I consider myself a reluctant Baptist. I know that my theology doesn't line up exactly right with my local body, but I don't want to have to travel 45 minutes to an hour to attend a church that lines up perfectly because it inhibits being regularly involved with the body outside of Sunday. Christ is still present in word and sacrament and that has to be enough.
I've been Eastern Orthodox since end of 2020, and before that I was Episcopalian for two years. Just recently I recognized that the assumptions I was making about my faith in becoming EO were already answered eloquently and satisfyingly within the Protestantism I had come out of: I was merely pushed away because of the liberalism and lukewarm teachings of the Episcopal Church. Where I needed a confessional, conservative denomination of Protestantism, I was looking outside of Protestantism for entirely, and I began to accept convictions that I realize now don't make sense. Today, I am currently a catechumen in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and being a Lutheran, a confessing Protestant, has been like coming back up from air after being underwater for 3 and a half years. Praise God that I've been given the Gospel once again!
So when the gospel was being read at the liturgy in EO Church you did not hear it or not paying attn? Or are you saying." it is now being explained to you in a large Bible study?" What are you going to do when the Pastor passes on or leaves or becomes liberal? Go to another denomination?
I have found the channel Ready to Harvest to be super helpful in summarizing what different denominations teach and expect. Some church websites will give so much information that it's overwhelming, and some will say so little that it's hard to know what they teach and expect without talking to them directly. But you're right in saying you have to consider the local church and not just the denomination--things like where you as an individual or family can fit in, how the local leadership is gifted, how much time you expect to spend in church, even the worship experience (while in theory that shouldn't be a deal-breaker, it's amazing how much difference it makes when worship uplifts your spirits versus when it leaves you cringing or disconnected).
Really love seeing the more Pastoral and practical videos along with the complex theological videos (such as the one you posted 2 days ago). Really huge encouragement to me to see you handling both of these areas.
As a devout Presbyterian (PCA) by conviction (I was raised episcopalian) I really appreciate this video. The Sacraments and church government have played a large role in convincing me of Presbyterianism, that being said I have learned tons from our Lutheran, Anglican, and Baptist brethren and really love ministries like yours and the Davenant Institute which reach across denominational lines.
Hi. I have found great comfort in a lot of Tim Keller''s sermons, then I found out he is Presbyterian. Do Presbyterian believe in calvinism? That God predestines us for heaven or hell. I am very anxious by this, to me it doesn't seem loving on God's part. I am looking at joining a church. But all these denominations and differing beliefs confuse me so much.
@@dystopian-future Hi Miriam, sorry for the late response 😅. Tim Keller was actually a large part of how I became a Presbyterian. Before I knew anything about different protestant denominations it was because of Tim Keller that I found the Presbyterian Church where I was baptized and eventually met the lovely women I married. Sadly Dr. Keller passed away yesterday, which makes this comment serendipitous. As for your question yes Presbyterians believe in Calvinism aka reformed theology. Presbyterians are those who subscribe to reformed theology who historically came from Scotland. It's distinct from continental and dutch reformed traditions, but we hold a lot of things in common. As for the doctrine of double predestination (that God predestines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell) I would say the majority of those who subscribe to reformed theology affirm the doctrine but there are some who don't. And even among those who do affirm it there's a difference in how we believe God accomplishes his sovereign predestination of people to salvation and damnation. This is going to get a little heavy but bare with me. So, many Calvinists believe in what has been called exhaustive divine determinism, that God causally determines everything that happens. They would affirm what's called compatibilist free will which is the belief that we are free as long as we act on our greatest desire. But I and others think compatibilist free will is only free will in name, but really it's determinism twice removed because even if you are free to act on your desires, your desires are determined by God, and so it's not really free will at all. That being said there are Calvinists (and I fall in this camp) who believe that God does not causally determine all things, instead we believe he predestines by means of his omniscience through what's called Middle knowledge. God has 3 logical moments in his omniscience, his natural knowledge of everything that *could possibly happen, his free knowledge of what *will happen in the world he has actualized, and between those his *middle knowledge of anything that would happen in any feasible world he could create. So he knows all that could, would, and will happen. Having middle knowledge means God knows what anyone would freely do in any world he could create and so he can actualize a world where his will is infallibly accomplished through the free choices of his creatures. So affirming middle knowledge allows us to affirm libertarian free will which is the position (minimally) that a person is free as long as they are not caused by anything external to themselves to do what they actually do (source-hood condition) or (maximally) that you are free if you can choose from a range of options consistent with your nature (principle of alternative possibilities). So a middle knowledge affirming Calvinist (such as myself) can affirm God's sovereign predestination without affirming that he causally determines people. So applying this to the issue of salvation and reprobation shows, in my mind, why the middle knowledge/libertarian position is superior to the exhaustive divine determinism/compatibilist position. On exhaustive divine determinism God causes some to sin and be damned, and some to repent and be saved. On middle knowledge God actualized a world where he knew who would accept his saving grace and who would reject it and in doing so damn themselves. As Kirk MacGregor writes in his book Luis de Molina: In his exegesis of Romans 9, Molina queried “whether the cause of predestination may be ascribed to the part of the predestinate [the elect]” and “whether the cause of reprobation may be ascribed to the part of the reprobate [the unbeliever].”41 Contrary to those who follow “the errors of Origen and Pelagius,”42 Molina answered both questions decidedly in the negative. Taking Romans 9:11-13 (43) at face value, Molina declared that “foreseen faith cannot be the ground of justification or predestination.”44 So unlike Arminius but like Calvin, Molina asserted that God’s decision to save Jacob and condemn Esau did not take into account their future decisions, such as whether each would believe in God. Molina asserted that this is the only natural reading of Romans 9: “Behold in what way Paul teaches concerning Jacob that it was not on account of his works or his merits that he was beloved and predestined by God, so likewise he affirms concerning Esau that it was not on account of his works that he was hated and reprobated.”45 Thus Molina held that God decides unconditionally to save certain individuals “with his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus.”46 Likewise, God’s decision that a particular individual is condemned or reprobated “is not because of foreseen sins, and truly [the reprobate person] has neither the cause nor the ground of reprobation within him.”47 For Molina, therefore, the cause and ground of any person’s predestination to salvation (election) or to condemnation (reprobation) is God’s sovereign will: “The total effect of predestination . . . depends only on the free will of God.”48 Thus Molina emphasized that God could have predestined “any of the elect to have truly been reprobate” and any “of the reprobate to have truly been elect.”49 .... Remarkably, Molina believed that this face-value reading of Romans 9 was entirely consistent with human free will. Because Molina viewed no possible individual as bad enough so that she or he would freely spurn God’s grace in every conceivable set of circumstances and no possible individual as good enough so that she or he would freely embrace God’s grace in every conceivable set of circumstances, God’s possession of middle knowledge logically prior to his making any decisions about this world, including who would be saved or lost, provides the key to God’s sovereign individual predestination. Thus, for any possible individual, God has the power to elect (save) that individual by creating her or him in certain freedom-preserving circumstances where God already knows she or he would voluntarily embrace his grace. And God has the power to reprobate (condemn) that individual by creating her or him in other freedom-preserving circumstances where God already knows she or he would voluntarily spurn his grace.51 And God has the power not to create that individual at all by actualizing other circumstances where the individual does not exist. This choice of circumstances (leading to salvation, condemnation, or nonexistence) is unconditioned by anything about the individual but depends solely on the sovereign will of God.52 (MacGregor,25-28) All that to say it's a complicated topic but God's predestination of the elect and the reprobate doesn't have to be as cruel and unjust as advocates of divine determinism make it out to be. I believe the middle knowledge/libertarian free will understanding makes the best sense of the reformed confessions like the Westminster confession chapter 3 point 1: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." I hope that helps, God bless.
@@dystopian-future On a more pastoral note I'd say that when it comes to choosing a denomination the best thing to do is find a local church near you and just try to serve them and learn as you attend. If you find out they have some troubling theology or that it's not a healthy church then you can always try a different one. A few guiding principles I can give you: 1. google the denomination to make sure it's not a cult or heretical group like the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Unitarians. 2.Avoid theologically liberal churches like the Presbyterian Church U.S.A, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church.... 3. Love the Lord and seek to learn as much as you can about him and the rest will fall into place.
@@dystopian-futureHallo, my namesake, you don't really need to worry about Calvinism, since it comes from the Biblical truth that there are people called God's Elect. Think about it, the very idea that God elects, means there are those He does not as ( Romans 9, 10 and 11) teaches. The reality is there people who will harden their hearts towards the gospel even when they hear it a thousand times. We become emotional when our loved ones refuse to come to Christ and sometimes blame ourselves when our children chooses the way of Esua. It is God the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts of sons of men. Remember, Jesus said "no one comes to me unless the Father draws him". When I read these verses, I do understand were Calvinism comes from. The problem is that there those that call themselves Calvinists but don't understand Calvinism and also some who distort the teachings and make people believe what you have expressed above. In my country of origin (I now live in Germany), I was born and raised in Anglican Church. Before I was born, there was a great revival in the Church and God did real wonders among the Anglican faithfuls. However after many years there was divisions when some thought others are "not saved enough" ~ those who thought they truly saved actually introduced legalisim which made it difficult for people to join them. They also did not understand the doctrine of election, and forced their children to "get saved" by all means. This is what I noticed as I grew up with these children, they lived a double life. Interestingly, the other non-legalistic branch often had genuinely saved children afterwards even when they rebelled as teenagers. We were witnessing to a lady who had observed this and her rejection of the gospel was that Saved people force their children to be what they don't want to be and had examples. It was with great patience that we were able to convince her that if she really wanted to be a believer, it had to come from her hearing the gospel, instead of looking at the weaknesses of believers. We also pointed out that it's her duty to point out what she sees is wrong with love, to other believers. Sorry my response is long but since English is my second language, I need a lot of words to express myself.
Such great advice. I am, at long last, joining the ACNA after spending more than 3 years in a Charismatic, high-church, Anglican congregation. If I had found a Charismatic Lutheran congregation, or a Sacramental non-denominational congregation instead of the Anglican, I probably would have gone there. I do like the breadth of 'allowable opinion' in Anglicanism when it comes to lesser issues, but that isn't a solely-Anglican trait -- after all, Finding the Right Hills to Die On was written by a Baptist. : )
@@TruthUnites Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. ACTS 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” There is only One Mediator between God and men, LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by One Spirit to the Father John 15:5 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and 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.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20, 1 Corinthians, Galatians. 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. _ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
As someone who has lived in five different cities in the last eight years, my advice is that community is key. Decide on the bare bones of what doctrines you think are critical (be as minimalist as possible) and then find a church that has a strong community that spreads the gospel. Being in a local church is more important than trying to line up theological nuances. My main criteria are that if I brought a non-Christian friend to church would they 1) get the gospel message, 2) want to join and be invited into the community and 3) be able to grow in the faith. If those things are all true, then you're probably in the right place.
Great point on community. I have experienced so much of God's love since being in true community. I owe a large part of that to Gavin's father, Ray, and the way he desired small groups to function at Immanuel Nashville. You can be impressive or known, but not both.
Well said. I waited way to long to read the historic creeds and confessions. When I did it answered alot of my questions. I would recommend thats where anyone studying theology start along reading the scriptures of course.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Well, at the time I was really interested in Soteriology and learning more about Calvanism, which led me to read the Cannons of Dohrt. I was also interested in why some Christians baptized babies and so I read the Westminster confession. I ended up also reading the Ecumenical Creeds as well which led me to an interests in doctrine of God, the trinity and Christology. I eventually ended up Lutheran which I did not expect but I saw it as being the most biblical and the most "Catholic". I use the word Catholic to describe all historic Christians who hold to the ecumenical creeds and gather around the preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. While I think Roman Catholics are in serious error theologically I consoder them Christian. Hope that answers your question.
@@Ben_G_Biegler Yes, thank you. You've had an interesting journey. I think I have too. The way you are using catholic, is sometimes called small c, catholic, but never capitalized. I've went to Mass the last while, though I'm not Catholic either. I can say the apostle's creed w/out a hiccup. It's a solid profession, or prayer. I do believe in the universal catholic church as well, just not quite the way the Catholics in Mass profess it. I was so happy to learn for myself, by studying Catholicism, andpraying to God to see if I'd missed something, that by George, Catholics are Christians too. I still found I had large doctrinal disagreements w/ mariology, purgatory, praying to saints. They do it in sincerity, and in love and devotion to God, and to be closer to God. The fruit of it is the same as for us, it puts Jesus as their Lord, front and center. I enjoy watching a number of priests now, as well as pastors. The family of God is much larger than I was told, and that's wonderful.
@@inchristalone25 You do understand from my post that I'm not Catholic though? I likely have a fair understanding of it, but it's usually best to ask a Catholic.
I've been in a Baptist, non-denominational, RPCA, and Evangelical Free Churches over the course of my life, with experience in Lutheran, Missionary Alliance, and Calvary Chapel communities. If the community is glorifying God and loving their neighbors, beginning investing and worshipping God. It's better to not be 100% on the nonessentials than not be involved in a community.
It's so hard to find a church that fits my own ideals perfectly. My husband and I have been looking for over a year. Your video has helped me feel much better about what course of action to take.
Great advice. Personally, I am a Lutheran because of it's sacramental tradition, which emphasizes grace deposited through absolution, water, bread and wine - visible word - that I trust I have been gifted, made new. I trust God's deposit similar to the beggar who trusts in the generosity of strangers material giving.
As a recovering spiritual abuse and cult survivor, I would like to add to this list that it is important to be familiar with the concepts of spiritual abuse, cult mind control (the BITE model is an excellent resource), narcissistic spiritual leadership, etc, as unfortunately these types of behaviors can turn up regardless of denominational affiliation. I would then use this knowledge to examine both the official church teachings of whatever denomination you're considering as a whole, and of your local congregation, to determine if you are in a safe place. ❤
The confessional standards really help. Having the same ecumenical spirit with the church hierarchs and laities while simultaneously striving for the truth, I guess we eventually need to do triage at a certain point.
I really appreciate you saying you're not condescending towards non-denominational churches. I grew up non-denominational, saw many people's lives changed forever through that tradition. I'm with you on that point. I don't chastise other denominations. I wish others would be kind to us as well!
Another great video Gavin! Also, to those claiming "religious relativism", ugh. That's incredibly uncharitable. Even the strictest confessional standards allow variance. Romanist standards allow Jesuits and Dominicans to exist in the same breadth. They disagree on fundamental issues of grace. You're really going to say that's relativism? Gavin obviously isn't saying the truth doesn't matter or is relative. He's saying that certain questions aren't salvation issues, and so you can breathe a bit as you figure out which door to enter into denominationally. The benefit of Protestantism, however, is that I can recognize the visible church in other denominations even across disagreements via bonds of communion. Gavin is welcome to take the Eucharist at my church, and vice versa. The actual visible signs of the visible church subsist across denominations for Protestants, and even across disagreements. Rome can't say that, however.
I always appreciate Dr. Ortlund's warm approach and amicable speech but I think some people might be responding where they are at themselves in their journey and see that the logical end of some of the advice doesn't necessarily lead to a definitive conclusion of certainty (not saying Dr. Ortlund is trying to provide that either but that is what a lot are looking for). Reading confessions is all well and good and learning more Church history is something we can all benefit from, but Dr. Ortlund himself has studied history and comes to a different conclusion than others. Maybe it can be said that certain questions aren't related to salvation, but that begs the question which one's are not? Similarities exist between denominations to be sure, but it's the differences that define each denomination - meaningful differences. There is a reason you won't typically get a Presbyterian preacher invited to preach at a Baptist church or any other combination of tradition - sure you may be able to walk in and take 'communion' - but that doesn't mean much if you both believe each other to have a false Gospel. Currently studying Orthodoxy and it seems to refute both Protestants and Catholics - no myriad of denominations and no supreme leader other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
@@mkmeix Presbyterians and Baptists don't typically believe that the other believe a false gospel. I'm a high church Anglican, and I think Baptist ecclesiology is severely lacking and anemic; I don't for a minute think Gavin preaches an even remotely false gospel. So taking communion together is an act of recognizing that we do indeed, together, share in one baptism, one faith, one Lord, and one eucharist that mediates the saving benefits of Jesus Christ to both of us. Now, that said, yes, Gavin's position assumes some things about which questions do and do not pertain to salvation. Fair enough; we have to come to some definite conclusion on that. If one thinks the Orthodox Church is the catholic and apostolic church, such that all other churches are false churches and most people in those communions share in a false gospel--yeah, that will create a good deal of anxiety. It will create a suffocating deal of anxiety, in fact, which an Orthodox churchmen or churchwoman (assuming they hold to Orthodoxy as it's been historically taught) must commit themselves to; they must commit themselves to believing that God will damn those who have eagerly trusted the mediation of the blood of Christ through the sacraments and by faith in Christ's resurrection. Fair enough, Gavin (and mine and the Protestant position on this in general) is taking a kind of baseline stance here. But it's a stance that is well attested to in Scripture. So in the video, the argument here is that the Protestant stance frees you from that kind of ecclesial anxiety, where you must "get it right" to even be saved. You might think that position is false; okay, that's worth discussing. But that's quite distinct from the point that Protestantism makes: justification by faith alone, as it's taught in Scripture supremely, to the glory of God the Father, is sufficient to save us. If Protestants are right about this, then the kind of anxiety people think comes with Protestantism is immediately diffused--since we're not saved by our ecclesial association, but by faith in Jesus Christ, through which we are incorporated into the one holy catholic and apostolic church, which subsists in different communities through time and space.
"Rome can't say that, however." Is that true? A lot of the outrage of the Second Vatican Council was because Rome made it clear that God does operate within Christian and even non-Christian gatherings.
@@anglicanaesthetics I'll defer to you on the distinctions between Presbyterians and Baptists but saying 'typically' is also part of the point, many Protestant traditions have such a wide breadth of acceptable belief it becomes a version of 'no true Scotsman' (no true Protestant). I'm not saying you're doing that, just an observation of some Protestants I've seen. We might also be referring to different things when we say 'false gospel'. But as I've come to view it, there really is no separating and boxing off one issue from the rest - so ecclesiology is directly tied to the Sacraments, which are directly linked to Christology, which is directly linked to Trinitarian theology which all play a role in your soteriology - you can't alter your view of one without having ramifications for all the rest, whether it's realized or not. The critique being that for most Protestant traditions the down stream implications for any of the theological issues that were rejected or altered end up distorting the truth. I can sympathize with the goal of not wanting to create more anxiety in the world as well, but at least my sense is that the Orthodox don't desire that (though it may be present, that is the response of the individual) but instead desire people to join the fullness of truth present in the Orthodox Church, the true faith. Maybe in a different but parallel manner to how Christians of any label speak to non-Christians, where oftentimes the truth is rejected or seen as harsh or exclusive, and while that may alter the way the message is delivered in order to better reach someone, it should not alter the substantive content contained within the message since it is the truth. And I understand the view is believed to be based in Scripture, but so is the Orthodox position, "not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven' and so on. I can also agree that the stance would free one from that anxiety, but I think it would be replacing that anxiety with comfortable ignorance, which I don't think is a good replacement. And yes, I would disagree with the idea of Sola Fide (as well as the rest of the Solas) but I'm sure you could have guessed:) If I could recommend one channel that speaks very well on the issue of Sola Fide and others from the Orthodox perspective I would point you to Seraphim Hamilton here on youtube. I'm more than happy to take a recommendation as well, but either way I appreciate the response.
@nealkriesterer It's still true, because Vatican II doesn't count Protestants as part of the visible church. They think we're only saved because of some vague connection with the Roman church in Baptism.
Definitely a solid foundation, I would probably include paying attention how each group comes to their conclusions and treats Scripture. For example, if a group claims a certain belief in light of a passage of Scripture, read not just that verse but the context of that verse and the other related passages. Does it appear that this group is basing a doctrine on a single passage, but not considering other passages on the same topic? Is the group moving away from the words of Scripture or changing them to fit to the belief? What do the other groups say about the same text and topic? Does one group seem to more faithfully handle the text than another? The idea is that if the processes of understanding Scripture, and of honoring it are solid, consistently, then there is a better chance of good doctrine. If, on the other hand, the group has a low view of Scripture and especially if they make excuses to disregard God's Word, the danger for bad doctrine is high.
I grew up in the "High Anglican" tradition. It was beautiful and I am grateful for it. Unfortunately God created me with an instinct to side with those looked down upon. Today I am in a predominantly working class non-denominational Pentecostal church and I have never felt closer to God. I love the simplicity of it all. While others often accuse us Pentecostals of being anti-intellectual, I see most other churches placing too much emphasis on theology and not enough on direct personal experience with the Holy Spirit. So I am happy that each of us has a church that we can all feel comfortable in. I am happy my intellectual friends get so much out of being Presbyterian, or my friends who enjoy the ritual of sacraments, being Anglican. If you adhere to the core principles outlined in the Bible (and condensed in the Nicaean Creed), and hold the view that Christ alone is head of the Church, you are my brother or sister.
I wouldn't say having an instinct to side with those whose looked down upon is unfortunate; I think it's a great thing. I'm more broad to high church Anglican but wish it and other sacramental traditions connected better with working class communities.
Very similar story too! Grew up in a rather stuffy Presbyterian, didn't really have many friends but there was a community. Now we are attending Assemblies of God with some good friends who invited us. They have a freedom in the Spirit that I have not seen at liturgical churches.
As a Catholic I found the video very interesting since I’ve always wondered how Protestants handled this issue. From a Catholic perspective, if the Church is Catholic then the rest of the details are ultimately nice to have but not really essential, and anything not Catholic is basically a deal breaker. The video did leave me with two questions. Dr. Ortlund made it sound like all Protestant churches are equally capable of saving souls and all are equally the Church of Christ. This might not be a fair characterization but it just was not clear what the downside of picking the “wrong” church would be. From a Catholic perspective there are certain topics that Catholics are free to disagree about like creationism vs evolution. An evolutionist and creationist cannot both be right but at the end of the day it does not matter which one is right in so far as both are equally capable of attaining salvation. There are also other issues that Catholics need to submit to such as the Church’s teaching on contraception and those who deviate from this teaching endanger their Salvation. Rejecting dogmas like the Assumption of Mary endanger a Catholic’s salvation because it is an act of disobedience to the Church and not necessarily because the Assumption has some utility for those hoping to live a upright life like the teaching on contraception. It seems that Protestants are similar to Catholics in that they have some doctrines that need to be known so that a person can be saved such as Baptism and the Eucharist since both of these are said to be necessary for salvation by Jesus. (John 3:5 for Baptism & John 6:53 for the Eucharist) This would seem to suggest that there are some well intentioned Protestant communities that endanger the salvation of their members because of their accidental errors. If this is true then at last the questions are (1) Can someone give me a list of communities that are generally considered to be dangerous for souls? (2) Even if there is no agreed upon list, would it still not be true that some Protestant churches make it harder for someone to be saved by teaching things that are dangerous to souls in an official capacity? (I know that the German Bishops are attempting to do just this but the difference is that a Catholic can still say that the Catholic Church’s official teaching is safe for souls but this might not be the case for some of the official teachings of a Protestant communion.) I know this was a long message so if you made it to the bottom, Pat yourself on the back 🎉🎉
First Dr. Ortlund would have to out forward a list of the essentials of what is required for Salvation. I do not see agreement on this in the Protestant world and Dr. Ortlund has said in the debate with Trent Horn on Sola Scriptura that there was no shared list among Protestants for the essentials of the Faith.
Scripture needs to be at the heart of a believer in Christ. The Inspired Word of God is the ultimate authority. As such, the doctrine of salvation is well explained in Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:5 and John 3:16. A Biblical belief in the concept of the Trinity and in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (particularly His redemptive work on the cross) are the key issues (so Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not 'safe' Biblical denominations). There are many denominations that gild the lily and sadly, the RCC is probably chief among them. Think about it, disobedience to the RCC because someone questions the Marian dogmas (the last one, the Assumption of Mary, having been 'confirmed' only in 1950) smacks of a cult imposing its extraneous beliefs on the people and is not the true Gospel of salvation as outlined by the Pauline epistles. Yes, Mary was blessed and we can respect and love her as Christ did but we have 'no proof' she was assumed into heaven (although it's a nice thought). You have to go by the Inspired Word of God in order to tread the narrow path and no where in Scripture does it say your salvation is at risk if you don't accept the Marian dogmas. The RCC tells you if you willingly avoid Mass on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation (like the Assumption of Mary!) you are in a state of mortal sin. If you die before seeking reconciliation from a Catholic Priest you will be condemned to hell. Again, no where in Scripture does it state this. This is manipulation at its highest level, leaving Catholics in legal bondage (but also continuing to give monies at every collection and purchasing indulgences).
@@candyclews4047 Thank you for the response, however, the real question is whether or not the Catholic Church has any Divine Authority. I agree that the RCC would be unjust in requiring believers to assent to specific teachings if its claims of authority are false, however, if its claims are true, then they are not unjust to require assent from Christians on things like the Assumption of Mary. For example, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it is unjust for me to reject the authority of God in His written Word and not submit to what Scripture teaches but if the Bible is not the Word of God, then it would not be unjust for me to not submit to it.
I am definitely a “Reformed Baptist” in conviction. And no, I won’t stop using the term ‘reformed’ just because it makes some presbys throw a fit, although maybe ‘reforming’ is better; it’s certainly better than ‘particular’. But I don’t have a reformed Baptist church near me, so I became a member of an Alliance church. I made sure that my agreement with many reformed doctrines would be ok with them, and that I didn’t have a fundamental disagreement with their definitional beliefs.
@@geordiewishart1683 The Bible was given to you by the Catholic Church. The canon was established by the Catholic Church. So you are entirely incorrect, in fact, throughout history there were many false Messiahs that claimed the end of time was near and the Anti-Christ was to come from Rome. People like Thomas Muenster and the Anabaptists for example who erroneously took the Book of Daniel way out of context. They were ALL wrong and led to bloodshed and misery because they took the Scripture out of Holy Mother Church and thought they had licence to interpret it according to their own twisted and evil desires. So continue living in this fantasy, history has shown otherwise. You know not what you speak.
@@Nolongeraslavecan’t speak for him but as a Catholic who understands the teachings and why they were expressed, yes. We love our ancient, apostolic, Christ-centered Catholic faith.
I appreciate a video like this because its really easy for even non-roman catholics to fall into the "one and only real church" mindset. Especially online, the idea that you either believe exactly what I do or you're lost, can be very tempting when debating these topics. Thank you for the vid!
Only (some) protestants don't have that view. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholics etc (the majority of Christians would wide) all believe in one true church. It's not just the majority option now but has been the majority option for the entirety of recorded Christian history.
Which denomination should you choose? Easy: mine. 😎 Jk, but seriously: One thing to add would be to consider triaging doctrines relevant to lifestage. I was served well by a generic Bible church during my early 20s as I was sorting out my core doctrine, but once I began preparing for marriage, I had to think hard about how to raise my children. That led me to reconsider covenant theology and infant baptism and ultimately pulled me to Presbyterianism, even though there were peripheral questions regarding Calvinism and non-episcopal ecclesiology. This nicely dovetails with Dr. Ortlund's comments about starting with sacramentology.
Here in Sweden our churches are either very left leaning and pc (the state church) or quite conservative and right leaning (free church movements). I am just sick of how much politics influence everything without people even realising it. I just want Jesus, and don’t think The Bible is a political text, neither is Jesus either left or right leaning.
It’s so scary out there! We are sheep! How can we survive in a world of wolves in Sheep’s clothing? It’s a lot more simple than what you say here: study and memorize the Sermon On The Mount: and work out from there. You can know a tree by the fruit it produces.
If 2 unrelated people move to the same city and both start praying seeking discernment about which Church has the proper understanding of the sacraments (or truth in general) can God give them different answers (different truths) based on their personal preferences? This is how I am hearing your argument - please tell me if I got this wrong.
@@bradleyperry1735 when it comes to different Christian groups, I think has much more to do with what a person is most convinced of being true. And non-Protestant Christians wouldn’t be exempt from this idea. Even someone who has chosen to be Orthodox or Catholic has done so because he has first been personally convinced that its teachings are true.
Would you ever be open to do a video about John Smyth? I find the fact that he baptized himself and then later was excommunicated from the denomination he started somewhat delegitimizes the entire tradition for me. And why did he reject use of prayer books? Growing up in this tradition I have only now come across the idea of using prewritten prayers and wish I would have had access to them earlier.
I wish there was an app that had a comprehensive list of every doctrine, and you could select from all the options, and then it would not only tell you which Denominations are closest to your beliefs, but also help you get in contact with others nearby who share the same views.
It's a cool idea but I have to wonder; should we be seeking churches based on doctrine we hold as an individual...or doctrine that has been preserved through history as correct? I'm a protestant struggling with this idea. Just bc I believe it or have been taught it doesn't make it the right one..
@@Jessica-rb3ci If you truly believe the Bible teaches X, on an issue that is important, and you have brought it up to the Elders, and there is no reform, then at some point it makes sense to look for a Church that does practice X.
@@mattjackson450 it depends on how important the debated Doctrine is. If it is 1st order, then your reform efforts should be so upfront, that you either succeed in bringing reform, or you're kicked out. If it is 2nd or 3rd order, then I would stay as long as I felt there was openness to at least hearing me out, and as long as there was a spirit of unity, and I wasn't forced to do things against my conscience. But if there is no attempt to find middle ground, in a way that we can all dwell together in unity, then at some point, you have to find a place where you are free to worship the LORD in the way you believe He wants you too, and that is honoring to Him.
@@beowulf.reborn I do agree with this point, and have had to leave churches for this very reason. I'm just questioning the overall idea that we all read the same Bible and have different beliefs? Truth is not relative. So I don't want to just find a church that teaches what I feel comfortable with believing, I want to find the church that teaches the truth that Christ left with the apostles. This has led me to investigate catholicism.
Catholic or Orthodox. Either one is the closest to the early church. The idea of picking and choosing based on how we view and understand the Bible is not what Christ intended when he wanted us to be in unity.
God will guide you. if he wants you to become a orthodox he will lead you into their, vice versa if he wants you to become protestant he will take you there
The second point is interesting. Local Variation in the more extreme forms mentioned seems to be unique to Protestantism. My experience of the RCC here in NZ and in the British Isles and a few European countries suggests that there is far less local variation than say, in my own Anglican world where there is now huge local variation. I think the same relative uniformity probably applies to Eastern Christendom as well.
Hi Gavin, if you see this, please respond if you can, how do we respond to Roman Catholics when they ask questions like “how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and not mine when there is thousands of protestant denominations that all disagree. How can you prove that you have the one true interpretation?”
I would push back on the idea that there are “thousands of Protestant denominations that disagree”. I think generally, most Protestant churches can boil down to a few broad groups. And there is some mixing across groups as well. It is not as if Protestants have these radically different ideas/beliefs across thousands of denominations. I’ve personally attended a variety of churches, and church conferences where attendees hail from a variety of denominations. The differences are less primary and more secondary or even tertiary. In terms of interpretation, I think having a broad church where scripture can be studied and secondary issues debated provides a more robust and trustworthy process of interpretation than a single “pope” or special “magisterium” that has the allegedly sole authority to interpret scripture and doctrine. I find that far more problematic. As a separate example, a cult typically has a charismatic leader that claims sole authoritative interpretation of scripture, and this dangerously leads to heresy and cultism. Whereas a broad church provides accountability. It’s like the authors of scripture. The Bible is more trustworthy having numerous authors across geographic and chronological time frames as opposed to the Quran or Book of Mormon with allegedly a single author.
@@bradleyperry1735 scripture teaches a plurality of leadership in the church. The fact is, there will always be some differences of opinion even within traditions. RCC and EO are not immune to differences of opinion within their respective traditions. But ascribing infallibility to a sole individual to decree doctrine is highly problematic. In contrast, a plurality of leadership encourages checks and balances in biblical interpretation. Where that doesn’t happen is when a church can go off the rails or even head towards cult-like behaviour.
@@bradleyperry1735 well I think scripture does. The church, reading and exegeting scripture, reads and understands it through the help of the Holy Spirit. The official position of the Catholic Church is that if you reject any of the Marian doctrines, you are anathema. Yet this is in no way taught to us in scripture. Why is it such a strongly held belief when it is not evident in scripture and developed very late? Clearly the apostles did not consider any modern Marian doctrine a primary doctrine. I don’t think they considered any of them a doctrine at all, other than identifying Mary as the mother of Jesus (theotokos). I think they would agree with that, not as a title that elevates Mary, but as the early fathers used it, to affirm Christ’s divinity in response to heresy. So I think where Popes have decreed the other three Marian doctrines, they are in error. Scripture, as exegeted by the church with the help of the Holy Spirit, determines what is “primary, secondary, or tertiary”. I’m not saying there are actual categories spelled out in scripture, but clearly the emphasis on salvation is primary for the apostles and Jesus. Salvation is primary because it concerns our eternal destiny. Clearly, so is the doctrine of God, and Christology. The NT authors place great emphasis on who God is, and who Jesus is. Now, the role of women in the church does not appear to take such a primary position, though Paul does address it somewhat. Different churches have taken different views on that teaching. Also, regarding the continuation or cessation of spiritual gifts, different churches have taken different views on that. Similarly whether baptism is for infants or for mature individuals who have made a conscious decision to follow Jesus. It’s a matter of discerning what is fundamental to the faith, and what can be variously interpreted from scripture as less primary. I note that some Popes through history have made mistakes, and thus their judgment has been fallible. This is a problem the universal church has because we are all fallible. A very recent example of rejecting former papal decrees is the rejection by the Vatican of the Doctrine of Discovery. www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/vatican-formally-rejects-doctrine-of-discovery-after-indigenous-calls
Gavin is a big advocate of how we can learn from the early church fathers and how they aren’t Catholics (as Catholics understand that term today). Why not recommend reading the Early Church Fathers as we decide? 🤔 surely some denominations fit with their denomination.
So basically you’re saying it doesn’t matter which denomination you pick because the stakes aren’t that high? We both agree their is only one truth. Yet you say multiple Churches which have different truths all have “the truth”. That doesn’t even make sense. If their is only one truth then only one belief set would have that one truth. “The truth” is not different when it comes to baptism, Eucharist. Their is right and wrong. Truth is absolute. Sola Scriptura does not give you that.
Yes to prayer through everything! Although fair warning you may end up Catholic like me if God wants you to end up there haha. It was the least on my list of churches i ever thought of joining but it was the best decision my husband and I ever made.
Dr Gavin can you provide scriptures to support your idea that God or the apostles thought different churches, doctrines, or denominations would be acceptable. I hear Catholics claim often that Jesus said he would build his Church or that his body is the Church, or that you give Jesus praise in his Church or that the pillar of truth is the Church. They also describe the devil as one who cunningly deceives, devises, and introduces false doctrines to stray people away?
Thank you for this question, I would like to hear his opinion too. It is very specific in the Bible about one body, one church, and one baptism. Yet, it seems there is very little unity when we drive through the streets of our hometowns. The issue I believe with Catholicism Is that it bears no resemblance to the church we read about in the Bible. The teachings of the Catholic Church do not match the teachings of the apostles. if the apostles, who knew they were going to die, when Jesus was still with them, did they not establish the office of pope, never refer to any overarching government, for when they were gone, but only ever support the standing system of church government autonomous Elderships with a plurality of elders, why do people hold to one man as Gods representative here on earth? The issue, seems to be that in our confusion we go to man’s explanation Instead of listening to the Bible’s explanation. Not everything is clear in the Bible, but it is its own best commentary. The plea of the restoration movement was to return and restore Christianity to what we read about in the Bible even if you disagree with it, that is an honest I aim.
Not answering for Gavin, but in the NT you can see a diversity of churches that were “the Church”. Unity in Christ, but not uniformity in practice necessarily.
@@grishamwright1944 I’m not sure if I agree. I see Jesus giving Peter the keys to bind and loose. I see Jesus praying for Peter that his faith would not fail and that he (Peter) would strengthen his brethren. I see Jesus telling Peter to shepherd his(Jesus’s) sheep. I also see passages that explicitly contradict the protestant solas. Like James say you are not saved by faith alone, the call to hold fast to both written and oral traditions. What is one supposed to do with all these protestant contradictions including the one you mentioned about one Church one faith etc.
There is also loads of division within the Roman Catholic Church itself. You can find Catholics that are pro abortion, pro gay marriage, charismatic, universalists, etc. Apologists tout unity within Rome but if you talk to the Parish itself you will get a lot of answers different from what the Vatican has already settled.
@@charliego7375 James also seemed to say that faith without works is dead. If you have faith that is dead would you not call that a false conversion? He definitely does not think it's salvific it would seem. A good tree produces good fruit. We do good works because we are saved not to be saved. Not to mention ALL of scripture is God's word so you have to reconcile what is said in James with what Paul says. We can't pick one and neglect the other!
When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He said, "**Thy** kingdom come, **thy** will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." The prayer is also a guide for our entire outlook on all aspects of life. The prayer isn't, "**My** will be done, on earth, and I can be assured of heaven."
To me it doesn't matter whether your part of a evangelical or liturgical tradition of Christianity I believe the holy spirit works through all churches that teaches the gospel
Could it be a valid to compare the differences between denominations to the middle ages monastic orders? As if each denomination has a different carisma?
You forgot step 6: read Classical and Medieval period history of the Near East and Europe, at least. At the very least, read some history about the "denomination." Hint: some are shorter reads than others.
This video seems too idealistic. I have attended non-denominational, baptist, and presbyterian churches. The sermons and focus of the church differ quite a bit depending on which denominational church you attend. My first church (non-denominational) was all about small groups and getting people into the church. After almost 10 years I learned how to run successful programs but hardly anything about the scripture.
I understand that, i grew up in a russian pentecostal church with all the sundays best and stuff. The vanity eventually made my family leave as we were rather poor and I never remembered them preaching much gospel. I would say though that i joined a non-denominational church recently that is centered entirely around the gospel (Northwest Gospel Church) and it has a great combination of low church availability and inclusivity, while still practicing a rigorous liturgy in weekly Communion, theology education groups, serious baptism courses, etc.
This sounded like people should have their convictions and find a church(es) that have to agree with those conviction and not the other way round. It puts what people think and feel over what the "truth' is plus how long does it take to sample a church? talk less of churches? are really without bias to make these important decisions? It sounds people are more knowledgeable than the churches they seek or want to join. For me, this is a flood gate to disaster and opens the Pandora box of elevation of self, liberalism and secularism, where word of God becomes subjective and relative. As an immigrant and I know many immigrants myself - I have always been sympathetic with people who move around and have to suddenly find a "new" church, this is not an easy decision as I know many who just decide not to go to church anymore as they cannot find their right fit.
There’s “Christian Left” and “Christian Right.” It’s a good idea to find out ahead of time where a prospective church sits, otherwise you may find yourself quite irritated, come sermon time.
It's so sad that we have to face that now too. I'm not Catholic, but for the most part, Catholics and definitely Orthodox don't have to deal w/ that in their churches, because the liturgy is so stringent. They have a very leftist pope though. it didn't used to be this way. Churches just taught the bible before. Now the marxists have infiltrated to the point where you might not even get a bliblical gospel message. It could be all woke marxist racial and gender division stuff.
@@wmarkfish It's true, there is no left or right in Christ. Unfortunately, there is in the churches now. Some churches manage to leave politics out of it, which is ideal. True Christianity does fit better w/ the right wing these days though. It wasn't always so much that way, but now it's pretty dramatic w/ all the race bating in inclusive stuff.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on nondenominational churches. They certainly have the Holy Spirit working in them and can be places of perfectly valid Christian teaching and practice, particularly excelling in outreach and welcoming new members, but do you think that a church should remain nondenominational in general? Particularly, as time goes on since their establishment and their congregations age, do they have the ability to nurture long-time members to high levels of theological understanding and faith?
As someone who grew up non denominational, based on my personal experience (and that if my husband's)I would say no. They don't have the ability to nurture believers on high level theology and at times even avoid it all together as not to commit to any one doctrine in fear of offense of someone else in the church. There is typically a very vague "statement of faith" reg belief in the father son and holy spirit, death and resurrection. I am 35 and only just coming to learn deeper theology over the last few years of my life after being a lifelong Christian bc I started seeking it out on my own. Have never been explicitly taught it in the church. I had never even heard of church counsels or Church Fathers until my own search began.
@@Jessica-rb3ci thank you for your thoughts. I'm sure there must be a great deal of variation between them as, being non-denominational, they don't have any rigid ground rules to follow, but that does seem like a weakness many of them probably share, unfortunately.
Unfortunately they are driven by the beliefs and biases of their lead pastors, who are often wrong input important doctrine. They also tend to lack any meaningful sacraments, they see them as unnecessary instead of a grace that God uses to sanctify his people.
Having to pick and choose a denomination should tell you something right there. Come home to the Catholic or Orthodox Church. The only difference is church body and Nicene Creed.
None, if you have any sense. Christ only founded one Church 2000 yrs ago and he described it using four metaphors none of which Protestant denomination's fulfill. Protestants do not have the Priesthood or the Sacraments
I remember when I wasn't practicing my faith a friend of mine named Ricky kept inviting me to church. Every time he did however he was going to a new church. As a Catholic the concept of church shopping was foreign to me. I wonder if he ever settled on a church.
Potlucks are an echo of the earliest Christian gatherings - a response to the Lord and the Apostles teachings to share with each other, to look after each other, to gather together in fellowship, to minister to one another and be ministered to. Potlucks are inherently invitational (both to come, and to come prepared) and model serving and being served. Potlucks are extular (is that a word?) ...not insular. Church leaders that focus on creating healthy Christian community are following part of the ancient church model ...and potlucks are one simple but powerful aspect of that approach within those community building efforts. Not saying there's a lot of doctrine goin on here ...but discipleship+fellowship among the believers (and believer adjacent) ...yup. If you hand somebody a bowl of Mrs' Churchlady's killer chicken goodness, you probably also have their ear to share some life-time, maybe some gospel truth with each other for few minutes. It's not a formula for success. It's a recipe for love and sharing.@@inchristalone25
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter 2. Be subject to the bishop, etc For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire. Chapter 3. Honour the deacons, etc In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?
well, I am just now leaving the Anglican church and going to the Baptist Church. This would be more of a regional decision. We are down in Florida every other long weekend and there is not an Anglican church anywhere near us. I am kind of over my area where I live full-time anyway. It is very much good old boys network system run in and out of the churches. Well, this is a trait of Satan not God. So I am looking forward to the change. But if you ask me, I think kind of a really great denomination would be an Anglican/Baptist church. I actually saw this from God in a revival that we had in my full-time home back in 1832. The Baptist Church and the Episcopal Church of 1832, had a 10 day long revival. Which is so amazing. And out of that revival like 38 men became Episcopal preachers
One thing I’ve come to reluctantly accept is that many Christians do not really care about what is true and what is not. Lots of comments in here about “deciding the doctrines you can’t go without” or “reluctantly” staying in a church you disagree with. One thing I’ve noticed about Gavin is that he is kinda like a “defense lawyer” for Protestantism. He is very good at establishing slight or reasonable doubts surrounding Catholicism but he does not demonstrate Protestantism is objectively true and I suspect he knows that it is not. Where does that leave us as believers? It leaves us picking a church that we are comfortable with because the idea of one faith community delivering objective truth we lovingly submit to is basically impossible.
So sad to see that some much disunity and chaos surround peoples perception of religion. The Bible never shows any division accepted or even tolerated. There were no denominations in the Bible. So why was that? The apostle were there with them, correct? So, we have been blessed with the teaching directly from the apostles preserved for us in the Bible. The perfect has come. That’s good news. Why is it so much division is tolerated, I’d even say promoted. Why can we not just try to be “just Christians”, the kind of Christians that we read about in the Bible. Do what the apostles told them do, follow in the example of the Word.
I could've really used this video a decade ago, and again another decade prior to that. Still, much appreciated now. If you don't live in a big city then what's available nearby becomes a huge factor in making this choice. I agree that the sacraments are also an excellent thing to consider. Once I reached the point where I thought that Baptism did more than get you wet and allow you to check off your "public profession" box, and once I came to the conclusion that the Lord's Supper was more than a snack we shared while remembering Christ's cruxifiction, then that eliminated the majority of churches in my area.
101 appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 'For some members of Chloe's household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, "| am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter,"" or "I follow only Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 141 thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16 (0h yes,I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don't remember baptizing anyone else.) 17For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News-and not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.
Good advice! I’d say also look for churches that are biblically sound. If a church supports divorce for reasons other than unchastity, it is going directly against the words of Christ in Matthew 19 - avoid it. If a church teaches once saved always saved, it is going against multiple biblical passages - avoid it. If a church pushes “faith alone”, it ignores the words of Christ, Paul, and James - avoid it.
Then can you tell me how do we know we are even saved? The RCC would say we don't, we are working towards it. That's not the gospel. We can't earn it, we can never deserve it, yet he gives us mercy endlessly.
The Bible clearly states that before humans appeared on the earth only Jehovah's family of witnesses existed in the universe. The fist witness to leave the family was the angel who became "Satan" the first apostate. Today either one is serving Jehovah or the adversary Satan. There is no sitting on the fence.
God is so good. He has given us this vast array of churches and sects so that we can choose the type of Christianity that suits us. I’m sure this is somewhere in the NT. I just haven’t found it yet.
My wife’s church (Churches of Christ) teaches that people baptized as infants are not baptized Christians (so Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the like are unbaptized). But I guess one could argue CoC aren’t actually Protestant… 🤷🏻♂️
They believe that one must be baptized in order to be saved. Whereas some denominations may subscribe to this, others don’t. We believe that one is saved by grace through faith in Christ. Water baptism is a public identification with Christ, but it doesn’t save.
@@TomPlantagenet do you mean “we” as in all Protestants or “we” as in your denomination. The point of Dr. Ortlund’s video was to take more of a meta approach to looking for a denomination. If you believe that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, thats great, but that doesn’t change the fact that CoC does teach that. So does this mean CoC should be off the table when discerning a denomination?
CoC may not be directly tied to the 16-17th century Protestant Reformation but does it not follow the Sola Scriptura? I am a Presbyterian (PCA) but I highly doubt that Presbyterians of the 18th century America would really consider most modern Presbyterians as "Presbyterians". What I am saying is that just because you carry the denomination name does not necessarily mean you belong in that historical denomination. For example, my PCA church does not teach the Westminster Standards as prescribed in the Book of Church Order. Our lips say we follow but most members have no idea what's in the Westminster Standards.
What about, non denominational? Protestantism is the closest one to the bible tho. Way more than any other. I just hate to be associated with Calvinism. Which I consider a false denomination with core doctrines that are an insult to God.
it's like a buffet and you get to choose, cafeteria Christianity. It even more convinces me that Catholicism is the boat one mustn't jump off or else one will inevitably drown. Wait for Jesus to calm the storm, don't jump ship and settle for second best. It's the only way.
I choose to be a member of the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I started in a non-reformed, easy believe-ism evangelical church, and the more I read scripture through a hollow lens without preconceived traditions, the more scripture led me away from evangelicalism and into more sacramental Protestantism as defined by Luther in Calvin. In reading scripture and most recently early patristic church fathers i have found more stability in reformed theology that I have in your modern protestant church. The modern evangelical protestant church quite frankly is a joke. Not to be too profane, but the modern protestant church sh%ts on the Eucharist. To them it’s just grape juice and a cracker. Paul makes it CLEAR in 1 Corinthians 11 that it’s far far far far more than that. It’s not transubstantiation, but it’s most definitely not a remembrance factor either. It’s a real presence of the spirit and a tradition that must be partaken in every meeting of the church. So, All I would say is read scripture without preconceived lenses, and just take in the word of God exegetically. Don’t read it plainly, read it with an exegetical theological Lens within context and the word of God will reveal itself to you and lead you to the right church.
I just don't understand how a person would choose a denomination despite so many disagreements and confusions within Protestantism. It is not about anxiety.. it is about unity.... Your channel is truth unites .. I don't believe Protestantism is the truth that unity people. That's my belief..
@@mj6493 come to the universal church, they have a universal teaching abiding to all Christians.if you do not want to come to the universal church then i understand and i can not force you. once a person form his or her own church then that church will spread like a virus and they is no way to cure it that my fear
@@NP-vk8de Oh come on mi amigo! That´s not "a legalistic remark", I'm telling you the truth, and truth will set you free from your fears. I invite you to challenge my remarks.
@@JorgeRamirez maybe you are right, it may or may not be a legalistic remark, but it is certainly subjective with NO solid evidence to prove your point?
@@NP-vk8de I agree with what you’re saying, but the fact that something is subjective does not mean that it is totally false. Jesus himself did not always offer concrete evidence to support his claims, but that did not mean that his teachings or affirmations were subjective or without foundation.
@@JorgeRamirez I think what you are saying is a bit of a stretch, subjective conclusions can lead to misconceptions and then into falsehood. Subjective thinking can be good in trying to understand or wrestle with the faith, but the ultimate aim must be truth. Truth is based on the Word of God and cannot be altered. Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way which seems right to man, but in the end leads to death”. John 14:6 “ I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life”.
I consider myself a reluctant Baptist. I know that my theology doesn't line up exactly right with my local body, but I don't want to have to travel 45 minutes to an hour to attend a church that lines up perfectly because it inhibits being regularly involved with the body outside of Sunday. Christ is still present in word and sacrament and that has to be enough.
Baptist? Sacrament?
@@EthanLington Absolutely, brother.
@@Aaryq there are no valid sacraments in a Baptist church lol
There are no Sacraments in the Baptist communities.
@@dennis1662 not in a majority of main line and independent Baptist communities. But there are exceptions to this. Come to my church sometime.
I've been Eastern Orthodox since end of 2020, and before that I was Episcopalian for two years. Just recently I recognized that the assumptions I was making about my faith in becoming EO were already answered eloquently and satisfyingly within the Protestantism I had come out of: I was merely pushed away because of the liberalism and lukewarm teachings of the Episcopal Church. Where I needed a confessional, conservative denomination of Protestantism, I was looking outside of Protestantism for entirely, and I began to accept convictions that I realize now don't make sense. Today, I am currently a catechumen in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and being a Lutheran, a confessing Protestant, has been like coming back up from air after being underwater for 3 and a half years. Praise God that I've been given the Gospel once again!
So when the gospel was being read at the liturgy in EO Church you did not hear it or not paying attn? Or are you saying." it is now being explained to you in a large Bible study?" What are you going to do when the Pastor passes on or leaves or becomes liberal? Go to another denomination?
I have found the channel Ready to Harvest to be super helpful in summarizing what different denominations teach and expect. Some church websites will give so much information that it's overwhelming, and some will say so little that it's hard to know what they teach and expect without talking to them directly. But you're right in saying you have to consider the local church and not just the denomination--things like where you as an individual or family can fit in, how the local leadership is gifted, how much time you expect to spend in church, even the worship experience (while in theory that shouldn't be a deal-breaker, it's amazing how much difference it makes when worship uplifts your spirits versus when it leaves you cringing or disconnected).
Really love seeing the more Pastoral and practical videos along with the complex theological videos (such as the one you posted 2 days ago). Really huge encouragement to me to see you handling both of these areas.
As a devout Presbyterian (PCA) by conviction (I was raised episcopalian) I really appreciate this video. The Sacraments and church government have played a large role in convincing me of Presbyterianism, that being said I have learned tons from our Lutheran, Anglican, and Baptist brethren and really love ministries like yours and the Davenant Institute which reach across denominational lines.
I had a very positive experience in the pca; grateful for that denomination!
Hi. I have found great comfort in a lot of Tim Keller''s sermons, then I found out he is Presbyterian. Do Presbyterian believe in calvinism? That God predestines us for heaven or hell. I am very anxious by this, to me it doesn't seem loving on God's part. I am looking at joining a church. But all these denominations and differing beliefs confuse me so much.
@@dystopian-future Hi Miriam, sorry for the late response 😅. Tim Keller was actually a large part of how I became a Presbyterian. Before I knew anything about different protestant denominations it was because of Tim Keller that I found the Presbyterian Church where I was baptized and eventually met the lovely women I married. Sadly Dr. Keller passed away yesterday, which makes this comment serendipitous.
As for your question yes Presbyterians believe in Calvinism aka reformed theology. Presbyterians are those who subscribe to reformed theology who historically came from Scotland. It's distinct from continental and dutch reformed traditions, but we hold a lot of things in common.
As for the doctrine of double predestination (that God predestines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell) I would say the majority of those who subscribe to reformed theology affirm the doctrine but there are some who don't. And even among those who do affirm it there's a difference in how we believe God accomplishes his sovereign predestination of people to salvation and damnation.
This is going to get a little heavy but bare with me. So, many Calvinists believe in what has been called exhaustive divine determinism, that God causally determines everything that happens. They would affirm what's called compatibilist free will which is the belief that we are free as long as we act on our greatest desire. But I and others think compatibilist free will is only free will in name, but really it's determinism twice removed because even if you are free to act on your desires, your desires are determined by God, and so it's not really free will at all.
That being said there are Calvinists (and I fall in this camp) who believe that God does not causally determine all things, instead we believe he predestines by means of his omniscience through what's called Middle knowledge. God has 3 logical moments in his omniscience, his natural knowledge of everything that *could possibly happen, his free knowledge of what *will happen in the world he has actualized, and between those his *middle knowledge of anything that would happen in any feasible world he could create. So he knows all that could, would, and will happen. Having middle knowledge means God knows what anyone would freely do in any world he could create and so he can actualize a world where his will is infallibly accomplished through the free choices of his creatures.
So affirming middle knowledge allows us to affirm libertarian free will which is the position (minimally) that a person is free as long as they are not caused by anything external to themselves to do what they actually do (source-hood condition) or (maximally) that you are free if you can choose from a range of options consistent with your nature (principle of alternative possibilities). So a middle knowledge affirming Calvinist (such as myself) can affirm God's sovereign predestination without affirming that he causally determines people.
So applying this to the issue of salvation and reprobation shows, in my mind, why the middle knowledge/libertarian position is superior to the exhaustive divine determinism/compatibilist position. On exhaustive divine determinism God causes some to sin and be damned, and some to repent and be saved. On middle knowledge God actualized a world where he knew who would accept his saving grace and who would reject it and in doing so damn themselves. As Kirk MacGregor writes in his book Luis de Molina:
In his exegesis of Romans 9, Molina queried “whether the cause of predestination may be ascribed to the part of the predestinate [the elect]” and “whether the cause of reprobation may be ascribed to the part of the reprobate [the unbeliever].”41 Contrary to those who follow “the errors of Origen and Pelagius,”42 Molina answered both questions decidedly in the negative. Taking Romans 9:11-13 (43) at face value, Molina declared that “foreseen faith cannot be the ground of justification or predestination.”44 So unlike Arminius but like Calvin, Molina asserted that God’s decision to save Jacob and condemn Esau did not take into account their future decisions, such as whether each would believe in God. Molina asserted that this is the only natural reading of Romans 9: “Behold in what way Paul teaches concerning Jacob that it was not on account of his works or his merits that he was beloved and predestined by God, so likewise he affirms concerning Esau that it was not on account of his works that he was hated and reprobated.”45 Thus Molina held that God decides unconditionally to save certain individuals “with his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus.”46 Likewise, God’s decision that a particular individual is condemned or reprobated “is not because of foreseen sins, and truly [the reprobate person] has neither the cause nor the ground of reprobation within him.”47 For Molina, therefore, the cause and ground of any person’s predestination to salvation (election) or to condemnation (reprobation) is God’s sovereign will: “The total effect of predestination . . . depends only on the free will of God.”48
Thus Molina emphasized that God could have predestined “any of the elect to have truly been reprobate” and any “of the reprobate to have truly been elect.”49 ....
Remarkably, Molina believed that this face-value reading of Romans 9 was entirely consistent with human free will. Because Molina viewed no possible individual as bad enough so that she or he would freely spurn God’s grace in every conceivable set of circumstances and no possible individual as good enough so that she or he would freely embrace God’s grace in every conceivable set of circumstances, God’s possession of middle knowledge logically prior to his making any decisions about this world, including who would be saved or lost, provides the key to God’s sovereign individual predestination. Thus, for any possible individual, God has the power to elect (save) that individual by creating her or him in certain freedom-preserving circumstances where God already knows she or he would voluntarily embrace his grace. And God has the power to reprobate (condemn) that individual by creating her or him in other freedom-preserving circumstances where God already knows she or he would voluntarily spurn his grace.51 And God has the power not to create that individual at all by actualizing other circumstances where the individual does not exist. This choice of circumstances (leading to salvation, condemnation, or nonexistence) is unconditioned by anything about the individual but depends solely on the sovereign will of God.52 (MacGregor,25-28)
All that to say it's a complicated topic but God's predestination of the elect and the reprobate doesn't have to be as cruel and unjust as advocates of divine determinism make it out to be. I believe the middle knowledge/libertarian free will understanding makes the best sense of the reformed confessions like the Westminster confession chapter 3 point 1:
"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
I hope that helps, God bless.
@@dystopian-future On a more pastoral note I'd say that when it comes to choosing a denomination the best thing to do is find a local church near you and just try to serve them and learn as you attend. If you find out they have some troubling theology or that it's not a healthy church then you can always try a different one.
A few guiding principles I can give you:
1. google the denomination to make sure it's not a cult or heretical group like the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Unitarians.
2.Avoid theologically liberal churches like the Presbyterian Church U.S.A, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church....
3. Love the Lord and seek to learn as much as you can about him and the rest will fall into place.
@@dystopian-futureHallo, my namesake, you don't really need to worry about Calvinism, since it comes from the Biblical truth that there are people called God's Elect. Think about it, the very idea that God elects, means there are those He does not as ( Romans 9, 10 and 11) teaches. The reality is there people who will harden their hearts towards the gospel even when they hear it a thousand times. We become emotional when our loved ones refuse to come to Christ and sometimes blame ourselves when our children chooses the way of Esua. It is God the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts of sons of men. Remember, Jesus said "no one comes to me unless the Father draws him". When I read these verses, I do understand were Calvinism comes from. The problem is that there those that call themselves Calvinists but don't understand Calvinism and also some who distort the teachings and make people believe what you have expressed above.
In my country of origin (I now live in Germany), I was born and raised in Anglican Church. Before I was born, there was a great revival in the Church and God did real wonders among the Anglican faithfuls. However after many years there was divisions when some thought others are "not saved enough" ~ those who thought they truly saved actually introduced legalisim which made it difficult for people to join them. They also did not understand the doctrine of election, and forced their children to "get saved" by all means. This is what I noticed as I grew up with these children, they lived a double life. Interestingly, the other non-legalistic branch often had genuinely saved children afterwards even when they rebelled as teenagers. We were witnessing to a lady who had observed this and her rejection of the gospel was that Saved people force their children to be what they don't want to be and had examples. It was with great patience that we were able to convince her that if she really wanted to be a believer, it had to come from her hearing the gospel, instead of looking at the weaknesses of believers. We also pointed out that it's her duty to point out what she sees is wrong with love, to other believers.
Sorry my response is long but since English is my second language, I need a lot of words to express myself.
Such great advice. I am, at long last, joining the ACNA after spending more than 3 years in a Charismatic, high-church, Anglican congregation. If I had found a Charismatic Lutheran congregation, or a Sacramental non-denominational congregation instead of the Anglican, I probably would have gone there. I do like the breadth of 'allowable opinion' in Anglicanism when it comes to lesser issues, but that isn't a solely-Anglican trait -- after all, Finding the Right Hills to Die On was written by a Baptist. : )
that is great! several members of my family and friends are in the ACNA and having a great experience there
@@TruthUnites Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
ACTS 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
There is only One Mediator between God and men, LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by One Spirit to the Father
John 15:5
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and 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.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20, 1 Corinthians, Galatians.
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
_
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics
Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
Dr Ortlund, you’re such a gift for the church. Lord’s blessings!
Thank you so much for this Dr. Ortlund (and for all that you do).
As someone who has lived in five different cities in the last eight years, my advice is that community is key. Decide on the bare bones of what doctrines you think are critical (be as minimalist as possible) and then find a church that has a strong community that spreads the gospel. Being in a local church is more important than trying to line up theological nuances. My main criteria are that if I brought a non-Christian friend to church would they 1) get the gospel message, 2) want to join and be invited into the community and 3) be able to grow in the faith. If those things are all true, then you're probably in the right place.
Great point on community. I have experienced so much of God's love since being in true community. I owe a large part of that to Gavin's father, Ray, and the way he desired small groups to function at Immanuel Nashville. You can be impressive or known, but not both.
Well said. I waited way to long to read the historic creeds and confessions. When I did it answered alot of my questions. I would recommend thats where anyone studying theology start along reading the scriptures of course.
What questions did it answer for you, and did it point you to mere Christianity or Catholicism?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Well, at the time I was really interested in Soteriology and learning more about Calvanism, which led me to read the Cannons of Dohrt. I was also interested in why some Christians baptized babies and so I read the Westminster confession. I ended up also reading the Ecumenical Creeds as well which led me to an interests in doctrine of God, the trinity and Christology. I eventually ended up Lutheran which I did not expect but I saw it as being the most biblical and the most "Catholic". I use the word Catholic to describe all historic Christians who hold to the ecumenical creeds and gather around the preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. While I think Roman Catholics are in serious error theologically I consoder them Christian. Hope that answers your question.
@@Ben_G_Biegler Yes, thank you. You've had an interesting journey. I think I have too. The way you are using catholic, is sometimes called small c, catholic, but never capitalized. I've went to Mass the last while, though I'm not Catholic either. I can say the apostle's creed w/out a hiccup. It's a solid profession, or prayer. I do believe in the universal catholic church as well, just not quite the way the Catholics in Mass profess it. I was so happy to learn for myself, by studying Catholicism, andpraying to God to see if I'd missed something, that by George, Catholics are Christians too. I still found I had large doctrinal disagreements w/ mariology, purgatory, praying to saints. They do it in sincerity, and in love and devotion to God, and to be closer to God. The fruit of it is the same as for us, it puts Jesus as their Lord, front and center. I enjoy watching a number of priests now, as well as pastors. The family of God is much larger than I was told, and that's wonderful.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Can you explain how you are saved in Catholicism?
@@inchristalone25 You do understand from my post that I'm not Catholic though? I likely have a fair understanding of it, but it's usually best to ask a Catholic.
I've been in a Baptist, non-denominational, RPCA, and Evangelical Free Churches over the course of my life, with experience in Lutheran, Missionary Alliance, and Calvary Chapel communities.
If the community is glorifying God and loving their neighbors, beginning investing and worshipping God. It's better to not be 100% on the nonessentials than not be involved in a community.
It's so hard to find a church that fits my own ideals perfectly. My husband and I have been looking for over a year. Your video has helped me feel much better about what course of action to take.
This video popped exactly when I needed it. Funny how that happens, ain't it? Thanks, Mr. Ortlund.
Very insightful and helpful video, thank you!
Great advice. Personally, I am a Lutheran because of it's sacramental tradition, which emphasizes grace deposited through absolution, water, bread and wine - visible word - that I trust I have been gifted, made new. I trust God's deposit similar to the beggar who trusts in the generosity of strangers material giving.
Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts !
Lord Jesus Christ bless you again and again !
As a recovering spiritual abuse and cult survivor, I would like to add to this list that it is important to be familiar with the concepts of spiritual abuse, cult mind control (the BITE model is an excellent resource), narcissistic spiritual leadership, etc, as unfortunately these types of behaviors can turn up regardless of denominational affiliation. I would then use this knowledge to examine both the official church teachings of whatever denomination you're considering as a whole, and of your local congregation, to determine if you are in a safe place. ❤
Love this dude
The confessional standards really help. Having the same ecumenical spirit with the church hierarchs and laities while simultaneously striving for the truth, I guess we eventually need to do triage at a certain point.
I really appreciate you saying you're not condescending towards non-denominational churches.
I grew up non-denominational, saw many people's lives changed forever through that tradition. I'm with you on that point. I don't chastise other denominations. I wish others would be kind to us as well!
Consider the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, AKA CCCC. United on essentials. Freedom & charity on everything else.
Another great video Gavin!
Also, to those claiming "religious relativism", ugh. That's incredibly uncharitable. Even the strictest confessional standards allow variance. Romanist standards allow Jesuits and Dominicans to exist in the same breadth. They disagree on fundamental issues of grace. You're really going to say that's relativism?
Gavin obviously isn't saying the truth doesn't matter or is relative. He's saying that certain questions aren't salvation issues, and so you can breathe a bit as you figure out which door to enter into denominationally. The benefit of Protestantism, however, is that I can recognize the visible church in other denominations even across disagreements via bonds of communion. Gavin is welcome to take the Eucharist at my church, and vice versa. The actual visible signs of the visible church subsist across denominations for Protestants, and even across disagreements. Rome can't say that, however.
I always appreciate Dr. Ortlund's warm approach and amicable speech but I think some people might be responding where they are at themselves in their journey and see that the logical end of some of the advice doesn't necessarily lead to a definitive conclusion of certainty (not saying Dr. Ortlund is trying to provide that either but that is what a lot are looking for). Reading confessions is all well and good and learning more Church history is something we can all benefit from, but Dr. Ortlund himself has studied history and comes to a different conclusion than others. Maybe it can be said that certain questions aren't related to salvation, but that begs the question which one's are not? Similarities exist between denominations to be sure, but it's the differences that define each denomination - meaningful differences. There is a reason you won't typically get a Presbyterian preacher invited to preach at a Baptist church or any other combination of tradition - sure you may be able to walk in and take 'communion' - but that doesn't mean much if you both believe each other to have a false Gospel. Currently studying Orthodoxy and it seems to refute both Protestants and Catholics - no myriad of denominations and no supreme leader other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
@@mkmeix Presbyterians and Baptists don't typically believe that the other believe a false gospel. I'm a high church Anglican, and I think Baptist ecclesiology is severely lacking and anemic; I don't for a minute think Gavin preaches an even remotely false gospel. So taking communion together is an act of recognizing that we do indeed, together, share in one baptism, one faith, one Lord, and one eucharist that mediates the saving benefits of Jesus Christ to both of us.
Now, that said, yes, Gavin's position assumes some things about which questions do and do not pertain to salvation. Fair enough; we have to come to some definite conclusion on that. If one thinks the Orthodox Church is the catholic and apostolic church, such that all other churches are false churches and most people in those communions share in a false gospel--yeah, that will create a good deal of anxiety. It will create a suffocating deal of anxiety, in fact, which an Orthodox churchmen or churchwoman (assuming they hold to Orthodoxy as it's been historically taught) must commit themselves to; they must commit themselves to believing that God will damn those who have eagerly trusted the mediation of the blood of Christ through the sacraments and by faith in Christ's resurrection. Fair enough, Gavin (and mine and the Protestant position on this in general) is taking a kind of baseline stance here. But it's a stance that is well attested to in Scripture.
So in the video, the argument here is that the Protestant stance frees you from that kind of ecclesial anxiety, where you must "get it right" to even be saved. You might think that position is false; okay, that's worth discussing. But that's quite distinct from the point that Protestantism makes: justification by faith alone, as it's taught in Scripture supremely, to the glory of God the Father, is sufficient to save us. If Protestants are right about this, then the kind of anxiety people think comes with Protestantism is immediately diffused--since we're not saved by our ecclesial association, but by faith in Jesus Christ, through which we are incorporated into the one holy catholic and apostolic church, which subsists in different communities through time and space.
"Rome can't say that, however."
Is that true?
A lot of the outrage of the Second Vatican Council was because Rome made it clear that God does operate within Christian and even non-Christian gatherings.
@@anglicanaesthetics I'll defer to you on the distinctions between Presbyterians and Baptists but saying 'typically' is also part of the point, many Protestant traditions have such a wide breadth of acceptable belief it becomes a version of 'no true Scotsman' (no true Protestant). I'm not saying you're doing that, just an observation of some Protestants I've seen. We might also be referring to different things when we say 'false gospel'. But as I've come to view it, there really is no separating and boxing off one issue from the rest - so ecclesiology is directly tied to the Sacraments, which are directly linked to Christology, which is directly linked to Trinitarian theology which all play a role in your soteriology - you can't alter your view of one without having ramifications for all the rest, whether it's realized or not. The critique being that for most Protestant traditions the down stream implications for any of the theological issues that were rejected or altered end up distorting the truth.
I can sympathize with the goal of not wanting to create more anxiety in the world as well, but at least my sense is that the Orthodox don't desire that (though it may be present, that is the response of the individual) but instead desire people to join the fullness of truth present in the Orthodox Church, the true faith. Maybe in a different but parallel manner to how Christians of any label speak to non-Christians, where oftentimes the truth is rejected or seen as harsh or exclusive, and while that may alter the way the message is delivered in order to better reach someone, it should not alter the substantive content contained within the message since it is the truth. And I understand the view is believed to be based in Scripture, but so is the Orthodox position, "not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven' and so on.
I can also agree that the stance would free one from that anxiety, but I think it would be replacing that anxiety with comfortable ignorance, which I don't think is a good replacement. And yes, I would disagree with the idea of Sola Fide (as well as the rest of the Solas) but I'm sure you could have guessed:) If I could recommend one channel that speaks very well on the issue of Sola Fide and others from the Orthodox perspective I would point you to Seraphim Hamilton here on youtube. I'm more than happy to take a recommendation as well, but either way I appreciate the response.
@nealkriesterer It's still true, because Vatican II doesn't count Protestants as part of the visible church. They think we're only saved because of some vague connection with the Roman church in Baptism.
Let's see an office tour, Dr. Ortlund! I wanna see all your books!!!
Definitely a solid foundation, I would probably include paying attention how each group comes to their conclusions and treats Scripture.
For example, if a group claims a certain belief in light of a passage of Scripture, read not just that verse but the context of that verse and the other related passages. Does it appear that this group is basing a doctrine on a single passage, but not considering other passages on the same topic? Is the group moving away from the words of Scripture or changing them to fit to the belief? What do the other groups say about the same text and topic? Does one group seem to more faithfully handle the text than another?
The idea is that if the processes of understanding Scripture, and of honoring it are solid, consistently, then there is a better chance of good doctrine.
If, on the other hand, the group has a low view of Scripture and especially if they make excuses to disregard God's Word, the danger for bad doctrine is high.
One can look for the short description of each denomination of "Ready to harvest" to get an idea of eachone.
What a great channel
I grew up in the "High Anglican" tradition. It was beautiful and I am grateful for it. Unfortunately God created me with an instinct to side with those looked down upon. Today I am in a predominantly working class non-denominational Pentecostal church and I have never felt closer to God. I love the simplicity of it all. While others often accuse us Pentecostals of being anti-intellectual, I see most other churches placing too much emphasis on theology and not enough on direct personal experience with the Holy Spirit. So I am happy that each of us has a church that we can all feel comfortable in. I am happy my intellectual friends get so much out of being Presbyterian, or my friends who enjoy the ritual of sacraments, being Anglican. If you adhere to the core principles outlined in the Bible (and condensed in the Nicaean Creed), and hold the view that Christ alone is head of the Church, you are my brother or sister.
I wouldn't say having an instinct to side with those whose looked down upon is unfortunate; I think it's a great thing. I'm more broad to high church Anglican but wish it and other sacramental traditions connected better with working class communities.
Very similar story too! Grew up in a rather stuffy Presbyterian, didn't really have many friends but there was a community. Now we are attending Assemblies of God with some good friends who invited us. They have a freedom in the Spirit that I have not seen at liturgical churches.
As a Catholic I found the video very interesting since I’ve always wondered how Protestants handled this issue. From a Catholic perspective, if the Church is Catholic then the rest of the details are ultimately nice to have but not really essential, and anything not Catholic is basically a deal breaker.
The video did leave me with two questions. Dr. Ortlund made it sound like all Protestant churches are equally capable of saving souls and all are equally the Church of Christ. This might not be a fair characterization but it just was not clear what the downside of picking the “wrong” church would be. From a Catholic perspective there are certain topics that Catholics are free to disagree about like creationism vs evolution. An evolutionist and creationist cannot both be right but at the end of the day it does not matter which one is right in so far as both are equally capable of attaining salvation. There are also other issues that Catholics need to submit to such as the Church’s teaching on contraception and those who deviate from this teaching endanger their Salvation. Rejecting dogmas like the Assumption of Mary endanger a Catholic’s salvation because it is an act of disobedience to the Church and not necessarily because the Assumption has some utility for those hoping to live a upright life like the teaching on contraception. It seems that Protestants are similar to Catholics in that they have some doctrines that need to be known so that a person can be saved such as Baptism and the Eucharist since both of these are said to be necessary for salvation by Jesus. (John 3:5 for Baptism & John 6:53 for the Eucharist) This would seem to suggest that there are some well intentioned Protestant communities that endanger the salvation of their members because of their accidental errors. If this is true then at last the questions are (1) Can someone give me a list of communities that are generally considered to be dangerous for souls? (2) Even if there is no agreed upon list, would it still not be true that some Protestant churches make it harder for someone to be saved by teaching things that are dangerous to souls in an official capacity? (I know that the German Bishops are attempting to do just this but the difference is that a Catholic can still say that the Catholic Church’s official teaching is safe for souls but this might not be the case for some of the official teachings of a Protestant communion.) I know this was a long message so if you made it to the bottom, Pat yourself on the back 🎉🎉
Well put.
First Dr. Ortlund would have to out forward a list of the essentials of what is required for Salvation. I do not see agreement on this in the Protestant world and Dr. Ortlund has said in the debate with Trent Horn on Sola Scriptura that there was no shared list among Protestants for the essentials of the Faith.
Bene dictum!
Scripture needs to be at the heart of a believer in Christ. The Inspired Word of God is the ultimate authority. As such, the doctrine of salvation is well explained in Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:5 and John 3:16. A Biblical belief in the concept of the Trinity and in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (particularly His redemptive work on the cross) are the key issues (so Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not 'safe' Biblical denominations). There are many denominations that gild the lily and sadly, the RCC is probably chief among them. Think about it, disobedience to the RCC because someone questions the Marian dogmas (the last one, the Assumption of Mary, having been 'confirmed' only in 1950) smacks of a cult imposing its extraneous beliefs on the people and is not the true Gospel of salvation as outlined by the Pauline epistles. Yes, Mary was blessed and we can respect and love her as Christ did but we have 'no proof' she was assumed into heaven (although it's a nice thought). You have to go by the Inspired Word of God in order to tread the narrow path and no where in Scripture does it say your salvation is at risk if you don't accept the Marian dogmas. The RCC tells you if you willingly avoid Mass on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation (like the Assumption of Mary!) you are in a state of mortal sin. If you die before seeking reconciliation from a Catholic Priest you will be condemned to hell. Again, no where in Scripture does it state this. This is manipulation at its highest level, leaving Catholics in legal bondage (but also continuing to give monies at every collection and purchasing indulgences).
@@candyclews4047 Thank you for the response, however, the real question is whether or not the Catholic Church has any Divine Authority. I agree that the RCC would be unjust in requiring believers to assent to specific teachings if its claims of authority are false, however, if its claims are true, then they are not unjust to require assent from Christians on things like the Assumption of Mary. For example, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it is unjust for me to reject the authority of God in His written Word and not submit to what Scripture teaches but if the Bible is not the Word of God, then it would not be unjust for me to not submit to it.
I can’t wait for Why Protestantism! 🎉❤
I am definitely a “Reformed Baptist” in conviction. And no, I won’t stop using the term ‘reformed’ just because it makes some presbys throw a fit, although maybe ‘reforming’ is better; it’s certainly better than ‘particular’. But I don’t have a reformed Baptist church near me, so I became a member of an Alliance church. I made sure that my agreement with many reformed doctrines would be ok with them, and that I didn’t have a fundamental disagreement with their definitional beliefs.
Gavins response is actually one of the greatest reasons that made me Catholic after 18 years as a pentacostal! ❤
The bible is one of the greatest reasons that I am not Catholic.
Catholicism is the seat of anti Christ
@@geordiewishart1683 The Bible was given to you by the Catholic Church. The canon was established by the Catholic Church. So you are entirely incorrect, in fact, throughout history there were many false Messiahs that claimed the end of time was near and the Anti-Christ was to come from Rome.
People like Thomas Muenster and the Anabaptists for example who erroneously took the Book of Daniel way out of context. They were ALL wrong and led to bloodshed and misery because they took the Scripture out of Holy Mother Church and thought they had licence to interpret it according to their own twisted and evil desires.
So continue living in this fantasy, history has shown otherwise. You know not what you speak.
Are you comfortable with the teachings of the Catholic Church or there some that does not seem right to you?
@@Nolongeraslavecan’t speak for him but as a Catholic who understands the teachings and why they were expressed, yes. We love our ancient, apostolic, Christ-centered Catholic faith.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 And the dogma and the doctrines that developed along the way that has no connection to the Apostles?
I appreciate a video like this because its really easy for even non-roman catholics to fall into the "one and only real church" mindset. Especially online, the idea that you either believe exactly what I do or you're lost, can be very tempting when debating these topics. Thank you for the vid!
Only (some) protestants don't have that view. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholics etc (the majority of Christians would wide) all believe in one true church. It's not just the majority option now but has been the majority option for the entirety of recorded Christian history.
Which denomination should you choose? Easy: mine. 😎
Jk, but seriously: One thing to add would be to consider triaging doctrines relevant to lifestage. I was served well by a generic Bible church during my early 20s as I was sorting out my core doctrine, but once I began preparing for marriage, I had to think hard about how to raise my children. That led me to reconsider covenant theology and infant baptism and ultimately pulled me to Presbyterianism, even though there were peripheral questions regarding Calvinism and non-episcopal ecclesiology. This nicely dovetails with Dr. Ortlund's comments about starting with sacramentology.
When your beliefs don't match any particular denomination, pick the closest one.
Here in Sweden our churches are either very left leaning and pc (the state church) or quite conservative and right leaning (free church movements). I am just sick of how much politics influence everything without people even realising it. I just want Jesus, and don’t think The Bible is a political text, neither is Jesus either left or right leaning.
It’s so scary out there! We are sheep! How can we survive in a world of wolves in Sheep’s clothing? It’s a lot more simple than what you say here: study and memorize the Sermon On The Mount: and work out from there. You can know a tree by the fruit it produces.
If 2 unrelated people move to the same city and both start praying seeking discernment about which Church has the proper understanding of the sacraments (or truth in general) can God give them different answers (different truths) based on their personal preferences? This is how I am hearing your argument - please tell me if I got this wrong.
This is, ultimately, what Protestantism boils down to. What feels best to me.
@@bradleyperry1735 when it comes to different Christian groups, I think has much more to do with what a person is most convinced of being true. And non-Protestant Christians wouldn’t be exempt from this idea. Even someone who has chosen to be Orthodox or Catholic has done so because he has first been personally convinced that its teachings are true.
@@anne.ominous Right. For GOOD reasons.
Would you ever be open to do a video about John Smyth? I find the fact that he baptized himself and then later was excommunicated from the denomination he started somewhat delegitimizes the entire tradition for me.
And why did he reject use of prayer books? Growing up in this tradition I have only now come across the idea of using prewritten prayers and wish I would have had access to them earlier.
Ultimately, it’s Hebrews 11:6. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seeks Him.
Hey Mr Gavin, do you make another video about The relics?
I wish there was an app that had a comprehensive list of every doctrine, and you could select from all the options, and then it would not only tell you which Denominations are closest to your beliefs, but also help you get in contact with others nearby who share the same views.
It's a cool idea but I have to wonder; should we be seeking churches based on doctrine we hold as an individual...or doctrine that has been preserved through history as correct? I'm a protestant struggling with this idea. Just bc I believe it or have been taught it doesn't make it the right one..
I understand the appeal, but that's terrifying
@@Jessica-rb3ci If you truly believe the Bible teaches X, on an issue that is important, and you have brought it up to the Elders, and there is no reform, then at some point it makes sense to look for a Church that does practice X.
@@mattjackson450 it depends on how important the debated Doctrine is. If it is 1st order, then your reform efforts should be so upfront, that you either succeed in bringing reform, or you're kicked out.
If it is 2nd or 3rd order, then I would stay as long as I felt there was openness to at least hearing me out, and as long as there was a spirit of unity, and I wasn't forced to do things against my conscience. But if there is no attempt to find middle ground, in a way that we can all dwell together in unity, then at some point, you have to find a place where you are free to worship the LORD in the way you believe He wants you too, and that is honoring to Him.
@@beowulf.reborn I do agree with this point, and have had to leave churches for this very reason. I'm just questioning the overall idea that we all read the same Bible and have different beliefs? Truth is not relative. So I don't want to just find a church that teaches what I feel comfortable with believing, I want to find the church that teaches the truth that Christ left with the apostles. This has led me to investigate catholicism.
What is the definition of Church
Catholic or Orthodox. Either one is the closest to the early church. The idea of picking and choosing based on how we view and understand the Bible is not what Christ intended when he wanted us to be in unity.
God will guide you. if he wants you to become a orthodox he will lead you into their, vice versa if he wants you to become protestant he will take you there
The second point is interesting. Local Variation in the more extreme forms mentioned seems to be unique to Protestantism. My experience of the RCC here in NZ and in the British Isles and a few European countries suggests that there is far less local variation than say, in my own Anglican world where there is now huge local variation. I think the same relative uniformity probably applies to Eastern Christendom as well.
Hi Gavin, if you see this, please respond if you can, how do we respond to Roman Catholics when they ask questions like “how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and not mine when there is thousands of protestant denominations that all disagree. How can you prove that you have the one true interpretation?”
I would push back on the idea that there are “thousands of Protestant denominations that disagree”. I think generally, most Protestant churches can boil down to a few broad groups. And there is some mixing across groups as well. It is not as if Protestants have these radically different ideas/beliefs across thousands of denominations. I’ve personally attended a variety of churches, and church conferences where attendees hail from a variety of denominations. The differences are less primary and more secondary or even tertiary. In terms of interpretation, I think having a broad church where scripture can be studied and secondary issues debated provides a more robust and trustworthy process of interpretation than a single “pope” or special “magisterium” that has the allegedly sole authority to interpret scripture and doctrine. I find that far more problematic. As a separate example, a cult typically has a charismatic leader that claims sole authoritative interpretation of scripture, and this dangerously leads to heresy and cultism. Whereas a broad church provides accountability. It’s like the authors of scripture. The Bible is more trustworthy having numerous authors across geographic and chronological time frames as opposed to the Quran or Book of Mormon with allegedly a single author.
@@mc07So who determines what issues are primary, secondary, and tertiary?
@@bradleyperry1735 scripture teaches a plurality of leadership in the church. The fact is, there will always be some differences of opinion even within traditions. RCC and EO are not immune to differences of opinion within their respective traditions. But ascribing infallibility to a sole individual to decree doctrine is highly problematic. In contrast, a plurality of leadership encourages checks and balances in biblical interpretation. Where that doesn’t happen is when a church can go off the rails or even head towards cult-like behaviour.
@@mc07 That’s not really what I asked. Who determines what is primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.?
@@bradleyperry1735 well I think scripture does. The church, reading and exegeting scripture, reads and understands it through the help of the Holy Spirit. The official position of the Catholic Church is that if you reject any of the Marian doctrines, you are anathema. Yet this is in no way taught to us in scripture. Why is it such a strongly held belief when it is not evident in scripture and developed very late? Clearly the apostles did not consider any modern Marian doctrine a primary doctrine. I don’t think they considered any of them a doctrine at all, other than identifying Mary as the mother of Jesus (theotokos). I think they would agree with that, not as a title that elevates Mary, but as the early fathers used it, to affirm Christ’s divinity in response to heresy. So I think where Popes have decreed the other three Marian doctrines, they are in error. Scripture, as exegeted by the church with the help of the Holy Spirit, determines what is “primary, secondary, or tertiary”. I’m not saying there are actual categories spelled out in scripture, but clearly the emphasis on salvation is primary for the apostles and Jesus. Salvation is primary because it concerns our eternal destiny. Clearly, so is the doctrine of God, and Christology. The NT authors place great emphasis on who God is, and who Jesus is. Now, the role of women in the church does not appear to take such a primary position, though Paul does address it somewhat. Different churches have taken different views on that teaching. Also, regarding the continuation or cessation of spiritual gifts, different churches have taken different views on that. Similarly whether baptism is for infants or for mature individuals who have made a conscious decision to follow Jesus. It’s a matter of discerning what is fundamental to the faith, and what can be variously interpreted from scripture as less primary. I note that some Popes through history have made mistakes, and thus their judgment has been fallible. This is a problem the universal church has because we are all fallible. A very recent example of rejecting former papal decrees is the rejection by the Vatican of the Doctrine of Discovery. www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/vatican-formally-rejects-doctrine-of-discovery-after-indigenous-calls
Methodist/Wesleyan, in my opinion it is the healthiest Christian tradition there is.
Gavin is a big advocate of how we can learn from the early church fathers and how they aren’t Catholics (as Catholics understand that term today). Why not recommend reading the Early Church Fathers as we decide? 🤔 surely some denominations fit with their denomination.
So basically you’re saying it doesn’t matter which denomination you pick because the stakes aren’t that high? We both agree their is only one truth. Yet you say multiple Churches which have different truths all have “the truth”. That doesn’t even make sense. If their is only one truth then only one belief set would have that one truth. “The truth” is not different when it comes to baptism, Eucharist. Their is right and wrong. Truth is absolute. Sola Scriptura does not give you that.
Yes to prayer through everything! Although fair warning you may end up Catholic like me if God wants you to end up there haha. It was the least on my list of churches i ever thought of joining but it was the best decision my husband and I ever made.
Dr Gavin can you provide scriptures to support your idea that God or the apostles thought different churches, doctrines, or denominations would be acceptable. I hear Catholics claim often that Jesus said he would build his Church or that his body is the Church, or that you give Jesus praise in his Church or that the pillar of truth is the Church. They also describe the devil as one who cunningly deceives, devises, and introduces false doctrines to stray people away?
Thank you for this question, I would like to hear his opinion too. It is very specific in the Bible about one body, one church, and one baptism. Yet, it seems there is very little unity when we drive through the streets of our hometowns. The issue I believe with Catholicism Is that it bears no resemblance to the church we read about in the Bible. The teachings of the Catholic Church do not match the teachings of the apostles. if the apostles, who knew they were going to die, when Jesus was still with them, did they not establish the office of pope, never refer to any overarching government, for when they were gone, but only ever support the standing system of church government autonomous Elderships with a plurality of elders, why do people hold to one man as Gods representative here on earth? The issue, seems to be that in our confusion we go to man’s explanation Instead of listening to the Bible’s explanation. Not everything is clear in the Bible, but it is its own best commentary. The plea of the restoration movement was to return and restore Christianity to what we read about in the Bible even if you disagree with it, that is an honest I aim.
Not answering for Gavin, but in the NT you can see a diversity of churches that were “the Church”. Unity in Christ, but not uniformity in practice necessarily.
@@grishamwright1944 I’m not sure if I agree. I see Jesus giving Peter the keys to bind and loose. I see Jesus praying for Peter that his faith would not fail and that he (Peter) would strengthen his brethren. I see Jesus telling Peter to shepherd his(Jesus’s) sheep.
I also see passages that explicitly contradict the protestant solas. Like James say you are not saved by faith alone, the call to hold fast to both written and oral traditions.
What is one supposed to do with all these protestant contradictions including the one you mentioned about one Church one faith etc.
There is also loads of division within the Roman Catholic Church itself. You can find Catholics that are pro abortion, pro gay marriage, charismatic, universalists, etc. Apologists tout unity within Rome but if you talk to the Parish itself you will get a lot of answers different from what the Vatican has already settled.
@@charliego7375 James also seemed to say that faith without works is dead. If you have faith that is dead would you not call that a false conversion? He definitely does not think it's salvific it would seem.
A good tree produces good fruit. We do good works because we are saved not to be saved.
Not to mention ALL of scripture is God's word so you have to reconcile what is said in James with what Paul says. We can't pick one and neglect the other!
When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He said, "**Thy** kingdom come, **thy** will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
The prayer is also a guide for our entire outlook on all aspects of life.
The prayer isn't, "**My** will be done, on earth, and I can be assured of heaven."
To me it doesn't matter whether your part of a evangelical or liturgical tradition of Christianity I believe the holy spirit works through all churches that teaches the gospel
Could it be a valid to compare the differences between denominations to the middle ages monastic orders? As if each denomination has a different carisma?
No. They differ wildly in both doctrine and practice.
If only Joseph Smith had watched this video in 1820 none of this would have happened
You forgot step 6: read Classical and Medieval period history of the Near East and Europe, at least.
At the very least, read some history about the "denomination." Hint: some are shorter reads than others.
This video seems too idealistic. I have attended non-denominational, baptist, and presbyterian churches. The sermons and focus of the church differ quite a bit depending on which denominational church you attend. My first church (non-denominational) was all about small groups and getting people into the church. After almost 10 years I learned how to run successful programs but hardly anything about the scripture.
I understand that, i grew up in a russian pentecostal church with all the sundays best and stuff. The vanity eventually made my family leave as we were rather poor and I never remembered them preaching much gospel. I would say though that i joined a non-denominational church recently that is centered entirely around the gospel (Northwest Gospel Church) and it has a great combination of low church availability and inclusivity, while still practicing a rigorous liturgy in weekly Communion, theology education groups, serious baptism courses, etc.
This sounded like people should have their convictions and find a church(es) that have to agree with those conviction and not the other way round. It puts what people think and feel over what the "truth' is plus how long does it take to sample a church? talk less of churches? are really without bias to make these important decisions? It sounds people are more knowledgeable than the churches they seek or want to join. For me, this is a flood gate to disaster and opens the Pandora box of elevation of self, liberalism and secularism, where word of God becomes subjective and relative.
As an immigrant and I know many immigrants myself - I have always been sympathetic with people who move around and have to suddenly find a "new" church, this is not an easy decision as I know many who just decide not to go to church anymore as they cannot find their right fit.
There’s “Christian Left” and “Christian Right.” It’s a good idea to find out ahead of time where a prospective church sits, otherwise you may find yourself quite irritated, come sermon time.
It's so sad that we have to face that now too. I'm not Catholic, but for the most part, Catholics and definitely Orthodox don't have to deal w/ that in their churches, because the liturgy is so stringent. They have a very leftist pope though. it didn't used to be this way. Churches just taught the bible before. Now the marxists have infiltrated to the point where you might not even get a bliblical gospel message. It could be all woke marxist racial and gender division stuff.
There is no left or right in Christ
@@wmarkfish It's true, there is no left or right in Christ. Unfortunately, there is in the churches now. Some churches manage to leave politics out of it, which is ideal. True Christianity does fit better w/ the right wing these days though. It wasn't always so much that way, but now it's pretty dramatic w/ all the race bating in inclusive stuff.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Tell that to PC-USA who insist that Jesus is a ‘Progressive.’
@@krizilloo2538 Yes some churches I think are apostate because they have affirmed gay marriage and transgender ideology.
Schleitheim Confession (1527) too?
You must do a video about the ABC-USa, at least one video.
The only true church is First Baptist Church in Ojai
I’m torn between the Baptist and Lutheran churches. I imagine communion will ultimately be my deciding factor.
Which Lutheran church are you investigating? Just curious
Have you read the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith?
yep, What you think about the Lord's Supper and Baptism are the key in that decision.
LCMS@@Jessica-rb3ci
Smorgasbord?
Comment for algorithm.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on nondenominational churches. They certainly have the Holy Spirit working in them and can be places of perfectly valid Christian teaching and practice, particularly excelling in outreach and welcoming new members, but do you think that a church should remain nondenominational in general? Particularly, as time goes on since their establishment and their congregations age, do they have the ability to nurture long-time members to high levels of theological understanding and faith?
As someone who grew up non denominational, based on my personal experience (and that if my husband's)I would say no. They don't have the ability to nurture believers on high level theology and at times even avoid it all together as not to commit to any one doctrine in fear of offense of someone else in the church. There is typically a very vague "statement of faith" reg belief in the father son and holy spirit, death and resurrection. I am 35 and only just coming to learn deeper theology over the last few years of my life after being a lifelong Christian bc I started seeking it out on my own. Have never been explicitly taught it in the church. I had never even heard of church counsels or Church Fathers until my own search began.
@@Jessica-rb3ci thank you for your thoughts. I'm sure there must be a great deal of variation between them as, being non-denominational, they don't have any rigid ground rules to follow, but that does seem like a weakness many of them probably share, unfortunately.
Unfortunately they are driven by the beliefs and biases of their lead pastors, who are often wrong input important doctrine. They also tend to lack any meaningful sacraments, they see them as unnecessary instead of a grace that God uses to sanctify his people.
As a Catholic I do like listening to this pastor. However, I would never leave the Catholic Church to become a Protestant. Being honest.
Having to pick and choose a denomination should tell you something right there. Come home to the Catholic or Orthodox Church. The only difference is church body and Nicene Creed.
None, if you have any sense. Christ only founded one Church 2000 yrs ago and he described it using four metaphors none of which Protestant denomination's fulfill. Protestants do not have the Priesthood or the Sacraments
I thought for sure you were going to say Reformed Baptist, London Baptist Confession of 1646 since that is the correct answer. 🙂
I remember when I wasn't practicing my faith a friend of mine named Ricky kept inviting me to church. Every time he did however he was going to a new church. As a Catholic the concept of church shopping was foreign to me. I wonder if he ever settled on a church.
Same. Not trying to be rude but it just seems silly. The whole concept's clearly not meant to unifying
So, not feelings, music, and youth group then? ;)
If you find a perfect church don’t join it because after you get there it won’t be perfect anymore! 🤣
LOL I love that joke
is it a pot-luck observant church? Not doctrinally definitive, but it's sayin something about leadership and the congregation's willingness to respond
What do pot lucks say about the church?
Potlucks are an echo of the earliest Christian gatherings - a response to the Lord and the Apostles teachings to share with each other, to look after each other, to gather together in fellowship, to minister to one another and be ministered to. Potlucks are inherently invitational (both to come, and to come prepared) and model serving and being served. Potlucks are extular (is that a word?) ...not insular. Church leaders that focus on creating healthy Christian community are following part of the ancient church model ...and potlucks are one simple but powerful aspect of that approach within those community building efforts. Not saying there's a lot of doctrine goin on here ...but discipleship+fellowship among the believers (and believer adjacent) ...yup. If you hand somebody a bowl of Mrs' Churchlady's killer chicken goodness, you probably also have their ear to share some life-time, maybe some gospel truth with each other for few minutes. It's not a formula for success. It's a recipe for love and sharing.@@inchristalone25
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Chapter 2. Be subject to the bishop, etc
For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.
Chapter 3. Honour the deacons, etc
In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?
well, I am just now leaving the Anglican church and going to the Baptist Church. This would be more of a regional decision. We are down in Florida every other long weekend and there is not an Anglican church anywhere near us. I am kind of over my area where I live full-time anyway. It is very much good old boys network system run in and out of the churches. Well, this is a trait of Satan not God. So I am looking forward to the change. But if you ask me, I think kind of a really great denomination would be an Anglican/Baptist church. I actually saw this from God in a revival that we had in my full-time home back in 1832. The Baptist Church and the Episcopal Church of 1832, had a 10 day long revival. Which is so amazing. And out of that revival like 38 men became Episcopal preachers
Since your a calvinist why do you say your a baptist?
just go to the church down the road, providing you like the people there
One thing I’ve come to reluctantly accept is that many Christians do not really care about what is true and what is not. Lots of comments in here about “deciding the doctrines you can’t go without” or “reluctantly” staying in a church you disagree with. One thing I’ve noticed about Gavin is that he is kinda like a “defense lawyer” for Protestantism. He is very good at establishing slight or reasonable doubts surrounding Catholicism but he does not demonstrate Protestantism is objectively true and I suspect he knows that it is not. Where does that leave us as believers? It leaves us picking a church that we are comfortable with because the idea of one faith community delivering objective truth we lovingly submit to is basically impossible.
Regarding our theology we strange animals at certain point.
So sad to see that some much disunity and chaos surround peoples perception of religion. The Bible never shows any division accepted or even tolerated. There were no denominations in the Bible. So why was that? The apostle were there with them, correct? So, we have been blessed with the teaching directly from the apostles preserved for us in the Bible. The perfect has come. That’s good news. Why is it so much division is tolerated, I’d even say promoted. Why can we not just try to be “just Christians”, the kind of Christians that we read about in the Bible. Do what the apostles told them do, follow in the example of the Word.
The oldest one
I could've really used this video a decade ago, and again another decade prior to that. Still, much appreciated now.
If you don't live in a big city then what's available nearby becomes a huge factor in making this choice. I agree that the sacraments are also an excellent thing to consider. Once I reached the point where I thought that Baptism did more than get you wet and allow you to check off your "public profession" box, and once I came to the conclusion that the Lord's Supper was more than a snack we shared while remembering Christ's cruxifiction, then that eliminated the majority of churches in my area.
Where did you end up, if you dont mind me asking?
101 appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by
the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in
harmony with each other. Let there be no
divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind,
united in thought and purpose. 'For some
members of Chloe's household have told me
about your quarrels, my dear brothers and
sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, "| am a
follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow
Apollos," or "I follow Peter,"" or "I follow only
Christ."
13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I
Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you
baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 141
thank God that I did not baptize any of you
except Crispus and Gaius, 15for now no one can
say they were baptized in my name. 16 (0h yes,I
also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I
don't remember baptizing anyone else.) 17For
Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach
the Good News-and not with clever speech, for
fear that the cross of Christ would lose its
power.
So you are the magisterium of the protestant Church?
and of course read the 1689 London Baptist Confession. 😄
yes, I didn't mention because it has so much overlap with Westminster.
@@TruthUnites just teasing my friend. 😄
Good advice! I’d say also look for churches that are biblically sound. If a church supports divorce for reasons other than unchastity, it is going directly against the words of Christ in Matthew 19 - avoid it. If a church teaches once saved always saved, it is going against multiple biblical passages - avoid it. If a church pushes “faith alone”, it ignores the words of Christ, Paul, and James - avoid it.
I wish it were this simple! From the very beginning heretics have been using scripture to support their views.
@@Jessica-rb3ciBingo.
Then can you tell me how do we know we are even saved? The RCC would say we don't, we are working towards it. That's not the gospel. We can't earn it, we can never deserve it, yet he gives us mercy endlessly.
The Bible clearly states that before humans appeared on the earth only Jehovah's family of witnesses existed in the universe. The fist witness to leave the family was the angel who became "Satan" the first apostate. Today either one is serving Jehovah or the adversary Satan. There is no sitting on the fence.
All these comments sorta prove the issues with Protestantism
God is so good. He has given us this vast array of churches and sects so that we can choose the type of Christianity that suits us. I’m sure this is somewhere in the NT. I just haven’t found it yet.
Lean on your own understanding
My wife’s church (Churches of Christ) teaches that people baptized as infants are not baptized Christians (so Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the like are unbaptized). But I guess one could argue CoC aren’t actually Protestant… 🤷🏻♂️
Some would be down right insulted if you called them a Protestant lol
They believe that one must be baptized in order to be saved. Whereas some denominations may subscribe to this, others don’t. We believe that one is saved by grace through faith in Christ. Water baptism is a public identification with Christ, but it doesn’t save.
@@TomPlantagenet Beliefs on baptism is one reason I would never consider the CoC!
@@TomPlantagenet do you mean “we” as in all Protestants or “we” as in your denomination. The point of Dr. Ortlund’s video was to take more of a meta approach to looking for a denomination. If you believe that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, thats great, but that doesn’t change the fact that CoC does teach that. So does this mean CoC should be off the table when discerning a denomination?
CoC may not be directly tied to the 16-17th century Protestant Reformation but does it not follow the Sola Scriptura? I am a Presbyterian (PCA) but I highly doubt that Presbyterians of the 18th century America would really consider most modern Presbyterians as "Presbyterians".
What I am saying is that just because you carry the denomination name does not necessarily mean you belong in that historical denomination. For example, my PCA church does not teach the Westminster Standards as prescribed in the Book of Church Order. Our lips say we follow but most members have no idea what's in the Westminster Standards.
What about, non denominational? Protestantism is the closest one to the bible tho. Way more than any other. I just hate to be associated with Calvinism. Which I consider a false denomination with core doctrines that are an insult to God.
it's like a buffet and you get to choose, cafeteria Christianity. It even more convinces me that Catholicism is the boat one mustn't jump off or else one will inevitably drown. Wait for Jesus to calm the storm, don't jump ship and settle for second best. It's the only way.
Being in Catholicism you will drown.
Dominatio quam diligō est dominatio Romana Catholica, quoniam ista ā Īesū Christō Ipsō aedificata est. Aliae non ā Īesū Christō aedificatae sunt.
I choose to be a member of the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I started in a non-reformed, easy believe-ism evangelical church, and the more I read scripture through a hollow lens without preconceived traditions, the more scripture led me away from evangelicalism and into more sacramental Protestantism as defined by Luther in Calvin.
In reading scripture and most recently early patristic church fathers i have found more stability in reformed theology that I have in your modern protestant church.
The modern evangelical protestant church quite frankly is a joke. Not to be too profane, but the modern protestant church sh%ts on the Eucharist. To them it’s just grape juice and a cracker. Paul makes it CLEAR in 1 Corinthians 11 that it’s far far far far more than that. It’s not transubstantiation, but it’s most definitely not a remembrance factor either. It’s a real presence of the spirit and a tradition that must be partaken in every meeting of the church.
So, All I would say is read scripture without preconceived lenses, and just take in the word of God exegetically. Don’t read it plainly, read it with an exegetical theological Lens within context and the word of God will reveal itself to you and lead you to the right church.
I just don't understand how a person would choose a denomination despite so many disagreements and confusions within Protestantism.
It is not about anxiety.. it is about unity.... Your channel is truth unites ..
I don't believe Protestantism is the truth that unity people.
That's my belief..
Do you have an alternative proposal that will unite all Christians?
@@mj6493
come to the universal church, they have a universal teaching abiding to all Christians.if you do not want to come to the universal church then i understand and i can not force you.
once a person form his or her own church then that church will spread like a virus and they is no way to cure it
that my fear
@@mj6493The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
@@bradleyperry1735 Good response, but all of our churches claim to be a part of that one Church.
Be discerning as you seek out your Church which is the PILAR and FOUNDATION or all sorts of differing truths. Signed ST PAUL maybe.
There are no denominations in Christianity Gavin ..the very idea of denominations is actually anti Christian.
You should choose the Catholic Church, which is the true Church.
Jorge, I don’t think so, just by your legalistic remark scares me.
@@NP-vk8de Oh come on mi amigo! That´s not "a legalistic remark", I'm telling you the truth, and truth will set you free from your fears.
I invite you to challenge my remarks.
@@JorgeRamirez maybe you are right, it may or may not be a legalistic remark, but it is certainly subjective with NO solid evidence to prove your point?
@@NP-vk8de I agree with what you’re saying, but the fact that something is subjective does not mean that it is totally false. Jesus himself did not always offer concrete evidence to support his claims, but that did not mean that his teachings or affirmations were subjective or without foundation.
@@JorgeRamirez I think what you are saying is a bit of a stretch, subjective conclusions can lead to misconceptions and then into falsehood. Subjective thinking can be good in trying to understand or wrestle with the faith, but the ultimate aim must be truth. Truth is based on the Word of God and cannot be altered. Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way which seems right to man, but in the end leads to death”.
John 14:6 “ I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life”.