Dr. Peter Leithart's presentation - 8:40 Dr. Fred Sanders's presentation - 26:10 Dr. Carl Trueman's presentation - 41:25 Discussion session - 55:25 Questions & Answers session - 1:52:24
Well worth watching - a thoughtful discussion about how Protestants might think about the pitfalls of pursuing Christian unity with both Rome & Orthodoxy.
Thanks for sharing this Tim. Some things I have been thinking about a lot lately as well. Truman has the right idea. We have a lot of work in bringing the multiple Presbyterian denominations together before we can reasonably begin to press toward unity with other branches of Christendom. And as far as Roman Catholics are concerned, we may recognize them as part of the Church of Christ, but until they recognize Protestants as belonging to the Church, rather than Ecclesiastical gatherings, we are at an impasse with them.
And some frank words in return for Mr. Leithart - Two thoughts occur to me: 1. Until Roman Catholicism repudiates the Council of Trent and its anathema's not only on the conclusions theologically brought about by the Reformation, but also on those who hold to them as the more biblically sound doctrines they teach, this guy will continue to be Protestant in orientation and conviction . 2. And more pointedly, Mr. Leithart's wishful thinking of the demise of Protestantism is an impossibility simply because the "soteric principles of Holy Scripture and of Paul specifically continue to be proclaimed as the sole ultimate way of salvation" and to wish for Protestantism’s downfall and failure is to wish for the demise of the Gospel itself. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
1:27:26 Leithart says, "On the occasions that I’m in situations with catholics and protestant discussing such things" Can I assume that these occasions are rare and that when they do occur everyone is polite? I have noticed that it is usually the case when Catholic and Protestant scholars get together in friendship, they place the friendship first and their faith second. So they are polite. For example, when Metaxas and John Zmirak get together, they never question each other's faith, even though they would both admit that their faith is supremely important and that their's is right and the other's is wrong. They don't go there. Tribalism is bad/boring on the one hand, but these intellectual no go zones, out of politeness, are even worse on the other hand. Duke it out occasionally! Your friendship can handle it! Recommendation for Leithart and his Catholic friends: Get together more often and have a rule: Don't worry, for that hour, about coming off as a crank.
I deeply revere Trueman, but I don't get his (and many others) wedge between a "theology of the Word" and "theology of the Sacrament" -- the Reformers always recognized a fundamental equality between Word and Sacraments, as with Augustine, "sacraments are visible words"... Furthermore, while we can say that sacraments are words, we can also say that the Word (Logos; Christ) is sacramental, as the Holy Spirit works through the Word as a means of grace. Even Rome (after Vatican II) acknowledges that an equally significant purpose of the ordained priesthood is to PREACH THE WORD, and thus the Homily has in most cases been restored to a place of at least equal weight in the Liturgy as the Eucharist. This restored balance of emphasis now reflects the typically Lutheran or Anglican liturgical format.
How can a man whose teaching is founded on the rejection of another doctrine not know about that other doctrine? Dr. Trueman, I am glad that you recognize your limitations regarding Catholic theology, but that does not exempt you from studying it. It makes your life a lie if you do not.
Exodus 12:14 God commanded the Passover liturgy to be "forever". In the OT, could a Hebrew/Jew only "symbolically" eat the unleavened bread and meat of the lamb? I think we all know the answer and ask any Jew who celebrates the Passover even to this very day. So, what does Jesus who was being liturgically consistent command us to do in the upper room while celebrating this "forever" feast? John 1:29 and 1 Corinthians 5:7 "For our Pascal Lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed". The Exodus 12:14 "forever" command puts in proper context what Jesus commands us to do in John 6:53-54 to have ETERNAL LIFE and for death to "Passover". Come to believe in the ONE TRUE FAITH: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Gotta love the naivete of Sanders when he responds to Leithart with a great books initiative. Leithart's been doing that for a while I think... The question is, what happens when evangelicals start reading all those old books? Do they remain evangelical protestants?
It depends. Some traditions of Evangelical Protestantism are firmly rooted in the history and traditions of the Christian Church. Others are not. Many who come from churches of a rather generic Baptist/Non-Denominational variety have no rooting at all and are liable to convert to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy when they actually realize that they have more intellectual/historical roots than generic Billy Graham Christianity. However, Churches of the Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, and a few other varieties, tend to have stronger roots and conscious connections with Christian tradition while still holding firmly to Protestant doctrine. This isn't to say becoming a Presbyterian or Anglican is a fail-safe against conversion to Rome, but it does give intellectual fire for a robust Protestantism.
That's just simplistic theory and does not reflect what is really happening. Anglicans and Methodists are leaving their churches in large numbers with some of them (mostly Anglicans) ending up in Roman Catholic (RC) and Orthodox (EO) churches. More and more Baptist churches are leaning towards a Calvinistic soteriology and these churches are getting grounded in the ancient creeds and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The crossing of denominational lines is not as simple as you paint it and is certainly not a single-factor matrix. The large scale departure from Anglican churches is caused by the betrayal of Scriptural positions and the reason more Anglicans are joining RC and EO churches is because of their familiarity with ritualistic worship. Lutherans are another group joining RC and EO churches and many of them leave their churches because of those same compromises. It is good to note that these Anglicans and Lutherans are no evangelicals and are typical main-liners.
Anglicanism and Lutheranism - robust Protestantism? That's really funny. These are very sick churches. The only way for them to survive is for individual churches to breakaway from the "sick old man" and join or form splinter denominations.
The reason some evangelical churches are not "robust" is not because they are not grounded in the Greek and Latin Fathers - fact is, they are not grounded in anything other than their trite self-help sentimentalism. On the other hand, Anglican churches with all their historical grounding are seeing more and more church closures. I'm not trying to put down the formulations and theology of the early church but eventually what causes a church to stand or fall is whether it's anchored in Scripture. Getting our historical bearings is important but lose our first love and lose everything.
They don't. I think Leithart is essentially Lutheran/Anglican, but wants to somehow stay reformed. It's really unnecessary haha. I think evangelical, charismatic, and sacramental theology are all correct when balanced together, and the ACNA has that. Conservative on scripture, open to the gifts, and practicing the sacraments with true appreciation of them as means of grace.
@@Iffmeister I don't think he can't live out that reality within institutional Presbyterianism, Anglican sacramental theology overlaps quite a bit with High Church Reformed (Mercersburg) and the lack of episcopal succession in the Reformed world poses an identical issue to the Lutherans -- even if our sacramental theology is definitionally "higher." I think Reformation Catholicism is a spectrum which includes some (but not all) Reformed.
My interpretation agrees with a few of the fellow youtubers. Dr. Leithart, was certainly the most mature, in terms of ecumenical relations. I appreciate his emphasis to revisit the ecumenical creeds of the church as the basis of fellowship. I thought his suggestions for Protestants was exceptional in terms of practice: weekly Lord's supper, joining Catholic parishes for church discipline, and recognizing each other's baptism. It seems, in some ways, Sanders and Trueman operate as ecclesiastical kindergartners. They refused to play with the other kids, but desired their own toys.
The "awfully broad stroke" comes from you. I was simply imitating your figure of speech. All Protestants who have a high view of Scripture get along just fine.
Just watched Leithart's presentation after Church this morning, and wanted to comment on it. I am very sympathetic with his Reformation Catholic idea and most of his position related to it. However, a couple of things. I think he brings in too many of his own pet issues, like paedocommunion. He should have stuck with the principle of visible church unity, which is the strong point, not doctrinal and practical uniformity. Secondly, what is "Nationalist Protestantism" that he mentioned? Whatever it is, I'm probably unashamedly for it. Notably, the Eastern Orthodox are also fairly "Nationalist" so it's not like Protestants are alone on that score. To be honest, I tend to think the prospects of Orthodox-Evangelical reconciliation should be pursued before taking on the Roman Beast, so that's probably why I have more sympathy with the "Nationalism" in Protestantism. I use scare quotes because I think "Nationalism" is a term that has been tainted by the 19th Century Romantics, and so people's idea of "Nationalism" usually involves some kind of totalitarian fascist regime, which is not what classical patriotism/nationalism is at all.
Having watched the rest of the video (save the questions), I have to say that Leithart (as well as Trueman and Sanders) focused on the strengths of their position during their back and forth banter. I think Trueman hit it on the head when he said that Leithart and himself have different views on the functionality of doctrine in Church Life. While they never put it in these terms, I think Leithart's position is that of the Organic Unity of the Trinitarian and Chalcedonian Churches through Baptism in the name of the Trinity. I think Protestantism, as the most diverse branch of the Christian Church, has both the best friends and worst enemies (in principle, if not in practice) of the Organic Unity of the whole Church. (Ana)baptists being the most principally opposed to Organic Unity, and High Church Anglicans being its biggest friends (Bias Alert: I am a High Church Anglican). So, ultimately, the best form of Christian Unity looks more like sturdy Magisterial Reformation Protestantism. However, at the same time, I think the vast majority of Protestants need to realize that, for whatever their faults may be, the Catholics and Orthodox do have real points that need to be taken into consideration. Those are mostly in the realm of ecclesiology, imo.
@@dylanwagoner9768 In the same way that the Lutherans in Fred Sander’s joke, 1:23:23, are trying to reform the Catholic Church. Sanders: “Someone defined the Lutheran movement as a group of people gathered right outside the door of the Catholic Church pounding on the door yelling, “Let us back in, we’re not half done reforming you yet.” These four are troubled by finding themselves outside any church claiming to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. They know that Christ prayed for his disciples to be one and that the Father gives Him what He asks for. They are saddened that their loose communion of churches has no visible unity and hence can't give effective public witness. They all greatly value theological agreement but don't have it.
terraavis Are you a Roman Catholic? If so, it’s like nails on a chalk board when you talk about unity. Didn’t your Pope tell a boy that his atheist father went to heaven? Didn’t he say ‘who am I to judge on homosexuality’? Isn’t he a universalist? Do you believe any of those things? I thought you guys said he was the infallible vicar of Christ or something, oh well, so much for that jazz. You don’t have unity. You might be forced into unity when you go to church or when you all say you’re a RC, but it’s not real. So glad y’all have Francis now, blows your arguments right out of the water.
terraavis And on unity, aren’t Jehovahs Witnesses united. They are the most united group that I know of. Would you rejoice in their unity? I’m sure you wouldn’t. And why? Because they don’t believe the truth. So in that case you would be placing truth above unity. The same goes for the unity you think you have(you don’t) among Roman Catholics. The issue is whether or not you have the truth and you do not. You can lay all your responsibility at Rome’s feet if you wish, but it will be laid back at yours at the Judgement.
@@dylanwagoner9768 Yes, I’m Catholic. Pope Francis has said many things I don’t agree with. However, Catholics aren’t required to treat every statement from the pope as if it were ex cathedra. Infallibility doesn’t mean that the pope can’t make mistakes in math, or wake up on a Wednesday and think it’s Tuesday or even say wrong things about the faith. There are requirements that must be met for a pope’s statement to be infallible. The Church has never taught that a pope must be sinless as a requirement to be infallible. In fact, the Church has always admitted that all popes have been sinners. The Church has had a range of good and bad popes, good and bad disciples since Jesus himself picked Judas and called the first pope Satan. Can you offer more than ad hominem and tu quoque? Any thoughts about the points these four are making in the vid? These Protestants are not attacking the Catholic Church in this discussion. No doubt that all four speakers have and will again find time and place for that. But in this discussion they are showing restraint in leaving that for another time. At least one of them, is entertaining the idea of seeking unity with the Catholic Church. Peter Leithart says at 1:27:10 that for that to happen, the Catholic Church “Would have to change a lot.” They recognize that the Catholic Church indeed does have the unity and dogmatic integrity that they all want. Granted, they think it has other things that they don’t want. They seem to take Jesus at His word when, in Matt 16:18, He founded one Church with power and authority, and that Jesus will be with his Church until the end of time, Matt 28:20. It's safe to assume they don't consider the churches they are currently members of possess these attributes. Hence the discussion.
Q. How do Protestants make a liar of Jesus Christ? A. Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." ---"No" say Luther and all Protestants, "do not hear the Church, protest against her with all your might!” Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ---"No," says Protestantism, “Tis false; the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more.” Jesus Christ has declared St. Peter, and every successor to St. Peter-the Pope-to be his Vicar on earth. ---"No," says Protestantism, "the Pope is Anti-Christ." Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - "My yoke is sweet, and my burden light." ---"No," said Luther and Calvin "it is impossible to keep the commandments." Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." ---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting." Jesus Christ says to Mary Magdalene in John @ - ''And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.'' ---Martin Luther - “BE A SINNER AND SIN BOLDLY, BUT BELIEVE AND REJOICE IN CHRIST EVEN MORE BOLDLY.'' Jesus Christ says in Luke 13:3 - "No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish" ---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "fasting, and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin.” Jesus Christ says in Luke @ - "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me." Jesus Christ says in John @ - ''I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, IS MY FLESH, for the life of the world.'' 1 Corinthians @ - Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. ---"No," said Calvin, "this is only the figure of Christ's Body, it will become his body as soon as you receive it." Other Protestants like you say, ''No, it is only bread. Jesus Christ says in Matthew 19:9 - "I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery." 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 - ''Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, {{[[NOR ADULTERERS]]}}, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.'' ---"No," say Luther and all Protestants, to a married man, “you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another." Exodus @ “Thou shalt not steal." ---“No," said Luther to secular princes, “I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church." Q. How do Protestants make a liar of the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost says in Holy Scripture: Ecclesiastes 9:1 - "Man knows not whether he be worthy of love or hatred"; Proverbs 20:9 - "Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?''; and Philippians @ - "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." ---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "but whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, is in the state of grace." Q. How do Protestants make liars of the Apostles? 1 Corinthians 13:2 - "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." Galatians 5:6 - ''For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision: but faith that works by charity.'' James @ - ''Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?'' ---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone is sufficient to save us." 2 Peter @ - ''As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter @ - ''Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.'' ---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "the Scriptures are very plain, and easy to be understood." Other Protestants say: The Holy ghost reveals the true interpretation to the individual. __ Which is the reason why we have over 50,000 ''churches'' claiming to have the right interpretation and fighting with each other. St. James @ - ''Is any sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord." ---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "that is a vain and useless ceremony." Malachi @ - ''For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is SACRIFICE, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of hosts.'' ---"No," says Luther and other Protestants, "There is no Sacrifice, it is only a meal". PROTESTANTISM HAS NO FUTURE. IT'S DESTINY IS IN THE PITS OF HELL.
last days Love to hear a RC talk about someone being ‘unbalanced’. Good stuff. You say that if history is honestly studied the supremacy of the bishop of Rome will be seen to have been instituted by Jesus? Sad that people believe that
Charles AbouMelhem No sir. If all you mean by catholic is universal, then yes that is true. If you’re speaking of the Church of Rome, you are demonstratively wrong. The only hope for a man is the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ given to him as a gift received by faith. Rome preaches a false gospel. It is not only not ‘the only’ church, it is not a true church at all. They preach a non saving gospel.
Catholicism has deceived many into rejecting Christ's final sacrifice by instead asking God to accept more sacrifices every week "by the hands" of some man. To ask God this is to keep yourself (currently) condemned by not (yet) trusting in Christ and His final sacrifice. Be not deceived, friends - re-read the gospels for yourself yet again.
I'm glad I watched a couple of Richard Rohr' s videos before I became any more entrenched in intellectualizing Christianity. I don't think there's any way of thinking one's way out of tribalism. As good of intentions as Leithart has at the start, still he thinks others are practicing a deformed Christianity. I think from Rohr's perspective, if anything is deformed about one's practice it's that they're stuck in a way of life that doesn't experience YHWH or Christ. If we can experience God in our lives, why would we need to focus on divisions. There will always be different ways of coming to God.
A very interesting, but in the end frustrating conversation. They danced around the main question: Is justification by faith alone a core doctrine of the Gospel or not. All the speakers kept on saying "saved by faith," but that isn't the issue.
No! Theres no such thing as faith ALONE and neither Protestant or Catholic Church has ever taught such. That part of the protest ended in the late 90's. There's no such thing as works *ALONE* and neither Church has taught such. Faith and 'deeds' in life are joined at the hip. ie: When you door-knock and steal Protestants/Catholics sheep from their Church by telling them they are not 'saved', then your DEEDS/ACTIONS are a showing of your FAITH. You will NOT be Judged on the Last Day on your ego thinking highly of yourself or declaring yourself saved (modern American invention). You will be judged on your works/deeds AND your acceptance/refusal of God's GRACE - NOT on your ego's judgment of yourself. So in the above example, your Faith is made known to the world by by your deeds/acts/works. In tat example, you are in compliance with serving ANOTHER MASTER (cant serve 2 masters). You serve the Synagogue of Satan and their daughter organization of Freemasonry. The Scripture you TRULY follow UNKNOWINGLY is not the Bible, but the *Learned Elders of the Protocols of Zion, Protocol No. 17". Look it up and see. Yes. they TRICKED YOU into serving the Synagogue of Satan and Freemasonry because the Freemasons played a part in starting your evangelical church in America. These Churches REJECT the Nicene Creed and are NOT Protestants.
No Protestant or unProtestant Protestant denomination, cult or sect can call itself a church, much less the Church that Christ founded. All Protestants are united in one goal. That goal is to destroy the Catholic Church. As long as the Catholic Church prevails, all Protestant denominations can never make the claim they are the Catholic Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against her and they will try and try without success. I invite each of these protestants to take the Zell Challenge: ruclips.net/video/OeOfW_gI61M/видео.html
Yes. As an orthodox priest, I am amazed at the shallowness of their theology and the smugness, as well. They cannot even begin to look at the orthodox hermeutic . We are alien to them, and thus the bible is a locked book to them. Let us pray....
Jesus Christ did not come here to create a world-wide religion. He saves individuals and they form local congregation. NO religion is following God/ Jesus Christ. Just individual churches who are (still) teaching and being faithful to Him / His Word.
1:45:58 He just doesn't get it. He thinks he can *WILL his way into heaven* . He thinks we tell God whether we're going to heaven or not. He obviously REJECTS the Last Day judgement. He thinks that the carnal knowledge of mens minds is what saves (gnosis). He thinks that we're saved by understanding the latest doctrines made by men. Does he even know why Christ came? He simply *doesn't understand spiritual things.* How many supernatural miracles has his divided Church the past 500 years? I mean real public miracles with hundreds of thousands of witnesses. But this requires supernatural faith - you know.. 'religious stuff'. This isn't a Freemason lodge this is serious.
Yes, there is a future for the people of the Reformation. It may not be a large future but God always preserves for Himself a remnant who have neither bowed their knees to Baal nor kissed him.
Fascinating Discussion and I hope Biola hosts more things like this. Its important to start ecumenical dialogue. Dr Trueman says several times that by becoming Orthodox or Catholic you "lose assurance" of salvation. I find this odd coming from a Calvinist, it sounds more Once Saved Always Saved, but regardless. What is assurance if it is just a notion you convince yourself of? I much prefer the assurance of the Catholic Faith, that clearly delineates how to accept God's promise of salvation.
LTKing2013 I don't see how that is possible. You realize it was our church who under the Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament through the Apostles, our church who compiled the canon of the New Testament, our church who wrote millions of pages on the Scriptures prior to the reformation, our church who protected it for 1600 years before it was stolen and taken and used to justify any sort of doctrine imaginable. It is our Holy Book, our gift to you I guess. We use it for all our doctrines and the Catholic view of Salvation is firmly grounded in the Scripture. If you'd care to discuss further I can share details.
How is assurance of salvation odd coming from a calvinist? Calvinists believe in the perserverance of the saints, that is, a saved person can't lose their salvation.
Well, it is really a false assurance. What assurance is there if one can never know if they are truly part of the elect? Sure the saints will persevere to the end, but according to Calvinism, many will perservear or but we're just going through the motions because they were never elect to begin with. Calvinist RC Sproul says, "A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness…and suddenly the question hit me, “R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?” Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified… I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance…” Dave Hunt replies to Sproul saying, "Why doesn’t Sproul rely on such promises? Because, for a Calvinist, the question is not whether one has believed the gospel but whether one, from eternity past, was predetermined to be among the elect
This idea that a truly elect person will act saintly was created by Calvin to control his followers and bring them into submission beneath him. They all want to be elect......so they better act like it.
Protestantism has no future. Their doctrines are man-made heresies. In fact, one protestant denominations doctrines are anothers heresies. There is a SEA of CHAOS and disunity in Protestantism. As nominal Catholics leave the Church we call Catholic and go into protestant denominations, many Protestants, who are on fire for the Lord, come into the Catholic Church. Those Catholics who stay in Protestant Denominations sometimes are given the grace to come back into the true Body of Christ, and are welcomed back into full communion.
Dr. Peter Leithart's presentation - 8:40
Dr. Fred Sanders's presentation - 26:10
Dr. Carl Trueman's presentation - 41:25
Discussion session - 55:25
Questions & Answers session - 1:52:24
Thank you for the time stamps.
Well worth watching - a thoughtful discussion about how Protestants might think about the pitfalls of pursuing Christian unity with both Rome & Orthodoxy.
Thanks for sharing this Tim. Some things I have been thinking about a lot lately as well. Truman has the right idea. We have a lot of work in bringing the multiple Presbyterian denominations together before we can reasonably begin to press toward unity with other branches of Christendom. And as far as Roman Catholics are concerned, we may recognize them as part of the Church of Christ, but until they recognize Protestants as belonging to the Church, rather than Ecclesiastical gatherings, we are at an impasse with them.
Video's finally up. Great.
Im a Protestant and I believe we need Word and Sacraments in our Church life .
And some frank words in return for Mr. Leithart - Two thoughts occur to me:
1. Until Roman Catholicism repudiates the Council of Trent and its anathema's not only on the conclusions theologically brought about by the Reformation, but also on those who hold to them as the more biblically sound doctrines they teach, this guy will continue to be Protestant in orientation and conviction .
2. And more pointedly, Mr. Leithart's wishful thinking of the demise of Protestantism is an impossibility simply because the "soteric principles of Holy Scripture and of Paul specifically continue to be proclaimed as the sole ultimate way of salvation" and to wish for Protestantism’s downfall and failure is to wish for the demise of the Gospel itself.
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
1:27:26 Leithart says, "On the occasions that I’m in situations with catholics and protestant discussing such things" Can I assume that these occasions are rare and that when they do occur everyone is polite? I have noticed that it is usually the case when Catholic and Protestant scholars get together in friendship, they place the friendship first and their faith second. So they are polite. For example, when Metaxas and John Zmirak get together, they never question each other's faith, even though they would both admit that their faith is supremely important and that their's is right and the other's is wrong. They don't go there. Tribalism is bad/boring on the one hand, but these intellectual no go zones, out of politeness, are even worse on the other hand. Duke it out occasionally! Your friendship can handle it! Recommendation for Leithart and his Catholic friends: Get together more often and have a rule: Don't worry, for that hour, about coming off as a crank.
Well said. Tribalism is bad but open boarders is far worse.
I started a Catholic death metal band named All Protestants Go To Hell when I was in high school. Now I'm in a Protestant hair metal band.
Based
@@jacques9515 You're going to hell
I deeply revere Trueman, but I don't get his (and many others) wedge between a "theology of the Word" and "theology of the Sacrament" -- the Reformers always recognized a fundamental equality between Word and Sacraments, as with Augustine, "sacraments are visible words"... Furthermore, while we can say that sacraments are words, we can also say that the Word (Logos; Christ) is sacramental, as the Holy Spirit works through the Word as a means of grace.
Even Rome (after Vatican II) acknowledges that an equally significant purpose of the ordained priesthood is to PREACH THE WORD, and thus the Homily has in most cases been restored to a place of at least equal weight in the Liturgy as the Eucharist. This restored balance of emphasis now reflects the typically Lutheran or Anglican liturgical format.
How can a man whose teaching is founded on the rejection of another doctrine not know about that other doctrine? Dr. Trueman, I am glad that you recognize your limitations regarding Catholic theology, but that does not exempt you from studying it. It makes your life a lie if you do not.
Sandy D How does that fit?
Exodus 12:14 God commanded the Passover liturgy to be "forever". In the OT, could a Hebrew/Jew only "symbolically" eat the unleavened bread and meat of the lamb? I think we all know the answer and ask any Jew who celebrates the Passover even to this very day. So, what does Jesus who was being liturgically consistent command us to do in the upper room while celebrating this "forever" feast? John 1:29 and 1 Corinthians 5:7 "For our Pascal Lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed". The Exodus 12:14 "forever" command puts in proper context what Jesus commands us to do in John 6:53-54 to have ETERNAL LIFE and for death to "Passover". Come to believe in the ONE TRUE FAITH: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
And John *****6:66***** shows whet happened when they denied the body and blood of Christ.
Gotta love the naivete of Sanders when he responds to Leithart with a great books initiative. Leithart's been doing that for a while I think...
The question is, what happens when evangelicals start reading all those old books? Do they remain evangelical protestants?
"Start reading"? Evangelicals have been reading those books, and they make us more strongly affirmed in our Biblical beliefs.
It depends. Some traditions of Evangelical Protestantism are firmly rooted in the history and traditions of the Christian Church. Others are not. Many who come from churches of a rather generic Baptist/Non-Denominational variety have no rooting at all and are liable to convert to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy when they actually realize that they have more intellectual/historical roots than generic Billy Graham Christianity.
However, Churches of the Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, and a few other varieties, tend to have stronger roots and conscious connections with Christian tradition while still holding firmly to Protestant doctrine. This isn't to say becoming a Presbyterian or Anglican is a fail-safe against conversion to Rome, but it does give intellectual fire for a robust Protestantism.
That's just simplistic theory and does not reflect what is really happening. Anglicans and Methodists are leaving their churches in large numbers with some of them (mostly Anglicans) ending up in Roman Catholic (RC) and Orthodox (EO) churches. More and more Baptist churches are leaning towards a Calvinistic soteriology and these churches are getting grounded in the ancient creeds and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
The crossing of denominational lines is not as simple as you paint it and is certainly not a single-factor matrix. The large scale departure from Anglican churches is caused by the betrayal of Scriptural positions and the reason more Anglicans are joining RC and EO churches is because of their familiarity with ritualistic worship. Lutherans are another group joining RC and EO churches and many of them leave their churches because of those same compromises.
It is good to note that these Anglicans and Lutherans are no evangelicals and are typical main-liners.
Anglicanism and Lutheranism - robust Protestantism? That's really funny. These are very sick churches. The only way for them to survive is for individual churches to breakaway from the "sick old man" and join or form splinter denominations.
The reason some evangelical churches are not "robust" is not because they are not grounded in the Greek and Latin Fathers - fact is, they are not grounded in anything other than their trite self-help sentimentalism. On the other hand, Anglican churches with all their historical grounding are seeing more and more church closures.
I'm not trying to put down the formulations and theology of the early church but eventually what causes a church to stand or fall is whether it's anchored in Scripture. Getting our historical bearings is important but lose our first love and lose everything.
This is what happens when you force bloggers/writers to speak face to face. Sometimes polite is boring.
How does the ACNA differ from Leithart's definition of a Reformational Catholic church?
They don't. I think Leithart is essentially Lutheran/Anglican, but wants to somehow stay reformed. It's really unnecessary haha. I think evangelical, charismatic, and sacramental theology are all correct when balanced together, and the ACNA has that. Conservative on scripture, open to the gifts, and practicing the sacraments with true appreciation of them as means of grace.
@@Iffmeister I don't think he can't live out that reality within institutional Presbyterianism, Anglican sacramental theology overlaps quite a bit with High Church Reformed (Mercersburg) and the lack of episcopal succession in the Reformed world poses an identical issue to the Lutherans -- even if our sacramental theology is definitionally "higher."
I think Reformation Catholicism is a spectrum which includes some (but not all) Reformed.
How can you love God when you support a company like Ricoma that discriminates against people and redlines, what a good role model for people.
My interpretation agrees with a few of the fellow youtubers. Dr. Leithart, was certainly the most mature, in terms of ecumenical relations. I appreciate his emphasis to revisit the ecumenical creeds of the church as the basis of fellowship. I thought his suggestions for Protestants was exceptional in terms of practice: weekly Lord's supper, joining Catholic parishes for church discipline, and recognizing each other's baptism.
It seems, in some ways, Sanders and Trueman operate as ecclesiastical kindergartners. They refused to play with the other kids, but desired their own toys.
It's not that we don't want to play with other children. The problem is that the other children don't want to play with our beloved "toy" - the Bible.
LTKing2013 Really? That's an awfully broad stroke to paint. Lutherans aren't interested in playing with the Bible? No one else except you?
The "awfully broad stroke" comes from you. I was simply imitating your figure of speech. All Protestants who have a high view of Scripture get along just fine.
LTKing2013 Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli didn't, not on Eucharist. Which one had the high view of Scripture?
Rural Jefferson All three did.
They also deliver online historical lectures at present
Just watched Leithart's presentation after Church this morning, and wanted to comment on it. I am very sympathetic with his Reformation Catholic idea and most of his position related to it. However, a couple of things. I think he brings in too many of his own pet issues, like paedocommunion. He should have stuck with the principle of visible church unity, which is the strong point, not doctrinal and practical uniformity.
Secondly, what is "Nationalist Protestantism" that he mentioned? Whatever it is, I'm probably unashamedly for it. Notably, the Eastern Orthodox are also fairly "Nationalist" so it's not like Protestants are alone on that score. To be honest, I tend to think the prospects of Orthodox-Evangelical reconciliation should be pursued before taking on the Roman Beast, so that's probably why I have more sympathy with the "Nationalism" in Protestantism. I use scare quotes because I think "Nationalism" is a term that has been tainted by the 19th Century Romantics, and so people's idea of "Nationalism" usually involves some kind of totalitarian fascist regime, which is not what classical patriotism/nationalism is at all.
Having watched the rest of the video (save the questions), I have to say that Leithart (as well as Trueman and Sanders) focused on the strengths of their position during their back and forth banter. I think Trueman hit it on the head when he said that Leithart and himself have different views on the functionality of doctrine in Church Life. While they never put it in these terms, I think Leithart's position is that of the Organic Unity of the Trinitarian and Chalcedonian Churches through Baptism in the name of the Trinity.
I think Protestantism, as the most diverse branch of the Christian Church, has both the best friends and worst enemies (in principle, if not in practice) of the Organic Unity of the whole Church. (Ana)baptists being the most principally opposed to Organic Unity, and High Church Anglicans being its biggest friends (Bias Alert: I am a High Church Anglican). So, ultimately, the best form of Christian Unity looks more like sturdy Magisterial Reformation Protestantism. However, at the same time, I think the vast majority of Protestants need to realize that, for whatever their faults may be, the Catholics and Orthodox do have real points that need to be taken into consideration. Those are mostly in the realm of ecclesiology, imo.
The beginning of Protesting was the beginning of the end of it.
"Come out of her my people"
Protestantism's future is one of irrelevance.
IC XC
NI KA
Christ and his church however do not have a future of irrelevance.
That's ridiculous, Protestantism is taking over South America.
@@NnamwerdWhere was Protestantism before 1517AD???
Charles AbouMelhem Getting ready to protest.
@@thegreatrestoration6784 , you have fallen for the anachronistic trap of Roman Catholic hermeneutics. Try reading some literature from another camp.
@@dylanwagoner9768 why?
500 years into it, still trying to square a circle.
I’m assuming that was meant to communicate a strong point. I don’t see how it did. In what way are they trying to ‘square a circle’?
@@dylanwagoner9768 In the same way that the Lutherans in Fred Sander’s joke, 1:23:23, are trying to reform the Catholic Church. Sanders: “Someone defined the Lutheran movement as a group of people gathered right outside the door of the Catholic Church pounding on the door yelling, “Let us back in, we’re not half done reforming you yet.” These four are troubled by finding themselves outside any church claiming to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. They know that Christ prayed for his disciples to be one and that the Father gives Him what He asks for. They are saddened that their loose communion of churches has no visible unity and hence can't give effective public witness. They all greatly value theological agreement but don't have it.
terraavis Are you a Roman Catholic? If so, it’s like nails on a chalk board when you talk about unity. Didn’t your Pope tell a boy that his atheist father went to heaven? Didn’t he say ‘who am I to judge on homosexuality’? Isn’t he a universalist? Do you believe any of those things? I thought you guys said he was the infallible vicar of Christ or something, oh well, so much for that jazz. You don’t have unity. You might be forced into unity when you go to church or when you all say you’re a RC, but it’s not real. So glad y’all have Francis now, blows your arguments right out of the water.
terraavis And on unity, aren’t Jehovahs Witnesses united. They are the most united group that I know of. Would you rejoice in their unity? I’m sure you wouldn’t. And why? Because they don’t believe the truth. So in that case you would be placing truth above unity. The same goes for the unity you think you have(you don’t) among Roman Catholics. The issue is whether or not you have the truth and you do not. You can lay all your responsibility at Rome’s feet if you wish, but it will be laid back at yours at the Judgement.
@@dylanwagoner9768 Yes, I’m Catholic. Pope Francis has said many things I don’t agree with. However, Catholics aren’t required to treat every statement from the pope as if it were ex cathedra. Infallibility doesn’t mean that the pope can’t make mistakes in math, or wake up on a Wednesday and think it’s Tuesday or even say wrong things about the faith. There are requirements that must be met for a pope’s statement to be infallible. The Church has never taught that a pope must be sinless as a requirement to be infallible. In fact, the Church has always admitted that all popes have been sinners. The Church has had a range of good and bad popes, good and bad disciples since Jesus himself picked Judas and called the first pope Satan.
Can you offer more than ad hominem and tu quoque? Any thoughts about the points these four are making in the vid? These Protestants are not attacking the Catholic Church in this discussion. No doubt that all four speakers have and will again find time and place for that. But in this discussion they are showing restraint in leaving that for another time. At least one of them, is entertaining the idea of seeking unity with the Catholic Church. Peter Leithart says at 1:27:10 that for that to happen, the Catholic Church “Would have to change a lot.” They recognize that the Catholic Church indeed does have the unity and dogmatic integrity that they all want. Granted, they think it has other things that they don’t want. They seem to take Jesus at His word when, in Matt 16:18, He founded one Church with power and authority, and that Jesus will be with his Church until the end of time, Matt 28:20.
It's safe to assume they don't consider the churches they are currently members of possess these attributes. Hence the discussion.
Q. How do Protestants make a liar of Jesus Christ?
A. Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."
---"No" say Luther and all Protestants, "do not hear the Church, protest against her with all your might!”
Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
---"No," says Protestantism, “Tis false; the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more.”
Jesus Christ has declared St. Peter, and every successor to St. Peter-the Pope-to be his Vicar on earth.
---"No," says Protestantism, "the Pope is Anti-Christ."
Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - "My yoke is sweet, and my burden light."
---"No," said Luther and Calvin "it is impossible to keep the commandments."
Jesus Christ says in Matthew @ - "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting."
Jesus Christ says to Mary Magdalene in John @ - ''And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.''
---Martin Luther - “BE A SINNER AND SIN BOLDLY, BUT BELIEVE AND REJOICE IN CHRIST EVEN MORE BOLDLY.''
Jesus Christ says in Luke 13:3 - "No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish"
---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "fasting, and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin.”
Jesus Christ says in Luke @ - "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me."
Jesus Christ says in John @ - ''I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, IS MY FLESH, for the life of the world.''
1 Corinthians @ - Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
---"No," said Calvin, "this is only the figure of Christ's Body, it will become his body as soon as you receive it." Other Protestants like you say, ''No, it is only bread.
Jesus Christ says in Matthew 19:9 - "I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery."
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 - ''Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, {{[[NOR ADULTERERS]]}}, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.''
---"No," say Luther and all Protestants, to a married man, “you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another."
Exodus @ “Thou shalt not steal."
---“No," said Luther to secular princes, “I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church."
Q. How do Protestants make a liar of the Holy Ghost?
The Holy Ghost says in Holy Scripture:
Ecclesiastes 9:1 - "Man knows not whether he be worthy of love or hatred"; Proverbs 20:9 - "Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?''; and Philippians @ - "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation."
---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "but whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, is in the state of grace."
Q. How do Protestants make liars of the Apostles?
1 Corinthians 13:2 - "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
Galatians 5:6 - ''For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision: but faith that works by charity.''
James @ - ''Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?''
---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone is sufficient to save us."
2 Peter @ - ''As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
2 Peter @ - ''Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.''
---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "the Scriptures are very plain, and easy to be understood."
Other Protestants say: The Holy ghost reveals the true interpretation to the individual. __ Which is the reason why we have over 50,000 ''churches'' claiming to have the right interpretation and fighting with each other.
St. James @ - ''Is any sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord."
---"No," said Luther and Calvin, "that is a vain and useless ceremony."
Malachi @ - ''For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is SACRIFICE, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of hosts.''
---"No," says Luther and other Protestants, "There is no Sacrifice, it is only a meal".
PROTESTANTISM HAS NO FUTURE. IT'S DESTINY IS IN THE PITS OF HELL.
last days Love to hear a RC talk about someone being ‘unbalanced’. Good stuff. You say that if history is honestly studied the supremacy of the bishop of Rome will be seen to have been instituted by Jesus? Sad that people believe that
👍
@@dylanwagoner9768 Yeh well its true. Catholic church is the first and only church.
Charles AbouMelhem No sir. If all you mean by catholic is universal, then yes that is true. If you’re speaking of the Church of Rome, you are demonstratively wrong. The only hope for a man is the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ given to him as a gift received by faith. Rome preaches a false gospel. It is not only not ‘the only’ church, it is not a true church at all. They preach a non saving gospel.
@@dylanwagoner9768 How do we preach a false Gospel?
Catholicism has deceived many into rejecting Christ's final sacrifice by instead asking God to accept more sacrifices every week "by the hands" of some man. To ask God this is to keep yourself (currently) condemned by not (yet) trusting in Christ and His final sacrifice. Be not deceived, friends - re-read the gospels for yourself yet again.
Carl says it well.
I'm glad I watched a couple of Richard Rohr' s videos before I became any more entrenched in intellectualizing Christianity. I don't think there's any way of thinking one's way out of tribalism. As good of intentions as Leithart has at the start, still he thinks others are practicing a deformed Christianity. I think from Rohr's perspective, if anything is deformed about one's practice it's that they're stuck in a way of life that doesn't experience YHWH or Christ. If we can experience God in our lives, why would we need to focus on divisions. There will always be different ways of coming to God.
Leithart doesn’t advocate for absolutely homogenizing Christian practice, but pursuing genuine, visible unity as one body of many parts.
Interesting
A very interesting, but in the end frustrating conversation.
They danced around the main question: Is justification by faith alone a core doctrine of the Gospel or not. All the speakers kept on saying "saved by faith," but that isn't the issue.
No! Theres no such thing as faith ALONE and neither Protestant or Catholic Church has ever taught such. That part of the protest ended in the late 90's. There's no such thing as works *ALONE* and neither Church has taught such. Faith and 'deeds' in life are joined at the hip.
ie: When you door-knock and steal Protestants/Catholics sheep from their Church by telling them they are not 'saved', then your DEEDS/ACTIONS are a showing of your FAITH. You will NOT be Judged on the Last Day on your ego thinking highly of yourself or declaring yourself saved (modern American invention).
You will be judged on your works/deeds AND your acceptance/refusal of God's GRACE - NOT on your ego's judgment of yourself. So in the above example, your Faith is made known to the world by by your deeds/acts/works. In tat example, you are in compliance with serving ANOTHER MASTER (cant serve 2 masters). You serve the Synagogue of Satan and their daughter organization of Freemasonry. The Scripture you TRULY follow UNKNOWINGLY is not the Bible, but the *Learned Elders of the Protocols of Zion, Protocol No. 17". Look it up and see.
Yes. they TRICKED YOU into serving the Synagogue of Satan and Freemasonry because the Freemasons played a part in starting your evangelical church in America. These Churches REJECT the Nicene Creed and are NOT Protestants.
guy...what?
What amazing smugness toward the historical churches. How different the conversation would be if there were Orthodox or Catholics present.
No Protestant or unProtestant Protestant denomination, cult or sect can call itself a church, much less the Church that Christ founded. All Protestants are united in one goal. That goal is to destroy the Catholic Church. As long as the Catholic Church prevails, all Protestant denominations can never make the claim they are the Catholic Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against her and they will try and try without success.
I invite each of these protestants to take the Zell Challenge: ruclips.net/video/OeOfW_gI61M/видео.html
Yes. As an orthodox priest, I am amazed at the shallowness of their theology and the smugness, as well. They cannot even begin to look at the orthodox hermeutic . We are alien to them, and thus the bible is a locked book to them. Let us pray....
Jesus Christ did not come here to create a world-wide religion. He saves individuals and they form local congregation. NO religion is following God/ Jesus Christ. Just individual churches who are (still) teaching and being faithful to Him / His Word.
gotta love anti-Protestant animus in the comments, and it ain't just from da Papists haha ...oh Protestantism, you beautiful mess.
1:45:58 He just doesn't get it. He thinks he can *WILL his way into heaven* . He thinks we tell God whether we're going to heaven or not. He obviously REJECTS the Last Day judgement. He thinks that the carnal knowledge of mens minds is what saves (gnosis). He thinks that we're saved by understanding the latest doctrines made by men. Does he even know why Christ came? He simply *doesn't understand spiritual things.* How many supernatural miracles has his divided Church the past 500 years? I mean real public miracles with hundreds of thousands of witnesses. But this requires supernatural faith - you know.. 'religious stuff'. This isn't a Freemason lodge this is serious.
so many conclusions, made on the basis of a fake god, the puppet master worship by the calvinist
Protestantism has a future? Could have fooled me...
Yes, there is a future for the people of the Reformation. It may not be a large future but God always preserves for Himself a remnant who have neither bowed their knees to Baal nor kissed him.
The amount of arrogance and unwillingness to come together on the part of Carl Trueman is unbelievable!
He came with an axe to grind and wasn’t willing to have a conversation.
@@wc8048 which is very indictive of those on the Reformed side of things
Fascinating Discussion and I hope Biola hosts more things like this. Its important to start ecumenical dialogue. Dr Trueman says several times that by becoming Orthodox or Catholic you "lose assurance" of salvation. I find this odd coming from a Calvinist, it sounds more Once Saved Always Saved, but regardless. What is assurance if it is just a notion you convince yourself of? I much prefer the assurance of the Catholic Faith, that clearly delineates how to accept God's promise of salvation.
The problem is that the "assurance" of the Roman Catholic Church does not come from the Bible. It is the invention of man.
LTKing2013 I don't see how that is possible. You realize it was our church who under the Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament through the Apostles, our church who compiled the canon of the New Testament, our church who wrote millions of pages on the Scriptures prior to the reformation, our church who protected it for 1600 years before it was stolen and taken and used to justify any sort of doctrine imaginable.
It is our Holy Book, our gift to you I guess. We use it for all our doctrines and the Catholic view of Salvation is firmly grounded in the Scripture. If you'd care to discuss further I can share details.
How is assurance of salvation odd coming from a calvinist? Calvinists believe in the perserverance of the saints, that is, a saved person can't lose their salvation.
Well, it is really a false assurance. What assurance is there if one can never know if they are truly part of the elect? Sure the saints will persevere to the end, but according to Calvinism, many will perservear or but we're just going through the motions because they were never elect to begin with.
Calvinist RC Sproul says,
"A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness…and
suddenly the question hit me, “R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?”
Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified… I began to
take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance…”
Dave Hunt replies to Sproul saying,
"Why
doesn’t Sproul rely on such promises? Because, for a Calvinist, the question is not whether one has believed the gospel but whether
one, from eternity past, was predetermined to be among the elect
This idea that a truly elect person will act saintly was created by Calvin to control his followers and bring them into submission beneath him. They all want to be elect......so they better act like it.
Protestantism has no future. Their doctrines are man-made heresies. In fact, one protestant denominations doctrines are anothers heresies. There is a SEA of CHAOS and disunity in Protestantism.
As nominal Catholics leave the Church we call Catholic and go into protestant denominations, many Protestants, who are on fire for the Lord, come into the Catholic Church. Those Catholics who stay in Protestant Denominations sometimes are given the grace to come back into the true Body of Christ, and are welcomed back into full communion.