I wish more Protestants would join up with the Lutherans on these historical issues of Ancient Christianity. Most evangelical/fundamentalists could seriously care less about history. They tend to think that because there was a largely Roman Catholic presence, it’s all just irrelevant. And as a result, denomination after denomination after denomination after denomination. I am fully convinced the wide divide in Protestantism is rooted in this problem. The Protestants have a MASSIVELY good argument against the churches based in Greece a d Rome, if they would just engage it instead of staying away all for the sake of being anti-Catholic. Just because it “sounds Catholic” does NOT mean it’s automatically wrong. It might sound as if it doesn’t align with Baptist theology. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sometimes tradition warps what matters most: God’s Word and Witness in all the ends of the earth.
The anti-intellectualism and arrogance of American evangelicals, as well as their inability to get along with anyone who is slightly different from them, is the reason there are so many divisions. It’s sad but America has created the most toxic environment and attitudes for Christianity.
as a fundamentalists you're right about how most find it irrelevant, that led me to study it deeply and find out how the early church was not roman catholic at all
The fact is that there is a huge difference between improving doctrinal clarity and inventing items out of whole cloth or pulling them from gnostic/pagan/mystical sources and grafting them into the faith. Doctrinal depth on the trinity is taking scripture and The Holy Spirit providing depth and clarity. It is the Holy Spirit shinning a light on the incarnation and providing deeper truths on the incarnation and the hydrostatic union of truly man and truly divine. This is what Christ meant when he said the Holy Spirit would lead to all truth. It’s the writings of the Apostles that gave us more clarity on who Christ is, the role of the church, etc. THIS IS NOT what Rome now tries to pass off as Apastolic succession and oral tradition. They have taken pagan practices and pagan stories and tried to weave them into Christianity and claim that is was from the Apostles with zero evidence and absolutely no scripture to back it up. None of the church fathers in the first 500 years believe in anything close to papal infallibility, pope being the vicar of Christ, Marian dogmas, etc etc etc. that’s why the Reformers were raised up by the Lord; to return to the scripture and early church and strip away all of the accretions and inventions of Rome and the EO: history is on the Protestants side. Just read it
Pope Clement I “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” Hegesippus “When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus, Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” Cyprian of Carthage “The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” Augustine “[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here” Jerome “Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” Irenaeus “[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. Dr. James White, do I really have to mention more?
Very misleading video.. No mention of what Ignatius says about the importance of the bishops, the one Eucharist as the fountain of immortality, how one should avoid false Eucharists. And the part at the end about the priests vs the high priest was from the chapter on the old testament. The reality is that the letters of Ignatius are a double edged sword that can be used Islam and Protestantism alike. Seems James is well aware of that, with this reading.
There is no “church history from a reformed perspective.” You’re just seeking out biased, fringe information at that point. Look for secular accounts of the history and then reflect on that theologically if you want to avoid going down a rabbit hole.
@@brigadierharsh1948 there certainly is a reformed perspective. Secularists, I’ve found, have an axe to grind to the point they’re willing to leave out data, or worse. They too often let emotion get the better of them. And in general, they apply a philosophical lens.
Simple way to refute Islam is this: why does a historical account from over 500 years after Christ’s life, death, and resurrection have any merit in telling a contrary tale from what is well documented, even outside of the Bible?
That’s a pretty weak argument considering that they explicitly believe the early Christians got immediately confused and fell into idolatry. Whereas, they view their source of information as coming directly from God. They basically don’t engage in textual criticism like Christians at all, and frankly Christians shouldn’t be as willing as White is to adopt those frameworks, so bringing up stuff like this doesn’t do much of any good to bring down their claims. A better way to refute Islam is to point out that they have no coherent account of sin, salvation, or the purpose of creation. The God of Islam sounds like a man-made God and his purpose for creating mankind seems very man-centered, those are far more profound philosophical issues than any matter of textual criticism.
@@brigadierharsh1948if their very foundation is corrupt, why attack its fruits when you can go for its stems? There is no use in arguing over contradictions of their salvation plan if you can argue all of their concepts are complete fabrication
@@geckoniner5625 I agree with you, but from my experience with them and watching their defense of their own position, they are very careful about setting up their own internal logic that allows them to dismiss criticisms without meaningfully addressing them. The best solution to that is to show how flawed their own internal logic is.
Who sent the Apostles? Jesus Christ did, Matthew 28:18-20. Who sent the Reformers? They sent themselves to preach whichever Jesus they happen to believe. Questions for Protestants: 1. Given that Protestants read the same Bible, why does each protestant denomination, sect and cult hold differing beliefs and doctrines, while each claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture? 2. What provides you the confidence to believe that your particular protestant denomination, sect or cult possesses the faith taught by Christ? 3. Why does a protestant from another protestant denomination, sect or cult believe as firmly as you do that his particular protestant denomination, sect or cult possesses the faith taught by Christ? 4. Given that every Protestant reads the same Bible and holds it as the sole authority in matters of faith, why are there 10,000 unique protestant denominations and sects each with their own set of doctrines and differing interpretations of the Bible? 5. Since all protestants read from the same Bible, yet arrive at differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Biblical texts, how can the Bible be the sole foundation and arbiter of Christian faith? 6. Would not Christ have known of the present confused state within Protestantism and provided His Church a recognizable mechanism with the authority to adjudicate as to what one ought to believe? 7. Since the Bible states that one must be sent to preach and teach, who gave your preacher or pastor the prerogative to preach and teach the faith in your congregation? 8. What magisterial and ministerial authority does the entity which delegated to your preacher or pastor the authority to teach and preach the faith have to delegate such authority to your preacher or pastor? Apostolic Succession: ruclips.net/video/e11YHJ4_eVs/видео.html
@@joshuas1834 there is Apostolic Succession. Jesus had authority given Him because he was God and the Son of God. In John 20:21, Jesus said "Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When He had said this He breathed on them say:, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgivien them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." With those words Jesus transferred to the Apostles the mission which He Himself had received from the Father, and which He had fulfilled upon earth. The mission consisted in: "to seek and to save that which was Lost" (Luke 19:10, Mt 9:2ff, Mk 2:5). He now invested the Apostles with the power to forgiven sins. And as the Apostles were martyred or died, they left capable men to carry on this mission of preaching the same gospel they received to the ends of the earth. If there were NO Apostolic Succession, then this mission cannot be fulfilled. (From my notes). Apostolic Succession - Is it Biblical? ~~ ruclips.net/video/1UAAx_h0m1c/видео.html
@@Ryan_Zell Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward. Mark 9:38-41 NKJV
@@Ryan_Zell there's a condition called 'The Pharisee Syndrome' wherein the person believes he is so religious & faithful following religion, scripture and tradition. It leads him to be puffed up with knowledge and arrogance, they constantly correct others but barely look at themselves, the condition leads to 'Hard Heartedness' where he/they become so blind that when confronted with the Truth, they arrogantly rebuke, call names and accuse of blasphemy. (Matthew 3:7, John 5:39/40, John 9: 40/41). My prayer and request is that both you and I despise this 'Pharisees Syndrome', embrace Humility and walk constantly in Repentance. Then there would be no need for me or anyone else to explain The WORD of GOD, His HOLY SPIRIT will do it. 🙏
Do you think you should be involved in the writing of the Apostles Creed or should Church leaders meet over it and discuss it for us who are being led by them? When people like you don't get satisfied by our leaders you go and split our Christian faith. Not good. And God is not with you
@@soteriology400 When Moses accepted divorce would you have built your own Israel to lead? The law determined the prostitute to be killed, Jesus killed the prostitute?
This is an example of how stating something nonsensical can seem legitimate if one does it confidently. There is a reason why James White is talking about this stuff on a podcast and virtually shunned from the serious evangelical academic scene. The way in which he dismisses such complex issues as if they were just made-up lunacy is a sure sign of his lack of seriousness. He’s self-taught and it shows. It’s also very weird that he argues almost like an atheist when any degree of nuance is introduced into the Christian religion. In his Christianity, everything is symbolic, irrelevant, mistaken, or useless, he has no appreciate for the notion of something being “sacred, and it isn’t at all obvious that he clearly distinguishes between faith and reason. He seems impressive, but really he is just relying on a secular, overconfident epistemology that Lutherans and anglicans have done a good job of avoiding.
@@KristiLEvans1 I don't think a member of the Roman Catholic religion would be so complimentary to Lutherans and Anglicans. This guy is likely a Big Eva fanboy. Sad. Very sad.
I wish more Protestants would join up with the Lutherans on these historical issues of Ancient Christianity. Most evangelical/fundamentalists could seriously care less about history. They tend to think that because there was a largely Roman Catholic presence, it’s all just irrelevant. And as a result, denomination after denomination after denomination after denomination. I am fully convinced the wide divide in Protestantism is rooted in this problem. The Protestants have a MASSIVELY good argument against the churches based in Greece a d Rome, if they would just engage it instead of staying away all for the sake of being anti-Catholic.
Just because it “sounds Catholic” does NOT mean it’s automatically wrong. It might sound as if it doesn’t align with Baptist theology. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sometimes tradition warps what matters most: God’s Word and Witness in all the ends of the earth.
As a reform Baptist I agree with you. Raised a Lutheran too.
The anti-intellectualism and arrogance of American evangelicals, as well as their inability to get along with anyone who is slightly different from them, is the reason there are so many divisions. It’s sad but America has created the most toxic environment and attitudes for Christianity.
I’m an Anglican (who grew up Southern Baptist) and would agree with your assessment 👍🏻
@@brigadierharsh1948 America is more toxic than the spiritual graveyard of Europe? Please explain.
as a fundamentalists you're right about how most find it irrelevant, that led me to study it deeply and find out how the early church was not roman catholic at all
excellent channel. It really helps when you breakup the dividing line with these topics. Makes it easier to find them and use them.
I thank God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior for you James White!
Yes, historical context is extremely important when talking about history. I couldn't agree more.
The fact is that there is a huge difference between improving doctrinal clarity and inventing items out of whole cloth or pulling them from gnostic/pagan/mystical sources and grafting them into the faith. Doctrinal depth on the trinity is taking scripture and The Holy Spirit providing depth and clarity. It is the Holy Spirit shinning a light on the incarnation and providing deeper truths on the incarnation and the hydrostatic union of truly man and truly divine. This is what Christ meant when he said the Holy Spirit would lead to all truth. It’s the writings of the Apostles that gave us more clarity on who Christ is, the role of the church, etc. THIS IS NOT what Rome now tries to pass off as Apastolic succession and oral tradition. They have taken pagan practices and pagan stories and tried to weave them into Christianity and claim that is was from the Apostles with zero evidence and absolutely no scripture to back it up. None of the church fathers in the first 500 years believe in anything close to papal infallibility, pope being the vicar of Christ, Marian dogmas, etc etc etc. that’s why the Reformers were raised up by the Lord; to return to the scripture and early church and strip away all of the accretions and inventions of Rome and the EO: history is on the Protestants side. Just read it
On the side of Protestantism? You're sure about that?
Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”
Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus, Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord”
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way”
Augustine
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here”
Jerome
“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians”
Irenaeus
“[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.
Dr. James White, do I really have to mention more?
Very misleading video.. No mention of what Ignatius says about the importance of the bishops, the one Eucharist as the fountain of immortality, how one should avoid false Eucharists. And the part at the end about the priests vs the high priest was from the chapter on the old testament.
The reality is that the letters of Ignatius are a double edged sword that can be used Islam and Protestantism alike. Seems James is well aware of that, with this reading.
Where can I find James White's teaching on Church History? Or any Church History from a Reformed perspective?
www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?subsetitem=Church+History&subsetcat=series&keyword=Dr._James_White&SpeakerOnly=true&includekeywords=&ExactVerse=
@@dividinglinehighlights2606 the link didn't work for me.
There is no “church history from a reformed perspective.” You’re just seeking out biased, fringe information at that point. Look for secular accounts of the history and then reflect on that theologically if you want to avoid going down a rabbit hole.
@@brigadierharsh1948 there certainly is a reformed perspective. Secularists, I’ve found, have an axe to grind to the point they’re willing to leave out data, or worse. They too often let emotion get the better of them. And in general, they apply a philosophical lens.
@@brigadierharsh1948Silly comment.
Simple way to refute Islam is this: why does a historical account from over 500 years after Christ’s life, death, and resurrection have any merit in telling a contrary tale from what is well documented, even outside of the Bible?
That’s a pretty weak argument considering that they explicitly believe the early Christians got immediately confused and fell into idolatry. Whereas, they view their source of information as coming directly from God. They basically don’t engage in textual criticism like Christians at all, and frankly Christians shouldn’t be as willing as White is to adopt those frameworks, so bringing up stuff like this doesn’t do much of any good to bring down their claims. A better way to refute Islam is to point out that they have no coherent account of sin, salvation, or the purpose of creation. The God of Islam sounds like a man-made God and his purpose for creating mankind seems very man-centered, those are far more profound philosophical issues than any matter of textual criticism.
@@brigadierharsh1948if their very foundation is corrupt, why attack its fruits when you can go for its stems? There is no use in arguing over contradictions of their salvation plan if you can argue all of their concepts are complete fabrication
@@geckoniner5625 I agree with you, but from my experience with them and watching their defense of their own position, they are very careful about setting up their own internal logic that allows them to dismiss criticisms without meaningfully addressing them. The best solution to that is to show how flawed their own internal logic is.
Who sent the Apostles? Jesus Christ did, Matthew 28:18-20.
Who sent the Reformers? They sent themselves to preach whichever Jesus they happen to believe.
Questions for Protestants:
1. Given that Protestants read the same Bible, why does each protestant denomination, sect and cult hold differing beliefs and doctrines, while each claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture?
2. What provides you the confidence to believe that your particular protestant denomination, sect or cult possesses the faith taught by Christ?
3. Why does a protestant from another protestant denomination, sect or cult believe as firmly as you do that his particular protestant denomination, sect or cult possesses the faith taught by Christ?
4. Given that every Protestant reads the same Bible and holds it as the sole authority in matters of faith, why are there 10,000 unique protestant denominations and sects each with their own set of doctrines and differing interpretations of the Bible?
5. Since all protestants read from the same Bible, yet arrive at differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Biblical texts, how can the Bible be the sole foundation and arbiter of Christian faith?
6. Would not Christ have known of the present confused state within Protestantism and provided His Church a recognizable mechanism with the authority to adjudicate as to what one ought to believe?
7. Since the Bible states that one must be sent to preach and teach, who gave your preacher or pastor the prerogative to preach and teach the faith in your congregation?
8. What magisterial and ministerial authority does the entity which delegated to your preacher or pastor the authority to teach and preach the faith have to delegate such authority to your preacher or pastor?
Apostolic Succession: ruclips.net/video/e11YHJ4_eVs/видео.html
I'm still a Protestant but I recognize these questions as legitimate ones that I need to continue to wrestle with.
@@joshuas1834 there is Apostolic Succession.
Jesus had authority given Him because he was God and the Son of God. In John 20:21, Jesus said "Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When He had said this He breathed on them say:, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgivien them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
With those words Jesus transferred to the Apostles the mission which He Himself had received from the Father, and which He had fulfilled upon earth. The mission consisted in: "to seek and to save that which was Lost" (Luke 19:10, Mt 9:2ff, Mk 2:5). He now invested the Apostles with the power to forgiven sins.
And as the Apostles were martyred or died, they left capable men to carry on this mission of preaching the same gospel they received to the ends of the earth. If there were NO Apostolic Succession, then this mission cannot be fulfilled. (From my notes).
Apostolic Succession - Is it Biblical? ~~ ruclips.net/video/1UAAx_h0m1c/видео.html
@@Ryan_Zell Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
Mark 9:38-41 NKJV
@@jamesvenkatesh5810 Excellent. Now tell me what it means.
@@Ryan_Zell there's a condition called 'The Pharisee Syndrome' wherein the person believes he is so religious & faithful following religion, scripture and tradition.
It leads him to be puffed up with knowledge and arrogance, they constantly correct others but barely look at themselves, the condition leads to 'Hard Heartedness' where he/they become so blind that when confronted with the Truth, they arrogantly rebuke, call names and accuse of blasphemy.
(Matthew 3:7, John 5:39/40, John 9: 40/41).
My prayer and request is that both you and I despise this 'Pharisees Syndrome', embrace Humility and walk constantly in Repentance.
Then there would be no need for me or anyone else to explain The WORD of GOD, His HOLY SPIRIT will do it.
🙏
Apostolic succession is a bad idea. Paul knew this, Ephesians 2:20.
Do you think you should be involved in the writing of the Apostles Creed or should Church leaders meet over it and discuss it for us who are being led by them?
When people like you don't get satisfied by our leaders you go and split our Christian faith. Not good. And God is not with you
@@koppite9600 Do you think it is wise to build your theology on fallible sources?
@@soteriology400
When Moses accepted divorce would you have built your own Israel to lead?
The law determined the prostitute to be killed, Jesus killed the prostitute?
This is an example of how stating something nonsensical can seem legitimate if one does it confidently. There is a reason why James White is talking about this stuff on a podcast and virtually shunned from the serious evangelical academic scene. The way in which he dismisses such complex issues as if they were just made-up lunacy is a sure sign of his lack of seriousness. He’s self-taught and it shows. It’s also very weird that he argues almost like an atheist when any degree of nuance is introduced into the Christian religion. In his Christianity, everything is symbolic, irrelevant, mistaken, or useless, he has no appreciate for the notion of something being “sacred, and it isn’t at all obvious that he clearly distinguishes between faith and reason. He seems impressive, but really he is just relying on a secular, overconfident epistemology that Lutherans and anglicans have done a good job of avoiding.
Serious Evangelical academic scene? What the heck is that? Do you mean progressive Big Eva?
@@lkae4 that was my question. Sounds like a Roman Catholic or a Big Eva follower.
@@KristiLEvans1 I don't think a member of the Roman Catholic religion would be so complimentary to Lutherans and Anglicans. This guy is likely a Big Eva fanboy. Sad. Very sad.
@@lkae4 Vatican II Catholics might. They’re the Big Eva of the non-Protestant world.
Another silly comment.😂