fullest expression of the Word. Sacred Scripture, which is the written Word of God. Finally, Tradition, which is the spoken Word of God St. Paul instructs us to hold fast to in 2 Thess. 2:15. Tradition isn't simply a set of customs - It's the teachings of the apostles handed on, including how the Church has always interpreted certain passages of Scripture, like Matthew 16:18 for example. Without Tradition to help elucidate Scripture, we'd be back to individual people trying to interpret Scripture for themselves and reaching wildly different conclusions, as Protestants are forced to do. This was a factor in my own conversation - I recognized quickly I wasn't nearly wise or discerning enough to interpret all of Scripture myself of establish my own systematic theology. I started to realize God must have installed a divine interpreter of His divine revelation.
Coming from a former low church Evangelical, now Catholic: I appreciate your honest look into these matters. Things will make sense along the way.
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689
Do yourself the favor.
@christsavesreadromans1096 1 Corinthians 3 does not teach purgatory. Go learn to read again. Hmm, 1 Timothy 3:15 should be read in light of the preceding verse that actually proves "scripture alone." In verse 14 Paul very clearly states if he is delayed it will be his writing that will direct Timothy's conduct in the church. Again learn to read. As for Matthias. that is absolutely not what I was asking for. That was still when the church was forming and Matthias fulfilled scripture when he took over Judas' place. TRY AGAIN!
@christsavesreadromans1096
Huh? Can you seriously not read? That does not say the person will be burned, only the person's works will be burned up but they will be saved as through the fire.
@christsavesreadromans1096
Again, you cannot read nor reason apparently. Paul is an apostle and he clearly tells Timothy that if he is delayed or not present that it will be his writing that will direct Timothy's conduct and doctrine in the church.
“These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
I Timothy 3:14-15 NKJV
I'm in the same boat here, thanks for being so honest and explaining yourself so well. Makes it easier to know we're not alone!
It took me 6 years before deciding to enter the Catholic Church, and God taught me so much along the way - I'm so grateful for that journey and my time as a Protestant Christian. One thing in my own discernment I needed to realize was that even as a Christian it is easy to remain a skeptic. At some point I had to make an informed decision with faith (ie. If Christ really did establish the Church, then I believe the Church's teaching on the Assumption of Mary etc. without it needing to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt). An understanding of apologetics, being able to know and defend our faith, is good (faith seeking understanding) but it can also lead a person down a road of taking a skeptical approach to everything, in which we will never truly trust God, but rather our intellect. To agree with a claim is not the same thing as faith... If all I have is agreement, then the next time I have a question, I won't believe until someone convinces me, until the next time I have a question, and so on. Faith is not just intellectual agreement, but trust that doesn't just live in our heads but affects the way we live. This is true not only in becoming a Christian but in Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic discernment I believe. We need to ask questions, but skepticism begins by demanding something be proven before being willing to accept it, and from my experience that gives the enemy a foothold to steal our joy. I think Eastern Orthodox theology is far superior to the western mindset in this area and we can learn a lot from them. I share this as something I went through and learned in my discerning becoming Catholic or remaining Protestant, and it might not be the same story for you. I will be praying for you Austin, may Jesus lead and guide you to the Eucharist and always closer to His Sacred Heart.
I couldn't agree more!
Wow, so succinctly expressed. Bless you ❤
The church is all those on Christ. When the word is used in a physical sense it’s 2 or more gathered in his name. Church history doesn’t hold up for me there are way to many contradicting messy political things and just not enough information to make y’all’s claim of succession with confidence. Too many mediums to Christ etc. the apostles were the only infallible authority and their writings handed down. The Catholic Church has taken way to many liberties adding onto and “improving” the apostles teachings and foundation. Infant baptism etc.
This is what Jesus has to say about Mary
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 they can’t nor can they in the first 150 years during the persecutions and underground churches set up where non of that was happening
One thing I've learned as an Orthodox, it's not always best to know how everything works. I don't understand how cars work, or how my phone works, I just know that it does work.
Would you mind unpacking what you mean by “not best?” Do you just mean that it’s not necessary to understand the complex inner workings of certain theological ideas, or that knowledge of those things is actually harmful?
Same here but it was super duper easier for me to become Episcopalian- they embrace all of the forms of apostolic sacramental Nicene liturgy, but without medieval baggage tacked on. However, sometimes the demythologizing hits a nerve and goes too far, so these days I am concerned that the creeds are voiced without conviction and the Bible is disregarded. I doubt there is much of a future with TEC.
In short we can't always trust our logical minds we must trust we actually don't know anything
It probably behooves you to understand how worldly tools work. There's a reason why modern technology is viewed with such suspicion in many Orthodox parishes and certainly in the monastic tradition. Your iPhone is not a Holy Mystery.
Yeah that's another good point. @@chronotriggerfan
Couldn’t empathize more Austin. My journey over the last two years has been extremely similar and as someone who has recently graduated college, considering church leadership, and planning an engagement, I’ve had several difficult conversations about this topic specifically. Feeling alienated based on either what I consider important for Church Life or whether I would convert (from a Non-Denominational/Historical Baptist), and how that would impact my closest people and my future, Lord Willing, fiancé. All I know is that I seek to follow Jesus where He leads and I love being ecumenical in my approach to other brothers and sisters and lastly, is a much more complicated topic than I was prepared for nor did I expect not too long ago.
This from Ambrosiaster is enough proof that the Orthodox church is not unchanged since the time of the Apostles. This man boast boldly about changing the Apostolic tradition. This also became law within the Orthodox church for centuries. Later he was found to be 'pseudo' and not the real person. Yet it has become a tradition that overrides scripture and true apostolic tradition. The tone of his writing seems to be triumphant and mocking. It is off putting. Finding things like this in my study has really kept me grounded and away from being boxed. Michael Heiser once said "I would rather be outside the box seeing what is in it, rather than being in the box unable to fully investigate'.
11And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, By apostles Paul means bishops, and by prophets he means expositors of the Scriptures. It may be true that in the early days there were prophets like Agabus and the four virgins, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, but this was in order to support the beginnings of the faith. Nowadays it is interpreters [of Scripture] who are called prophets. The evangelists are deacons, as Philip was.46 Although they are not priests, they are free to evangelize without their own pulpit, just like Stephen and the above-mentioned Philip. The pastors may be readers, who instruct the people with readings, because man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.48 The teachers are the exorcists because in the church they are the ones who restrain and beat the unruly. They are also the ones who used to teach children their lessons, a custom which is found among the Jews and which was inherited by us, but which has become obsolete through neglect. Among these people, who came after the bishop, it is further to be understood that there were those who were said to prophesy because they expounded the hidden meaning of Scripture, particularly because they brought out the words of future hope, which is not the function of the presbyterate. All the orders are found in the bishop, who is the chief priest, that is to say, the prince of the priests, as well as the chief prophet, evangelist and so on, in order to fill the offices of the church’s ministry. However, once churches were established all over the place and offices set up, the system changed from what it had originally been. At the beginning they had all preached and baptized on whatever day and at whatever time was convenient. Philip did not fix a day or a time for the eunuch’s baptism, nor did he assign a period of fasting beforehand. Paul and Silas did not waste any time in baptizing the jailer and all his household,50 nor did Peter have clerks or set a day when he would baptize Cornelius with all his household. He did not do it himself in fact, but ordered the brethren from Joppa who had gone up with him to Cornelius to do so. Up to that time too, no one had been ordained, apart from seven deacons. It was to allow the people to grow and multiply that at the beginning everyone was allowed to evangelize, to baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the church. But when the church became established in every place, congregations were formed and rectors and other officials were appointed, with the result that after that no clerk who was not ordained would dare perform a function which was not appointed or assigned to him. Thus the church began to be governed by a different order and system, because if everyone could do it, there would have been chaos and the whole thing would have looked vulgar and improper. This is why nowadays deacons do not preach in public nor do they (or laymen) baptize, nor are believers anointed on any day whatsoever, unless they happen to be sick. Therefore not everything written by the apostle coincides with the order of things which now exists in the church, because the apostolic writings describe what happened at the beginning. For example, Paul calls Timothy, whom he had made a presbyter, a bishop, because at first presbyters and bishops were the same thing, and when he eventually left the scene Timothy succeeded him. Even today in Egypt presbyters perform confirmations if the bishop is not present. But because succeeding presbyters were not fit to hold the chief offices, the system was changed by judicious foresight, so that it would not be his order but his merit which would create a bishop who would be elected by the judgment of many priests. This was done in order to prevent some unworthy person from claiming the office and becoming a scandal to many. In the law priests were Levites born into the tribe of Aaron. But now everyone belongs to the priestly tribe, as the apostle Peter says: For we are a royal and priestly nation, and therefore anyone can become a priest. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon, ed. Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, trans. Gerald L. Bray, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2009), 48-50.
Right there with you, man.
@@Sonwalkers247The Orthodox position is that there is freedom and authority in the Apostolic Church (and precedent in the New Testament-see Acts 15) to order her own household with the help/leading of the Holy Spirit to meet the needs of changing circumstances. This does not change her dogma or essential sacramental understandings of the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, the Eucharist, and of Bishops, Priests & Deacons. I would encourage you not only to read the commentary edited by Protestants that you cite, but to read also what Orthodox and Catholic scholars teach about such things and to read directly whole writings of the early Church Fathers who expound on these organizational developments so you have more context in which to understand what is meant by “unchanged” from an Orthodox (or Catholic) perspective.
This is actually a direct quote from an Orthodox source. Sorry you are in error and justifying a lie. This is a called a ‘delusion’ or rather a searing of the conscience in a specific area. Triumphalism proves nothing. Oddly enough you guys all use more random quotes to justify yourselves, proving you guys had almost 800 years of doctrinal development. One has to only read the first 300 years of church history to find the bright blinking lights of contradiction. For instance you guys did have a teaching of deification but it was not even a developed theology until the 19th century then it was everywhere. The problem is you have a box theology that only pulls from the box you are in. You can never fully investigate the box from the inside. The proof of salvation is the departure from iniquity not the beauty of orthodoxy. Paul argued with those who rejected the power of God in favor of Greek philosophy and counterfeit humility with false ascetics in Corinthians as well as Colossians. Unfortunately despite all the epistles being listed prior to the second century as useful you guys triump over that by telling everyone your group gave us the scriptures rather than confirm what was in use by all the saints throughout the known world. I do believe your sect is very old but years of study have led me to believe it is a refined sect of Judaism mixed with Greek philosophy that Paul continued to warn about in his epistles. I mean come on you guys even re-wrote the gifts of the spirit and continually coming against them outside of extra biblical miracles such as relics and bleeding icons, and the few monastics, which again contradicts the early monastics who went to the desert to escape a corrupt Orthodox Church who married themselves to politicians. It is my prayer that you have a true encounter not with wood and paint but the living God that you may have a relationship with Him likened to fire.
Definitely appreciate this a lot. I feel like I am in a very similar place of having a much deeper appreciation for church history, orthodoxy/catholicism, sacrementalism, etc; but at the same time not fully being convinced and ending up in this weird middle-ground ecclesially that doesn't really fit in with anything. I also appreciate you saying that you have stayed with your current low-church evangelical church while you are on this journey, that is the same situation I am in with my wife and daughter. It definitely helps me feel not quite as alone in the wandering, so thank you for this 🙏🏻
What’s low church?
I've seen a lot of comments here with similar sentiments, myself included.
We should probably make a Facebook support group, haha. 😅
Im with You on that same journey. ;) I grew up as a catholic and event wanted to be a priest. Than I was interested in orthodoxy and ended as protestant even I know about its problems.
@@ukaszkrawczyk6260Wow we are like mirrors😂. I grew up protestant in Germany and converted to catholic in December. Only difference is I do not want to become.priest
You took the words out of my mouth on this video! Not convinced because tradition or aesthetic isn’t enough 😂
Glad this resonated with you!
In Orthodoxy, you are in communion with God. I heard it once compared as this: Say God is a tree in this scenario… the West will examine the fruit, cut the tree down to count the rings, be very analytical about things. But the East will play under the tree, get married under the tree, and get buried under the tree. I know this may not change your heart, but the Holy Spirit led me to the Orthodox Church nearly 5 years ago and it changed my life. I went from Agnostic and drug addicted to now having a husband and two beautiful babies. During my journey, I also got to reconcile things with my father whom I hadn’t spoken to in over a decade, that was now battling lung cancer. I asked God for one thing and it was to please let me make up for lost time with my Dad and I will forever be His servant - mind you I was agnostic at the time and this was the first time I ever really prayed. And God answered my prayer! Two years together and it truly changed the both of us. I’m forever in debt to God for giving me so many blessings which I do not deserve, but He is a good God that loves mankind. I hope my testimony can open your hearts to the true faith. Thank you! You both will be in our prayers ❤
😂😂😂 the Bible is a church tradition… the ignorance of y’all is ridiculous once you know there no bible without the church there isn’t staying Protestant sorry. You guys are the ones with new traditions. Not the traditions Paul pass down to Timothy.
@@EliteBaby-bh7zq No, not really. two thirds of it existed long before the consolidation of the many autonomous churches came together under the command of Constantine to standardize Christian doctrine, teachings and scriptures. It wasn't the Roman Catholic church, but autonomous churches that had various minor and some major differences then and the Bishop of Rome was the same as any other bishop. God guided the men at this council to put together an agreed upon New Testament to add to the already existing and established Old Testament, which the church had nothing to do with.
Not only that, but they had a major crisis on their hands with Arianism and what to do with it. There was no Papal Decree, Bull of Dogma that came out against Arias, but a creed that was agreed upon by the many bishops present. The beginnings of what is known as the Roman Catholic Church really didn't come into being until after St Augustine, after his works laid a basic foundation for what would become modern Catholicism.
Finally, even if the New Testament was a product of the church as it is taught by Catholicism and Orthodoxy, then why does the church not follow many of the teachings found in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible is the Constitution of the church and I'm sorry to say, but many of the so called Dogmas of the Church are a bit unconstitutional. Any thing any church comes up with to be tradition should be held under the light of Scripture and verify if it complies with the teachings in Scripture or is against the teaching of Scripture. Anything that takes away glory and honor from God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not of God, and there are too many things in Catholicism and Orthodoxy that take the place of what is the Triune God's only. Even if the Church is given the final Authority, it is not reasonable to proclaim a Dogma that doesn't comply with Scripture.
Scripture tells us to test the Spirits and teachings of others as the Bereans did as an example. When Paul sent letters to the churches the believers at Berea searched the scriptures (then the Old Testament/Septuagint) to verify his teachings and they were commended for it. If you can feel comfortable with the various Catholic doctrines such as Marian veneration and the "Immaculate Conception" and "Bodily Assumption" of Mary (which wasn't dogmatized until around 1850) and see no contradiction in God's Word, then good for you. That is just one example, but I pray for all of us to seek to know the Lord more and that is why I study both my Bible, history (both ecclesiastical and secular) daily to learn and absorb all I can about Jesus, my savior.
@@pl1guru keeping it short and sweet Ik you don’t know what your taking about because you said we didn’t get the ot from the church I guess you mean we get the ot for the Jews.😂 no we don’t we get the ot from the Jews we get it from the church that’s we our cannon is 76 and not 66 because the church didn’t follow and listen to Jews who reject the Christ. For some reason you think it’s valid to get the cannon from the Jews and killed and rejected Jesus but not his church who was killed for his name sake. Btw I’m orthodox not catholic so don’t bring up anything catholic. If you want to talk about mother Mary what do you what to know that she’s the mother of god or queen of heaven because that’s in your short bible (66 books). Also we did y’all take books out the Bible. Until you go to the orthodox faith you have no grounds to believe the Bible. Most surely not a cannon from Jews who think Jesus was a false prophet😂 you sound like a Muslim. “ we have same one god”😂😂
Austin: Fairly conservative Catholic in Chicago here, who attends St. John Cantius, a church with which you have some familiarity. You're fine just as you are. Kepp following Christ and you won't be led in the wrong direction. You're our brother in Christ, regardless of where you worship on a Sunday morning. I have the utmost respect for the way you have sincerely approached all of these things you cover in your videos. May God continue to bless you.
Thank you
@ljones436 In charity, what you're saying is a rejection of the truth of Christ. The Church anathematizes anyone who says that the faith of Rome does not need to be held.
@@j.knight9335 There is nothing in the CCC that states salvation is found only in the Church. Indeed, the Church doesn't own salvation and therefore cannot limit Grace.
@@ljones436 The CCC is not our infallible rule of faith. The Magesterium is.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).
That's dogma.
@@ljones436 The CCC is not our infallible rule of faith. The dogmatic definitions of the Magesterium are.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).
That's dogma.
As a non-resistant non-believer myself I really appreciate the honesty of this video. Sometimes, despite really wanting something to be true we are not convinced by the evidence to believe that it is true. I know personally how emotionally and spiritually taxing this can be, wishing you the best no matter where you end up
Thank you, Jacob!
I don't mean this as a denigration, but your own words speak volumes: "we are not convinced by the evidence to believe that it is true". I'd say you already believe in your own parameters as to what counts as ''evidence" to be true and are convinced of your own powers of discernment. It's circular as all human-based logic is.
Christ isn't the conclusion of of a logical chain, but logic's very foundation (as Logos), and thus its very Mystery. Human logic without Christ can neither lead to Truth nor salvation due to the inherent circularity of which your own words give ample demonstration. In addition, when we follow that circularity around we die spiritually in (at least) two ways. First, through contradiction due to our 'search' only within that circular movement as we find ourselves far too often 'convinced' of a position we once held opposite to another of which we were once equally 'convinced,' thus we neither find Christ nor do we uphold our principles of logic: that of non-contradiction. Secondly, we stop searching altogether and end in nihilism and/or some totalizing ideology or fundamentalism. Neither of these speak to the pride which, I believe, is the foundational motivation here.
Like you I was once a non-believer. I placed great value on what I counted as my 'hard agnosticism' and the primacy of human reasoning. Again, I don't mean these words to denigrate you in any way, but to point out the fact that in all honesty, you do seem actually and to actively believe in yourself as the arbiter of Truth. Recognizing this very motivation in myself is part of why I became an Orthodox Christian. God bless you!
You would be a great candidate for Pascal’s wager then, don’t you think?
Yep, I do think so (although on an intellectual level I'd probably have some qualms with, it has convinced me emotionally/spiritually). I currently would call myself an Agnostic Christian, my beliefs are that of an agnostic but I am trying to live as a Christian would. I've been going to Church (which I did before I de-converted a few years ago), reading the Bible, praying to God, and trying to follow Jesus as best I can. I've personally been using the Book of Common Prayer (1662 International Edition) as at the moment if I did become convinced of the creed I'd become an Anglican as that is where I have landed theologically, but also because it's a great prayer book. Do you have any tips for someone actively taking pascal's wager? @@hjc1402
I've already tried to reply to this once, but it doesn't seem to have worked so I'll try again. Yes, I think I am a good candidate for Pascal's wager! I am currently taking the wager and describe myself as an Agnostic Christian. My beliefs are those of an agnostic but I am trying to live my life, to the best extent possible, as a Christian. I have restarted praying to God (if there is one), reading the Bible, Going to Church and trying to follow Jesus and his teachings. If you've got any advice for someone taking the wager, I'd love to hear it!@@hjc1402
Your channel helped my conversion to Catholicism last Easter ❤
How bout’ that! 😁
Welcome home!
Thank you for your honesty and expressing what many protestants that have studied church history feels ❤
Even when I became Catholic, I wasn’t completely intellectually convinced, I just knew it was the only way and I decided to humble my intellect a little and trust the Fathers and the saints that have gone before me. It was when I dove in and submitted myself to the Church, and began living the life of the Church, inwardly and outwardly, that the Faith became more and more alive, and the missing puzzle pieces started coming together, and they still are. I realized people can debate endlessly and there can always be objections to anything. There comes a point when one just has to DO what he knows is right and true, regardless if he’s fully grasped its understanding. Beware of paralysis by analysis..
Hope that helps.
Not gunna beware of that that’s being like the bereans one of the reasons I’m not catholic or orthadox too much trust in a messy contradicting fallible muddy history. No offense but it’s not an issue of humility.
I'm curious how you "just knew" it was the only way. Last I checked Jesus is the way. And submitting yourself to the church and not Christ? Bro
@@shaner2114 same feelings. when you actually dig into church history too it’s so misleading contradicting political and messy. When I was looking into orthadoxy it was the “succession” and “history” that actually deterred me. It is almost sad that people buy into it especially when most of the important ordinances and practices don’t appear anywhere till 200 ad and onward and have people arguing over it and getting on to people practicing said thing in question. mind blowing. especially infant baptism imo
@@shaner2114 for us Catholics the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. So submitting to the Church is actually submitting to Christ and viceversa. That does not mean to blindly obey and do everything that any priest or other Church authority says, however we believe that the Church is being led and guided by the Holy Spirit and that its definitive teachings are valid. Maybe from outside it can look like we are putting Church above Christ himself, but for any faithful Catholic that is certainly not the case as we percieve Christ as the Head of the mystical body we call Church. Hopes that helps you out. God bless all fellow Christians out there!
@@shaner2114Jesus indeed is the Way. And he established a Church on earth which is his body. You cannot have a head without the body. To follow Jesus is to live within His Church.
My conversion to Orthodoxy from Reformed protestantism was not intellectual and I was not convinced of a lot of Orthodox doctrines. In fact, I was uneasy and even offended by a lot of Orthodox doctrines when I started attending my parish. It was a spiritual process, based on real experience of Christ, and truthfully I am still converting even years after I was received into the Church. Don't rush your spiritual life, God is patient. Pray, be humble, and if you feel the need to discern Orthodoxy then I would recommend faithful attendance of the services for at least a year in order to begin understanding.
The Catholic Monks Greek and Latin who spent millions of hours, they didn’t have printing presses they didn’t have email, they didn’t copy and past they had quills and parchment and they spent millions of hours copying the bible so that you could have the Bible, and those Monks were monks were celibate, they went to mass, they believed in infant Baptism , they sprinkled Babies, they prayed for the dead, they asked saint to pray for them, they did all the Catholic stuff. And your saying OH us Protestants we know better then them. Sant Paul actually teaches against scripture alone, he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
i had a period where i was reading more than i ever had before and while i learned a lot i just grew numb from it, i stepped back for a while and just meditated on the most simple aspects of the faith for a while and when i returned to my studies they were much more profitable, not trying to say anything about your situation this is just what i experienced
That's where I am now - stepping back from the intellectual debates and focusing on the basics. Gavin Ortlund talks a lot about intellectual anxiety and the craving for factual clarity that is rooted in the soul, rather than in the nature of facts.
I have never seen anyone articulate my thoughts on this matter more! Thank you for your content, it’s been comforting watching your journey alongside of my own.
I was raised Catholic and this is basically how I feel about the Church as well, but I’m already in it 🤷♀️. Fantastic video!
Hence the term cafeteria Catholics
and proud :)
If you really feel this way are you really in it though?
@@lucilleyoung5972 Lukewarm was the description that Jesus used.
“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” ~ St. Augustine
I appreciate your authenticity and gracious engagement as you seek to understand those who see the faith differently. I wish I knew you while you were a student at Moody! God bless your ministry, brother.
With the help of your videos I have embraced holy orthodoxy and joined a parish! And have taken my faith seriously. So thank you for all that you do, seriously huge fan!
P.S. still rooting for you to come to holy orthodoxy ☦️☦️
Dude, thank you. I feel the same way. I love so many things from the old churches, but I simply haven’t found enough evidence to convince me to convert (despite my best efforts).
Thank you so much for sharing your journey with us, Austin! I am totally with you on this. I started my own exploration of Catholicism and Orthodoxy over a decade ago with a genuine openness to convert. Your channel has been very helpful!
The way it was put to me by Catholic apologists was if I wanted to learn why there is no historical precedent for Protestant distinctives all I had to do was read the Church Fathers.
So, I took this at face value and dove in. My conclusion? The more I read of the Church Fathers the more I realized that the Reformation was, while imperfect, inevitable.
Modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy simply paints themselves and their faithful into corners with more non-negotiables than I am able to intellectually ascribe to given what I know of history. You gave some great examples I agree with. I love iconography, too, by the way!
Lastly, I sympathize with the often awkward loneliness that comes with being ecclesiastically homeless. Many folks interested in patristics do not agree with me and many folks I agree with are not interested in patristics. What to do?
The reason I am now a settled Protestant is that its tradition is, for better and worse, more flexible. In my view, it is very difficult for Catholic and Orthodox faithful to follow the truth wherever it leads. For me, that is a non-negotiable.
I'm curious if you are part of a particular protestant denomination now.
This comment is fire 🔥
@@yeahnothx-e9l I grew up in Baptist churches and am comfortable staying there. I have been blessed to find a congregation with a growing appreciation of the church calendar, liturgy, and sacraments. Thank you for asking. I welcome questions. Always happy to support a fellow traveler. 🙂
@@eugenenunn4900 That's very kind of you to say.
It's okay to take your time. Authenticity is an important part of a spiritual journey. I like your content and I'm happy you're making it.
Bro. I've never seen you or your videos before now, but these are my thoughts exactly.
Notice that he only approves of those that affirm him.
Born and raised Catholic, I intellectually knew the Catholic Church’s teachings. I never truly understood the faith until I encountered the true Jesus in Eucharistic Adoration.
I’m a revert and Jesus in the Eucharist brought me back
Amen!
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 Thank you for the question and remaining respectful. Many people like to use the platform with disrespect. In light of 1 Timothy 3:15 (the church is the pillar of truth):
1) purgatory: Matthew 5:26, Matthew 12:32, 1 Corinth 3:11-15, (and other verses found in what is called the apocrypha)
2) papal succession: Acts 1:12-26 (example of the need to replace Judas),
3) papal infallibility: Luke 10:16, Matthew 16: 17-19, (and other basic traditions and all Christians honor, such as the belief that, though the writers of the Gospels and letters were flawed humans, we believe their writings are infallible.)
What do you mean by “encountered?”
I can relate to how you're feeling. 🙂 As a cradle Roman Catholic, the RCC did a great job of catechizing me on Catholic doctrine. But not so much on the Bible. And really almost nothing about interacting with the indwelling Holy Spirit. One day I asked God to fill me with His Spirit (not expecting any bells or whistles, obviously!) and was shocked to actually feel and "hear" Him begin communicating to me in 'thought pictures' so rapidly I could barely keep up. I've never been the same since. After 8 years of resisting the Lord's guidance, I finally left the RCC and attended evangelical protestant churches for 30+ years. I learned so much more about God and my faith in evangelical circles. I truly feel that protestant churches in general do a better job than any other churches of bringing people to true faith in Jesus Christ.
But then God led me to return to a liturgical church with traditional hymns, reverent worship, and communion every Sunday. It's an ACNA Anglican parish. I'm not saying it's perfect (no denomination is perfect, and even if there were a perfect one it would become imperfect once I joined it!) but I do feel at home and planted in it. It's catholic with a small 'c', minus almost all of the RC baggage: no legalisms, no "you must do this and you must believe that," and emphasis on trusting in Jesus Christ's propitiation/redemption rather than on church membership, sacraments, etc. 😊
I really appreciate this and am right there. I have been chasing Orthodoxy for two years. At times my desire to be Orthodox is intense. My preferneces and theology don't "fit" well in my non-denominational protestantism. I have become more sacramental. I think sola scriptura has some big issues. However, I find myself in a similar position. I am not fully convinced. I love what God is doing in my protestant church. My gifts, calling, and family also fit well there.
I can definitely relate!
I recognize that there isn't quite as firm a foundation for Sola Scriptura as I would like. The Church did manage to muddle along until they solidified their choices of what to include or exclude. But lacking a Canon left them wide open to heresy, until they could point to written authority to counter it. Later, with the Scriptures in place, they set an irrefutable standard. The only question comes with interpreting some points that seem obscure. Yet, the obligation to base all doctrines firmly on Scriptures has a salutary effect to keep the accumulation of unnecessary doctrines at bay. Once we have a Canon, the authorities of the Church should feel the need to obey it, not to claim a right to use it as they wish. The Scriptures are our Constitution, and the Church's leadership has no more authority than the royal house under a Constitutional Monarchy. The Pope can't declare a chapter of the Gospels to be no longer valid, and he cant add another chapter to the book of Revelations. The claim to Infallibility, and the additions to dogma, do exactly that, add and subtract to the content of belief. I can't go along with that. So, while I hear the argument that the Canon was dependent on the Church, I insist today that the Church must be dependent on the Canon.
@@lukasmakarios4998 Belief in the primacy of the word of God, above the church and all governing bodies is the heart of sola scriptura, I don't think it fully has to do w/ a formally compiled canon, since we clearly didn't always have that. The Catholc/Orthodox belief is that their church and their councils are equal to the word of God. I really doubt any of the apostles would have declared their meetings to hash things out to be equal w/ scripture and Jesus' teaching. I just can't fathom them presuming that. Yet that's the development of "the one true church". People forget about politics and lust for power, as if that never came into play.
Hi Austin. As an Orthodox Christian, I can attest to a way understanding many canonical statements (such as the historicity of icon veneration that you mentioned) that is a re-framing of how we Westerners often think of "evidence." The Eastern "heart first" approach is different from our Western "rational" approach; not contrary necessarily, but different. As Nicea II proclaims, icon veneration is the "faith" inherited from the Apostles. It doesn't claim that the praxis is the same and unchanged. There is most certainly a variety of "development" that is recognized by Orthodox leaders, but within the Apostolic "faith." Hard to describe. Thank you for your great content and wonderful heart.
This is a good summation of a lot of thoughts that I have had on this issue. Thanks.
I felt a large cognitive barrier initially especially to Catholocism although i was surrounded by it in college and it had "convinced" my now hudband. Ultimately we both settled on Orthodoxy where I still struggled with some beliefs initially but I grew into it and learned to trust with less guilt about some of my cognitive hesitancies in the eastern framework. When we knew it was the right decision, we knew, but it certainly wasn't a completely painless decision, neither was it a fully intellectual decision. Discernment can be a long prayerful process. Thanks for sharing. God Bless.
You and Ortlund are such great inspirations to me as a Protestant here in Brazil, please continue this wonderful work
Fellow Brazilian here! A craddle Catholic nevertheless😊. Are you Baptist?
Glad to hear that!
@@masterchief8179 yes, a bloody Baptist haha
@pedrohenriquemendonca1655 Nice! My guess was because of the English speaking pastors and theologians’ influence inside Baptist communities in Brazil! I owe much of my conversion (in the sense of ‘metanoia’) to this faithful Baptist friend, a good educated Christian who once was on the seminary. Since I’m more attracted to the intellectual side of the faith (this friend, for example, can’t read other idioms) and he is more into the pastoral side of it, we kind of helped each other’s journeys, so to speak. Long story short: he tried to convert me since day one of our friendship, but now - not to boast myself, but only to praise Our All Merciful God - he in on a personal journey to Catholicism after six years of studying with me, mostly ecclesiastical history and theology, marrying a Catholic girl (he said that would be absolutely impossible) - with whom he had two babies - and praying for the Holy Spirit to guide his path. So my great respect here! God bless!
@masterchief8179 great to hear how he's helped you! I also started studying church history, the Fathers, but that only made me more Protestant 😅. At the end, the greatest gift was to know how to appreciate, respect and read Catholics more than I used too, and seeing how God is acting in all churches. Let His name be praised!
It took me 20+ years of poking the bear until I finally entered into the Orthodox Faith. We are all on our own path - and I pray God blesses your journey!
Also one point to make: Orthodoxy is best learned and understood in Liturgy. We can talk to all the brightest, read all the best books...but we really start making the connections in context of Liturgy.
Welcome home, brother ☦️
From one heresy to another🤦🏻♂️
@@St_AngusYoungConvert to Islam!
I, deeply appreciate you, making this video.
Something about your presentation here makes me think of John 6, particularly when Peter says "wherelse can we go Lord, you alone have the words of eternal life"
As a Protestant who's been researching all of the traditions, I really appreciate this video.
Can you do me a favor and show me where the Apostles in their epistles definitively taught the concepts of purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession and would agree with what they taught in their epistles regarding soteriology and ecclesiology?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 huh? I don't see justification for those doctrines in scripture. I personally think Eastern Orthodoxy has a much better claim than the RCC. They also don't seem obsessed with Mary. I still have problems with EO though, such as exclusivity claims, icons, and general prayer to the saints. They do have some good deep Christology though.
@@huntsman528
I ask that question to prove a point of catholicism not being truly apostolic as they make like to make the claim. Now, in EO how does one become saved?
Looking forward to this. I often ask this question myself. Thanks for your book recommendations btw. I’m making my way through life in the trinity an introduction to theology with the help of the early church fathers. Amazing
What's holding you back?
I completely understand the ecclesiastical homelessness. I would not consider myself stuck in the Orthodoxy or Catholic realm but I feel more drawn to Anglican and Presbyterian church life but I've been Baptist my entire life. Maybe one day I'll be convinced of one rather than the other, but for now we just follow the Lord and let Him keep us where he wants us until that changes. Thanks for your honesty!
I really appreciate your honesty. Similarly, the historical claims of Orthodoxy & Catholicism are difficult for me to accept, even as I appreciate the devotional literature and historical theology. I have come to see this situation as analogous to the journey of faith. I appreciate my own tradition even as my pride in it has fled with my loss of certainty in every one of its particular claims. It seems I may have grown in faith even as I have lost certainty.
Hey brother. I hope you see this.
I've followed you along this journey since before I converted, and am now Orthodox myself. Having dealt with every issue you mentioned (and many more) over the course of 4 years, allow me to share the perspective of one on the inside looking out.
Any number of individual areas of theology could be listed that you take issue with which keep you unconvinced, indefinitely. Respectfully, I'd say you have the order of the investigative process backwards, if we bare in mind that faith precedes being open to evidence (e.g. the Pharisees were direct eyewitnesses to every manner of evidence, but were not convinced. Needless to say, it wasn't the evidence itself that was insufficient, it was that their standard of the "burden of proof" was continually adjusted to disqualify the evidence for failing to satisfy their personal criteria.)
Please don't think I'm calling you a Pharisee or accusing you of intentionally discrediting the evidence--I believe you are sincere--I'm just saying it's an important parallel to consider. Because in the same way that we aren't in a position to put the Son of God on trial by insisting He prove Himself to us, we're no more entitled to say His Church (which is His Body, which cannot be separated from the Master himself) is subject to our private judgment. Faith, as such, can't be reduced to a subjective intellectual exercise. The intellect is involved, of course, but with less priority than the Church's Holy Traditions which are a direct manifestation of the will of God, since we affirm that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. You must "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" as it were.
Let me get to the point. The manner of convincing you need is not of the evidenciary variety, but on a much more fundamental basis at the paradigm level.There is just *one* thing you need to see that you can't unsee, after which you'll recognize that even if you don't fully understand or agree with XYZ theological claim, the witness of the historic, apostolic Church will still remain the only logical conclusion possible.
In deference to your channels theme, I'll try to present the case with simplicity:
Step I: Understand that Protestantism is systemically flawed at such a foundational level that it is untenable as a paradigm.
It's prudent that you mentioned your tensions are with the Church's pronouncement of dogmas, because this entire issue--the thing you need to see that you can't unsee--all comes down to authority, and who has it.
Who actually *has* the authority to proclaim, "this here is sound doctrine, that over there is false doctrine", and (this part is crucial) to then also have the authority to *bind the consciences of all the faithful* to that particular doctrinal position, to such the extent that to deviate from it necessarily renders you a heretic or apostate outside of the boundaries of established Christian doctrine? Is it just anyone with a Bible, or is it specific individuals whom God has appointed to serve in those roles of apostolic authority that determined precisely how to understand the Trinity, Christology, Baptism, the Eucharist and what the structure of the Church even is that dictate which perspective is considered Christian?
It's the same question concerning the canon of Scripture; do you or I have the authority to unilaterally decide to issue our own biblical canon because we aren't convinced the Church that wrote and compiled it has satisfied the burden of proof that the list of canoncial books is correct? I think you'd agree, we don't have that right. We don't have that authority. But then, that means that someone did.
There was a Council which resulted in an infallible collection of books, which means necessarily that the decision itself was infallible. The bishops in those Councils weren't Protestant, but rather belonged to One, Universal Church with a conciliar, apostolic structure that made the Bible possible.
And yet, in Protestantism, no standard of normative authority exists--in fact, it doesn't even *posit* such a mechanism. So, no one is ever morally bound to accept *any* particular aspect of the faith as dogmatic, any Council or particular canon of Scripture, since every individual's private judgment serves as the final authority on how to interpret Scripture and which Ecumenical Councils to accept or reject, which ultimately reduces Christianity to theological relativism because the process itself is entirely subjective and thus arbitrary. Hence, the endless fragmenting into mutually exclusive denominations, each claiming to follow the Holy Spirit after a doing a plain reading of Scripture.
So again, who has the authority? Everyone (and thus, no one)? Or select individuals who've submitted themselves to the canonical process of Apostolic Succession established by the earliest Christians and accepted by every subsequent generation up until the Reformers? Even *heretics* considered the Church's hierarchical structure as a given.
As an add on to this, another important question to ask is, who *gives* authority? In a system where all authority is self-appointed like in Protestantism rather than handed down from above, there is only one coherent answer to this question that is consistent with the account both Scripture and Church history give us, and only after answering this should you proceed to other areas of inquiry. Otherwise, you'll be perpetually putting the cart before the horse.
Step II: If/when you've grasped the significance of the impasse Protestantism creates for itself at the paradigm level with its false Ecclesiology, you can then go on to do what I did and address all the various things you have questions or doubts about. Because, just like reading Scripture, I learned that if there's something that doesn't make sense to me or doesn't satisfy my question, that the problem never exists in the material itself but in my flawed understanding of it. So I just had to spend more time on it doing research, asking other people, reading other books, examining my presuppositions, and praying for clarity and discernment until eventually one day "eureka!" Things suddenly clicked, and I realized what was missing from my perspective the whole time.
The key was maintaining humility throughout, admitting it felt somewhat arrogant to even consider that I knew better than 1500 years of Church Fathers who were pious and holy men and women of supreme virtue and intellectual prowess whose lives were rife with examples of the fruits of the Spirit, who actually lived in the cultures and spoke the languages and communed with the Apostles themselves. Surely their witness supercedes my personal opinions and preferences. Whether or not we ultimately believe them is literally just a matter of choice.
What I'm recommending is basically like if an alcoholic wants to not drink that liquor in front of them, they have to go pour it down the drain. Or the person standed at sea who's unsure if they can make the swim to the far away island, until they see the raft is on fire and have no other choice. I'm saying you have to remove Protestantism as even being an option of something to retreat back to, because any time you encounter something that leaves an uncomfortable question mark, there will always be the temptation to flee back to the safety of familiar territory.
For me, I couldn't unsee the fundamental problem with Protestantism at the paradigm level, and so once I realized it was false as a system, there was no way but forward, regardless how long I had to marinate on the evidence for any particular claim made by Orthodoxy.
It took time. But ultimately, one must realize, it just doesn't make any sense to trust the Bible while not trusting the Church that gave it to us. It's a matter of faith first, *then* evidence weighed in light of that faith. So if the Holy Spirit used the Church to produce the Scripture, why would He abandon that same Church right afterwards when He specifically promised not to?
I hope that was helpful brother, and forgive me if I've said anything that offends. May the Lord continue to guide you in your pursuit of the Truth. God bless you and keep up the good work.
Thank you, Austin. What a beautiful contentment in Christ.
Your ongoing content of this honest nature has really helped me as a recovering Christian, as my atheism and life imploded a few years ago. I really mean it.
I’ll pray for you, please pray for me. 🙏
PS - I grew up fundamentalist non-denom Evangelical before all that, now a gratefully content, long-time Antiochian Orthodox catacumen with intention to be baptized.
I'm so glad this content has been helpful for you.
I've decided to go Orthodox, because I noticed that after 4 years of learning, I'm no longer Protestant...
That's an interesting way of putting it. As I read it, before you "converted" you realized that you were no longer where you started. That makes sense to me
I’m in the same boat. I can be on board with 99% of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It’s the Marian prayers that I really wrestle with. I can find no proof of them before AD 250
It’s the anathema to other Christians that keeps me from going to the orthodox church.
@@jamesb6818Really? It's not the denial of penal substitution, original sin and sola fide? It's not the veneration of icons? It's not the mariology? It's not the claim to be the "One True Church?" Your only reason is you don't like the anathemas?
@@jamesb6818 I initially had the same perception, but once I started to regularly visit a congregation and talk to the priest and laity, that feeling quickly rubbed off. Everybody has treated me with love and respect. Most Orthodox internet warriors don't give a complete theological picture of the Church🤭. ... That being said, the Orthodox Church stands firmly against liberal ideologies of the surrounding age and culture. And the concept of heresy is used more than in any other denomination I've been part of. But even saying that something is heretical, has a "softer" meaning than I previously thought, heresy simply means a new teaching or a new interpretation that deviate from historical Christian teachings, i.e. orthodoxy.
You are fine. Don't let anyone pressure you into anything. Just be a Christian as they were at Antioch. To Christ be the glory!
Amin!
Amin!
Amin!
Amin!
Amin!
I converted to Roman Catholicism suddenly and unexpectedly - one morning, I literally woke up Catholic. One should search for the truth honestly while making an effort to get rid of their own biases and negative emotions (I was strongly anti Roman Catholic), then the Holy Spirit will do the rest.
Exactly right, if you have an open heart and mind and are truly seeking the truth, the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest. Welcome to the truth and beauty of the Catholic church.
Some don't woke up Catholic, they are "born Catholic since 2000 years ago"...
I woke up and simply knew that the Real Presence was truly present in the Sacrament.
Austin, your honesty and humility humbles me. I pray that, in God's time, you will find your ecclesiastical home. The Lord is using your faith journey Faith journey to lead many closer to him.
It is almost like you are reading my mind. I needed this, now I at least know I am not the only one haha
Thank you for the honesty!
As much as I value my own Catholicism, as good as I believe it would be for all to profess the Catholic faith in union with the bishop of Rome, I worry that your ministry of unity-which I believe to be a great force for good in the Church-might suffer were you to plant your flag either side. Coming from an evangelical background as your "default," you have an immense opportunity to assume a place of neutrality that few of us can claim. It's been wonderful to see what you've done with that opportunity, despite all of us leering at you.
I grieve for your homelessness-that's agonizing. I pray you find a home that serves for you and Eliza as greater disciples!
Agreed. I believe there is strength, and UNITY, in your current position. Unity to the one true Church that includes Christians of many different backgrounds and traditions. Doesn't mean you will lose unity if you convert or just stay put. Praying for you regardless of where you worship!
I agree. His echumenical stance is much more important overall. Channels like this are pretty uncommon and really bring us all together in better understanding.
Former Protestant pastor for over a decade with a master’s in theology here… I converted because Sola Scriptura (and foundational Protestant claims) isn’t tenable.
I totally get what you’re saying about the bodily assumption, but the foundation Catholic/Orthodox is built upon is sound, so the beliefs that are harder to grasp can be accepted because the foundation is good. Either way, we are brothers having an in family discussion!
I think it is easier to accept Marian dogmas (even if they are later), than to accept that the true church was reformed/restored in the 16th century. Protestant claims are attested far later than Marian ones and yet we have no issue accepting them.
Much love and respect to you my beloved brother in Christ. Thank you for everything Austin.
Thank you for sharing and the intellectual honesty that it took to make the realisation regarding Sola Scripture. Glory to the Holy Spirit who is almighty and has moved you closer to the Truth.
Well said. To me, one of the last stumbling blocks was calling Mary the Theotokos and Queen of Heaven. However, when I came to understand that the objection to the title "Theotokos" actually comes from arianism, I noticed right away I was in the wrong and, in fact, truly Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, there's no circumventing it.
When it comes to the title "Queen of Heaven" it took me a while to be convinced that in the old testament, the queens were the mothers of the kings. When I was convinced of the "queen mother" title, then it just becomes a logical sequence that, since Jesus IS the King of Heaven, His mother would be the queen.
@@fantasypvpvideos I think we should add some Bible here to buttress that very good explanation.
John sees the literal Ark in heaven and IMMEDIATELY after, sees a woman with a crown on her head. While the 'queen' can have a symbolic meaning, she retains a literal meaning because John says, he first sees the Ark and then the Queen - Why would God show him the literal Ark first if not to make the connection between Mary and the Ark.
Revelation 11:19 - 12:1
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
@@fantasypvpvideosPrecisely. Same for me.
As a former Protestant, what is your opinion about Orthodoxy (and also Roman Catholicism) being too Judaizing in its rites and practices? Luther would say that they "transform Christ into a Moses", by not understanding justification by faith, by imitating Jewish worship, and by creating divisions between the ecclesiastical priesthood and the laity. Furthermore, there are other arguments as well. But how did you position yourself in the face of all this? Was it hard for you?
You have summed up my situation entirely. I can't go back to being completely Protestant, but cannot completely convert to Orthodoxy, either, no matter how much I have come to deeply appreciate it. Orthodoxy is like no other type of Christianity I've ever encountered. It speaks to the deepest, non-verbal, "spiritual heart" of a person and can bring deep healing and growth there. Protestantism, in some cases, has lost the concept of spirituality...Protestantism is "knowing about" rather than "knowing." Following from this, though, some of Orthodoxy's major feasts involve incidents in Mary's life that, while they are powerful on a symbolic/metaphorical/spiritual level, they may not be factually true. It is the same with some of the stories of the Saints. While some are clearly historical figures and are people of deep piety, others are probably amalgamations, and some of the Saints leave a literal-minded person scratching his or her head. I think the Church always struggles to meld the solidly logical/historical/physically factual WITH the spiritual/metaphorical; the Apostles and the early Church Fathers/apologists seem to have tried. In any case, being in the liminal space between two camps isn't easy.
The spiritual truths of the stories and “amalgamations” trump any appeal to forensic “facts”. Despite risking sounding like a postmodernist, I believe that far more important than the factual events are the spiritual realities communicated by the stories. Any framing of historical events involves interpretation and bias. There is no such thing as an objective, non-interpreted science of history. This is not to say that discerning between more specific material events and symbolic patterns is unimportant, but that once you realize that the spiritual reality is more true than the obsession with “historical fact”, it’s all much easier to grasp and accept. Even the lens you’re describing of valuing the objective factual account above the truths communicated in the stories is a spiritual state.
There is no escaping the human perspective. The crime scene style investigation of neutral facts as some kind of objective reality is a false pursuit because of this. Christ, among infinite other things, shows us the proper way to mediate between heaven and earth. Holding “factual” history as primal is a failure to do this, in my view. All earth, no heaven. Of course, there is also the danger of being all heaven, no earth. The Incarnation is where these things meet in their fullness and perfection.
Forgive me for my long-windedness and audacity. Just stating the way I see things on the off chance that they offer you a different perspective. All love. ☦️
@@Clarkd87found another Pageau viewer
@@timesn3wromanHe’s been helpful for me with sorting these things out in my mind, yes. It goes beyond Pageau though.
@@Clarkd87Yeah for sure, agreed. Pageau is great.
Forgive me, but if the story of a saint conveys spiritual truth and is having a real impact on your ability to connect with the faith, why does it matter if the event described would hold up to modern standards of scientific scrutiny or not? As Christians we already profess a belief in a spiritual reality that will never meet modern scientific empirical standards.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. It has helped me greatly. I love you. God bless you ❤️🕊️🙏🏻
There is something so depressingly liberal and modern about this idea of 'picking and choosing' a Church or doctrines. Cafeteria style Christianity.
I so appreciated your honesty and diligence. I grew up protestant then walked away from the faith for over a decade. When the Lord brought me back home I was thinking for a long time that I need to change my tradition. I was drawn to EO and was looking for an EO church near me but the closest one is 2 hours away and their services are in Greek only. So I was stopped in my urgency to make a change which led me to look into it more deeply before I could make a decision. This is when i first discovered your channel. As of now there are two things that keep me from converting to either the EOC or RCC, the first one is their vehement claims of being the one and only true church and the other one is that I know so deeply, with so much certainty that I am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.
You could look for an Anglican church in your area, whether it’s a continuing Anglican church or an ACNA church. The usual issues that dog the EO and RCC churches are not present in the Anglican church, and yet there is the liturgy, the high view of the Eucharist, the best prayer book (in my estimation), and wonderful hymnody. My husband and I both came from Evangelicalism, he was ordained in a couple of different denominations, and we finally moved “home” into an Anglican tradition, and he is now our priest. We consider it a “Deeper conversion”.
@@Apriluser
But the Anglican church no longer has apostolic succession
About the claims of being the one true Church, what I would say is that the Catholic Church makes a qualified statement about that, since all baptized believers are in the Church in some form or another, but as that catechism says, that the primitive church _subsists_ in the Catholic Church. The issues about Rome specifically are a bit dramatic in my opinion, if somebody has such a problem with the geographical location they could become of any Eastern Catholic rite or join the Anglican ordinariate
What brought me to seriously consider Orthodoxy, as a baptist, was:
1) that I become self-aware, in the sense that I cannot trust my own consciousness and intellect completely to affirm that I'm saved or not, since I've seen and heard this same kind of statements from people who are in theological error. After all, "the heart is deceitful above all things"
2) That, even if I am saved as a Baptist, I want the fullness, 100% of the faith, not only just enough that I'm saved. I want to truly get closer to God serving Him in the way He deems best and with the traditions He guided. In looking for that fullness of faith, my mind was more at ease, because it was easier to see that the way I worshipped and the Church worked lacked much of the beauty which the early martyrs and Christians were immersed into.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj What makes you say that? I would encourage you to read Saepius Officio (aka Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII) written in 1897. Anglicans do, in fact, have apostolic succession. Most of the EO primates affirmed as much in the 1920's.
Catholic here. I find your position to be totally fair. At one time I left the Church for similar reasons, "As much as I may like to, I simply don't believe in God" was how I put it at the time (though your longer explanation puts it better, something along the lines of that there are truth claims which to be Catholic would be saying I believe, which I could not do).
I think something which changed in me was that I realised that there was a potential disconnect between what I believed to be true, and things I could have faith were true based on my other beliefs.
An example may be that from my perspective:
My intellect points me to the truth of God
Then it points me to the truth of the Apostles attestation about Jesus
Then to the Christian faith
Then in particular the Catholic faith
After that I can look at particulars like the assumption of Mary and say "The evidence here is inconclusive. It maybe even more against it than for, but as a dogmatic teaching I will submit to the wisdom of the Church on this topic". This isn't to say that you necessarily believe it to be true, but that you submit that despite your intellectual belief in its likely falsehood, you can acknowledge that the Church has made a definitive claim, which you adopt. An example of this in Church history might be St Jerome submitting to the biblical canon of the Church, whilst himself believing some of them not to be of the same position.
Obviously this is assuming that one has already concluded that the Catholic Church is the one true Church from other means, and if one were to find an abundance of evidence against the fundamental beliefs one aught recognise and address these (leave the Church if you find that it is not what it claims to be). Indeed where I say one is submitting above, that is in itself an intellectual endeavour, where one aught be trying to understand the Churches position and why and shouldn't be a mere dismissal. I think it is fair that you have not found the claims of the Church regarding the Papacy to be true, and if false I think that undermines the Catholic position enough to not accept it (ie it is a teaching which is a foundation for the faith rather that a teaching that follows from the faith).
Good luck with your journey wherever it leads you.
At some point it boils down to us all having a choice. We either go our own way or follow the path Christ laid out for us. May God guide you. Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us all! ☦️
Austin, I'm totally with you on all your thoughts. I can't go back but can't seem to go forward. Stuck! I'm orthodox in my heart but I need my head to come with !
I totally get that
I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this topic. I am protestant as well but have been studying church history, catholicism and orthodoxy as well. The burden of proof is also a significant factor for myself and my wife. I really related to your comment regarding "ecclesiastical homelessness". Each of these branches of the Christianity has helped move and sustain the Christian faith over time. Perhaps we all get some things right, and some things wrong. Thank you so much for your channel and sharing your journey.
I have a very hard time w/ the Catholic and Orthodox claims of having all truth, that they can never err. This is an impossibility.
This is twice you’ve put out a video explaining your journey and where you are at on these things and it has been just about the exact same for me. You put into words exactly my thoughts and feelings of my own journey. I can’t become catholic or orthodox even though I like those traditions because I can’t betray certain intelectual and theological convictions. But taking that deep dive into history and study has changed my views on many things as well. I grew up baptist and am currently attending a Pentecostal church simply because of life’s circumstances, not because I myself am Pentecostal. But theologically I have moved to lutheran and hope in the future eventually I will be able to attend. But I don’t feel rushed or that I have to force it to work right now. I’ll keep attending my low, evangelical church.
That’s amazing! I started attending my LCMS Lutheran church in late 2022. I absolutely love it. I come from an evangelical/reformed background as well. May the peace of the Lord be with you! And I pray that you could get plugged into a church home soon. I had a “placeholder” church as well right before I found mine. The Lutheran faith is so beautiful and rich ☺️
If you feel comfortable, would you be able to share what those intellectual and theological convictions are?
@@alisterrebelo9013 It would be interesting to see what his hedges are, but it's likely the usual ones that you have to believe like purgatory, praying to saints and mariology,
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Perhaps you are right.
I didn't comment on it the first time around, but I would add that there IS an overwhelming need to move with speed (not necessarily rush or without carefulness) to determine the truth. The number of our days in unknown to us, people should take this more seriously.
@@alisterrebelo9013 If I am right about his hedges (it's a guess based on many other in similar situations), then why would he need to move w/ urgency? Believing in those things are not salvific matters. Believing on Christ and his atonement to save us the one and only thing that actually saves us and redeems us to God.
My conversion into Orthodoxy was not so much a head thing ( although I did extensive reading) as it was a pull at my heart and also my desire for beauty. No church will be perfect. Can I live with some unresolved issues? Yes…. And I am at peace spiritually, at last.
I'm right there with you. Most of my life I have been Protestant but I didn't establish a Church home when I relocated. Once I tried to find a new Church home I found most of Protestant Churches had changed from what I grew up in. That along with moral drift in so many Churches, embracing sin because it is the current culture.
Surprisingly the service most like my non denominational community Church that I grew up in was an Orthodox Church that has been rather Americanized. They stick with traditional moral teachings an I enjoy the Liturgy. Almost two years of attending leaves me with the same issue of Mariology. The traditions seem to be based in The Protoevangelium of James which simply isn't a legitimate document. Besides it's about Jesus and no one else.
The Priest understands that I don't accept all the tradition but I accept the Nicean Creed.
Many Orthodox Churches teach that the Creed is the only Dogmatic part of Orthodoxy.
The only Dogmatic parts of Mariology are virgin birth and Theotokos because they speak to the divine nature of Christ.
This is an approach I can live with and my particular Priest, and local Orthodox Church support it.
It makes a good Church home even if it doesn't agree with everyones version of Orthodoxy.
I feel glad I'm not the only one in this boat. "I'm not comfortable with certain elements of the papacy" gets interpreted as "So what you're saying is you reject all tradition," or "I'm not so sure about icons" gets misconstrued as "so what you're saying is that you reject the bodily incarnation of our Lord."
This is what my Greek Orthodox priest said. I'm an Orthodox Catechumen now after 4 years of searching. Even a priest at a Serbian church which is more traditional said the same thing. Nicene Creed and not to have a problem with other people venerating icons. It's not that one has to venerate them as much as you shouldn't accuse others of idolatry if they do. You don't have to believe the Protoevangelium of James. Even though there's a Feast Day of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple! It's kind of amazing, but I think Orthodoxy is more welcoming of a diversity of thought than people give it credit for. It does try to define right belief, but actual practice doesn't require you to believe every statement ever made in a church service.
I can relate with you on coming back to the protest church after many years of being away. Yes the change of it is concerning. And will it continue to be pushed wherever the culture sways it. For some people that’s reason enough to convert to Orthodoxy. They no longer enjoy the unfirm foundation of Protestantism. For me this would be one reason I’m considering Orthodoxy..🧐
@@tystovall6574 when I talked to the Priest I told him I understood veneration wasn't necessarily worship but could be if the heart or understanding of the individual was wrong. I wasn't sure the benefit was worth the risk of anyone falling into idolatry. I don't question others motives when they venerate Icons but I don't personally as I feel it could lead away from the worship of the true God. I do show appropriate respect towards the Saints represented and have a few Icons of my own.
The Priest had no issues with my interpretation of the tradition or hesitancy to anything I felt may risk leading towards sin.
@@OrthodoxInquirer I generally skip the the Feast of the Entrance of Mary into the Temple because I don't believe in the Protoevangelium of James. It's pretty well established as a Gnostic forgery. Using it leads to raising Mary to a position that starts to rival Christ and runs the risk of falling into idolatry of Mary. You see some of the Roman Catholics that fall into what is referred to as the cult of Mary that clearly step over a line into idolatry of Mary. I imagine some Orthodox may fall into this trap without being as visible.
It's the responsibility of every believer to honor the Theotokos without allowing her to become an idol.
Protestants run the risk of forgetting her and Catholics run the risk of idolizing her.
This is the first time I have landed on one of your videos and I really enjoyed it. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I'm closer to the Orthodox Church every day! Seeking the truth has led me here.
I would also add that I don't believe that it's a mental conversion but a spiritual one. I was initially seeking through history and rationality then realized that Western churches have reduced Christianity to a mental problem. This Western materialist reductionist approach has minimized the role that the church should play in our lives. I think the problems of our modern times are the same, spiritual. listen to Fr Seraphim Rose living an Orthodox worldview.
I too, have been studying church history and am drawn to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. As a a former Lutheran, ( I’m now evangelical) Rome seems like a better fit. But with the recent uproar over same-sex blessings and the apparent watering down of church teachings, I find myself more drawn to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church seems to hold fast to it’s doctrines, which really appeals to me.
As a Catholic, of course I would like you to become Catholic, however, I just want to say that the “Same-sex blessing” isn’t an actual blessing for “same-sex” relationships. It is actually blessing a sinner who requests a blessing wether it be a transgender, gay, fornicator, etc. The Catholic Church affirms over and over again that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Also, when it comes to “watering down” teaching, well that needs to be specified as to what teaching is being watered down.
@@jamesjacob4002Nice cope. Yes it is a same sex blessing.
There is no such thing as “Roman Catholicism”. There is only one ”Catholicism”. The Catholic Church does not refer to the Roman Rite of Catholicism as “Roman Catholicism”. That phrase was created as an insult by Anglicans.
What drew you away from Lutheranism?
The Pope is not infallible unless declaring ex cathedra a dogma. You should not make a.decision.based on who currently is in the seat of Peter. As a convert to catholicism I think the latin rite is incredible, there are some theological differences to Orthodoxy. Despite everything you said I think the dogmatic approach of the church is still intact the sexual morality indeed unchanged.
For example catholics are not allowed to use contraception while in orthodox churches it is different
I used to be tempted with Protestantism, until one day in an Orthodox Church I saw inside the holy Communion, and saw flesh and blood.
Bruh..
I went full Orthodox after that event,
It's one thing to have faith, but orthodoxy is living every moment in worship, everything is symbolic worship!❤️
I love you all my brothers in Christ!
Thats very true ! The orthodox church is the single church whitin everything is alive...bcs the Holy Spirit is in there , working, transforming , cleansing, giving life and much more.
I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism. Your testimony is beautiful.
Although I went with Catholicism, I truly believe the Orthodox to be the other lung of the Church.
I pray someday for all apostolic and sacramentalist churches to be in full communion with each other.
I hate to shit on your experience because I myself know miracles to be real. But with that comes the responsibility to not fleetingly believe everything is a miraculous work of God with little to no rigor.
Jesus didn't perform vague feats that gave people an impression thag it might be miraculous. Everything he did was hyper apparent that it was a miraculous work by thr power of God.
With this being known I have to ask did you have any way of verifying that the actual transformation took place because all you said was that you seen inside it and seen the flesh. If you had been able to verify it wasn't in there prior to the communion, and ritual, and that anything that was placed in there durring was not flesh, and there was no way of concealing flesh to place in there unseen then I'd say you have a decent case, and if it does meet all that criteria then so be it, but I wasn't there so you have to honestly evaluate this to yourself.
And if you are asking if I really think the church leaders would b willing to fake something like this, I unfortunatly have to say yes, because proven hoaxes in times past are a great reason why we have to be so rigorous in our examination of things that are supposedly miraculous.
pov: when an apparition and beautiful decorations trump the red letters.
Now that I've watched the video, I resonate so much with the difficulty of accepting certain dogmas as obligatory. I could fairly comfortably entertain certain Marian teachings and the veneration of icons as well, but to REQUIRE them on pain of damnation goes against every fiber of my being. I would contend, for example, that a person can be hesitant to venerate icons but still affirm the incarnation (which I believe is the whole point of the argument of icons in the first place).
I was seriously exploring the Catholic church for a while, and the thing that really made it seem impossible for me was that missing mass is a mortal sin. I just couldn't wrap my head around that.
@@yeahnothx-e9l Completely agree. I get that skipping out on church is serious, but to say that it is damnable is terrifying. There is a big difference between "I need to go to church for the benefit of my soul and the benefit of my brothers and sisters" and "If you don't go to church one time, you're going to hell unless you confess to a priest."
@@brennendavis3283 They do allow for missing church is you are sick or handicapped. Generally though, missing Mass is a mortal sin. This is never, even remotely stated in the bible. Biblically, it's as protestant churches teach, that it's for your growth and spiritual healthy, but never stated as a sin. I do wonder if this doctrine didn't come from political and power reasons. If you have a captive audience, you have a constant source of funding too.
I relate heavy. i am recently saved, just becoming christian this past 7 months. i've done hundreds of hours of reserach and I def lean catholic HEAVY and am intellectually convinced but something is still not fully clicking, maybe my habits, but i have faith that God will lead me home, wherever that is
Im currently a Catechumen, i came from an atheist background, so Protestantism was never really a contender for me because the claims that began to force me to believe weren't present, or were watered down. After alittle over two years struggling between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, i had to stop using my brain because, for every argument, there was a counter, and there were decades' worth of research if i wanted to "be right", but i want to be in communion with Christ. In the end, my heart and my eyes guided me to the Church that i knew would guide me closer to Him. God made a promise to Abraham that his people would have a land, but it would not be fulfilled in his lifetime. However, God gave him a sign so that he would trust in Him. I think Orthodoxy has the signs that allow you to trust and believe that Christ is present in that Church, but whatever you choose, ill keep watching you, and praying for you. God bless.
I left evangelicalism and ended up in a very conservative Lutheran church that does a liturgical divine service every week, with the lectionary and chanting of the Psalms and so on. They even promote private confession. For three years I had anxiety about my decision and was thinking I would eventually become Orthodox. But I have come to satisfied with no church being perfect. If I moved and couldn't find a church like mine I would seriously consider going Orthodox. But right now I am where I am, and I believe leaving, unless I was 100% convinced I couldn't stay, would be wrong. But I do love my Orthodox and Catholic brethren. And even my evangelical brethren.
We Lutherans are evangelical.
Not trying to attack you, but I think you need to make a distinction between the theology and practices of a Church. I bet you can find a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon Church that is equally small 'o' orthodox but their theology is wrong. I believe such is a problem with the Lutheran church but not as severe as JWs or LDS.
For me, the theology has to be correct, if it is not, it doesn't matter that I am part of a conservative community.
I do think Lutherans and any trinitarians are my brothers and sisters in Christ, so I would never condemn you. I just think that unless you are in an Apostolic Era church, you are quite far from the fullness of truth.
May I ask what made you stay in the Lutheran Church for now?
To me, a third party who knows nothing about your personal journey, it seems you value highly the traditions which are upheld by the Orthodox Church and the Divine Liturgy and the way it's celebrated.
Knowing that what you found in part in the Lutheran Church could be found in full in the Orthodox Church, wouldn't it be better to follow that desire for beauty to the fullest?
May the Lord Jesus bless you.
For me it was all about the Eucharist. Coming from a low church it’s just a symbol tradition and reading the church fathers it’s seems impossible to stay Protestant, maybe Lutheran?? But then I went to Divine Liturgy and saw how they treat the Eucharist and the reverence to me that was it.
As far as I understand, the Lutheran and Anglican churches also have a high view and offering of the Eucharist. Of course, the Divine Liturgy is unique, though one can find a high view of the sacraments and sacred tradition while still finding their home in the high church Protestant churches. What led you to Orthodoxy specifically over Luthernism or Anglicanism?
@@tobiassednef4977 i honestly just kept asking myself the question of if I was to time travel to 500AD or something and went to church what would it look like? What would my fellow Christians be doing. The more I read into church history I don’t know to me it just seemed so obvious but that’s me
Hi i wanted to say as a ex protestant the big thing about orthodoxy that was attractive was the actual liturgy. I found that it was very hard to find a good Anglican church in England that had a good eucharist whereas the divine liturgy was more consistent and the same in multiple churches. I hope you do good on your journey god bless
@@tobiassednef4977Lutherans removed books from the bible
@Viktor.18 As far as I understand, the true canonical nature of the "Apocrypha" has been debated since the inception of the church. The early Luttheran and Anglican churches recognized them. This is definitely an issue I'd love to look into more!
I have been researching different Protestant branches and kept not being able to find one I resonated with but I kept researching orthodoxy in the side… and now I feel sure that I am converting to Orthodox… I had some experiences of transformation related to St Mary or Egypt and then next was the image of Mother Mary during my cat dying… and it just happened… and “click” I felt like I was Orthodox… Been looking for years at Baptist, Lutheran, and feeling like that was for sure my way, but just couldn’t fully find my home there. And then Orthodox just clicked. No one is more surprised than me.
Glory to Jesus Christ ! You are for sure on the right path of salvation.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
@@JudeMalachi Why are they into the fire? If it is deepening their devotion to God, it's all good.
I was attending Protestantism churches for 10+ years. Finally finding the true church and faith in the EO. ☦️
I have always loved your honesty and candor. Thanks for being you.
Thank you so much for this. It’s kind of put into words something I’ve been feeling after the last three years of studying the Eucharist and the sacraments and church history. There’s so much I love about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but there is also so much that just historically that doesn’t match up. I am non-denom and so often I feel out of place, but above all God is good and he leads his children into truth.
It's my pleasure!
I feel the same way. Over the last year, my theology has been very much influenced by Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism, but I attend a Baptist church.
Sounds like you are still sitting on the fence be careful the devil owns the fence.
Christ disciples have to be willing to carry your cross then follow Jesus and seek the face of God.
In regards to the Eucharist true bread from heaven and needed for eternal life John chapter 6
The holy face of Jesus is hidden in the Eucharist you will meet Christ there.
God Bless and take your plunge in the Jordan as the TRUTH will set you free.
"my theology" sounds completely satanic tbh. Theology is an objective reality, you can't make it up as you wish. We should be humble and accept divine revelation. Pray for Truth, be willing to follow where it will take you. @@SwampFox4939
I recently saw this video
ruclips.net/video/ii0jJecSIFw/видео.htmlsi=QB9U_uUhbYvL7dZn
As a Catholic, I think it does a decent job at explaining why there are so many apparent discrepancies between Catholics and Orthodox, and why the differences might be fewer and less consequential than we think. Many Orthodox may disagree, but I think that is because part of their Church’s identity lies in superficially imposed anti-Catholicism.
Historically, though, at their core, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are two parts of the same Church.
Thank you so much for giving words to my experience! I am in exactly the same place right now- I *want* to be convinced, so I have somewhere to stay! I’m currently caught between the evangelical church that brought me to Christ, containing the closest friends and mentors I have, and Catholicism, where I have a love of the tradition/history/etc, but no community. And of course, I am simply not convinced. Ecclesiastically homeless indeed! Not to mention my Protestant pastor father… but it is a journey. I’m anxious to see where it goes next as well. Thank you for your insights!
I grew up Catholic but after reading the Bible could not stay there. Now Bible believing Christian, what I guess would be called evangelical. I can’t understand how someone could read the Bible and then think Catholicism was on the mark
@@dawn2508 Because the Catholic Church not only existed before the Bible but compiled it. I can't understand how anyone can read the early Church Fathers and think Protestantism aligns with historical Christianity.
@@lellachu1682 It doesn't mean much that early Catholics compiled the bible if they chose not to follow it.
@@dawn2508 It is perplexing that some come out of Catholicism and have a deeper faith, having come out. Some go into Catholicism, coming out of bible centered protestant faiths, but somehow become convinced of the Catholic way of salvation. I'm still a sola scriptura Christian, but have since challenged the belief that most of us are raised w/ that Catholics aren't saved somehow. That does not seem to be the case, any more that we have to have the sacramental system and "the one true holy and apostolic church" in order to be saved as well. It is always through Christ that we are saved.
Im protestant and I love orthodox tradition so much - I think for the most part I can agree with almost everything you said in this video especially icon veneration. I don’t have icons and personally I don’t think I’ll own any soon but I can understand why they use icons. I appreciate this video brother. Also, your voice is really calm and chill 😂 you should do a bible reading series or something
You might like the work of Thomas Torrance. He was a Reformed theologian from Scotland who was very immersed in patristics and in reformed Orthodox ecumenical dialogue.
I always thought he has ASMR voice! It is very soothing.
@@kristing5215 I do see a lot of people comment on his calm and soothing voice. I wonder if he will look into doing readings professionally, as people keep suggesting. Could be a nice sideline job for his other ministries.
Looking forward your content that helps us all grow as Christians.
You have articulated my current personal thoughts and feelings too. I have done nowhere near the amount of research that you have, but I have transitioned from being anti-catholic to realising that they are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I have a lot to learn from them. I still have a lot of questions, but whenever I listen to Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Bishop Barron or Matt Fradd, etc. I come away feeling closer to them but still not convinced that I should convert. Converting would raise a lot of eyebrows (to say the least) within my family and church family but I really don't think that's the main reason for my hesitation. I want to be sure it is God's leading from Scripture, from experience, from History (Church Fathers, etc.) and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The Church is much bigger to me now and more beautiful though.
I totally get this. I converted to Orthodoxy from the PCA (really from atheism/agnosticism) and I understand just needing that intellectual piece. So I empathize with your struggle. Let me just offer, though, a thought: the Sacraments are real and efficacious and they help tremendously with this. You’re trying to figure it out and get it all squared away on your own, and I get that because I tried to do that too. But that isn’t necessarily our job. Our job once we have found the church and the gospel is to live the Christian life, pray, attend services, and participate in the sacramental life of the church. Assenting to intellectual beliefs is great but often it comes with time. It’s also a very protestant thing to worry about. You do not need to have all your intellectual boxes checked to join the church. Allow the church to guide you once you have joined.
Hey Austin, it's eerie how close my process/experience has been to yours. I bet it's similar to a lot of people's experience, which is in itself comforting that there are so many people experiencing the same thing. This is what I'm struggling with/thinking about:
The more I experience life, the more I am seeing that actions precede belief, as opposed to beliefs preceding actions. Or, it is at least as true to say that actions cause beliefs at least as much as beliefs cause actions. What do you (or anyone else in the comment section) think of this? I am also non denom, attending a non denom church. However I read from an orthodox prayer book, and that itself already makes my mind more amendable to orthodoxy. I increasingly trust my own judgements less and less, though I know one cannot escape eventually using your own mental faculties to make a final decision (I know Gavin Ortlund and Trent Horn have discussed this phenomenon). Thoughts?
I have discovered this exact same thing. I’ve been thinking about this a lot too. I’ve noticed it in the same way you have, through prayers, etc., but super early in my discovery of liturgy I also noticed that this truth as baked into the very essence of liturgy itself. In the liturgy we express our worship and beliefs through our actions, of course, but the very actions of the liturgy also TEACH us what we ought to believe. For instance, Catholics genuflect before the tabernacle because they believe Christ is present; but conversely, performing the action of genuflecting before the tabernacle teaches us to believe that Christ is present. I also think of a little kid growing up and learning to say “thank you,” even if he isn’t thankful or is too young to truly mean it. But by this action, he learns to be thankful. Just some thoughts I’ve had, maybe this is in line with what you’ve been discovering too?
Of course, I’m the kind of person who doesn’t trust my own mind and psychs myself out, that what if I’m only coming to believe the things I’m coming to believe, because I’ve duped myself into it by living it!?🥲😅 But on the other hand, I think it is not a bad thing and is instead of GOOD thing, that in our incarnated, integrated body/soul life, the physical is just as much a part of our formation as the nonphysical!
Hang on… that all kind of makes sense.
Soul-Body
BeliefActions
FaithWorks
Sorry for the train of thought ramble! 😂
“Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!””
I'm at the point where my introduction to the Catholic church last Summer (largely due to Austin's "Protestant goes to mass video" since I went to the same church per his recommendation) was so providential that the experience may be the tipping point. If the stars seemingly align, maybe that's a sign from God.
But as a mathematician and pedantic lover of truth, this reasoning infuriates me
@@abbyschubert5637 Yes, this is a great example of what I was thinking!
Looking forward to this! I am also a non-resistant non-convert
Hope you enjoy it!
Was Baptist/reformed but recently was baptised orthodox and it has been a blessing. Some of your videos definitely was a part of that awakening. There definitely was a difficult part of the journey too be it family friends and lots of personal fears and suspicions. Wasn't a small leap but it was a conscious and deliberate one that I believe was an answer to prayer to love Christs church and understand who Gods is as Trinity. May God guide and bless you on your journey!
nice you got it! novena for your conversion to holy mother church coming right up!