Does Protestantism Lead to Agnosticism?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- In my recent video on why I haven't converted to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, many people remarked that my arguments against these traditions could undermine my faith entirely, if applied consistently. So, in this video I'm addressing the question of whether a Protestant approach to history leads to agnosticism, as well as what the alternative entails. To further illustrate the problem, I consider what these approaches mean for passing the faith down to children.
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: shop.gospelsimplicity.com
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a UA-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
Chapters:
00:00 - Background
01:39 - Protestant Approach
03:41 - A leap of faith
06:59 - Passing on the faith
10:48 - Concluding thoughts - Розваги
I'm Protestant. I have a "fascination" with the idea of Catholicism and Orthodoxy to the point I have made it a point of familiarizing myself with their viewpoints and traditions, but never got to the point where I made the decision to convert to one or the other. There are points about both that stop me from doing that. But my issues with both never led me to consider agnosticism. That was, and is, never a possibility.
For me, a convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, when I learned that my wife was pregnant with our first child, it really set a fire under me to get this figured out. I was already an eccentric presence in my Evangelical church because of certain beliefs I held in common with Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and I really did not want to raise my children with the cognitive dissonance of being taught one thing at church and another thing at home. I also wanted to give them an inheritance of a faith that would not change. Even within my own lifetime, I have seen such drastic changes within the Protestant world that I can only imagine what it will be like when my children are all grown and have children of their own. My wife and I became Orthodox and have loved watching our children grow up in this beautiful tradition. May God bless you and your family on your journey.
I'm so happy you and your sweetheart made this decision for your family!
My son changed me, too. I suddenly felt desperate to be able to teach him the right way.
The soon arrival of my first child was also the catalyst to drawing to a close 10 years of sitting on the fence and finally jumping with both feet into Orthodox Church. It's a decision I've never regretted. That my children get to be full, active members and participants in the life of the Church (Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist etc.) is such a wonderful thing. We don't relegate them to some small classroom in the back to color while we attend to "adult" matters.
I am Catholic, but I love your thoughts in these videos! I don’t have any good answers, but I do know that the best we can all do is cling to Jesus as Christians. God bless! - Jacque
Hey Jacque! Hope you're doing well. Keep up the great work on your podcast!
authority It's the problem in Protestantism.. Everybody going back supposedly the Bible alone but coming up with the zillion Different Doctrines. Whereas I believe the standard for what the Bible actually teachers is a That's historian that is to say a teaching authority, The apostolic tradition with the promise of design assistance.
Amen! Some consider that t the Reformation wasn’t very helpful.
I went on a three year quest to pursue the truth when I was steeped in agnosticism. I started by reading the New Testament. That led me to the inevitable question, "Can I trust the authors of these documents in the NT?" From there I devoured book after book, resource after resource, trying to find evidence.
One night I had just finished my umpteenth book and I was perusing Amazon for another one. The thought occurred to me, "What more, exactly, do I need in order to accept the truth that the past 3 years have revealed? What, exactly, am I searching for?"
Somehow the idea that maybe I should pray to seek the next answer popped into my head. I had never really prayed before so it felt intimidating. But somehow I knew that had to be the next step.
My prayer was clunky - "Dear God, if this Jesus thing is true, can you somehow let me know? Amen"
That night, Jesus Christ visited my dream. He just stood in front of me with a gentle smile on His face. He didn't say a word. He didn't need to.
If we think approaching the truth of the Ancient of Days, the Alpha and the Omega, exclusively through our 21st century intellect is adequate, I'm not sure we "get" the Triune God of the universe.
We are now heavily exploring Orthodoxy after years in protestantism. I trust the Holy Spirit to prompt us to know when we are approaching the process from too much of an intellectual lens, and to yield to His direction.
Blessings to all who traverse this journey in these modern times that influence our NEED to know what's irrefutably RIGHT.
Im currently in between Protestantism and EO.
For me, it ultimately comes down to the question of “What’s worse… do I live under the spiritual authority that claims to teach the faith of the Apostles(when it could be wrong), or do I live out a worldview where every aspect of my faith is subjective; where my belief set is pure relativism and can change daily.”
By no means do I intend to make a dig at Protestants, there are millions of Protestants far more zealous than I.
I personally just can’t live out a worldview where my beliefs can’t be objectively false.
If Christianity truly is subjective, then what really would be the point of studying theology? It would only be my opinion against another’s, while both of us claim its lead by the Holy Spirit. Such a worldview can’t be accepted if I consider myself a truth seeker.
You have to subjective choosing between Rome and the East. You have to come up with your own conclusions.
In a world where truth is relative we need to know that according to Scripture truth is absolute. Jesus is absolute truth. The church is His body. There exists an absolute true church. Study church history in depth. Study the councils and study the early schism. Do it with an open heart and He will reveal to you what His truth is. Salvation isn't throwing darts at a dart board and hoping you hit the target. He who has ears let him hear.
@@mmtoss6530 you don't have to subjectively choose. You can use the same logic you would use on the street to choose between them. They both accuse the other side of innovating on Papal Supremacy and both cite ancient church writings to prove it. Rather than wade through interpretations, why don't we just look and see which side has innovated more since the schism? The answer is very clearly the RCC, and they don't even deny this. Given this reality, which side do you think innovated the first time?
Imagine you know a man and a woman who used to be married and got divorced after both accused the other of adultery. They both produce text messages and other evidence that shows that the other cheated, but not them. Imagine that after the divorce, one of them stays single. The other one gets into 5 more relationships and undeniably cheats on their new partner every time.
Which one do you think was most likrly the cheater the first time?
The question is not whether any side can be wrong. CHRISTIANITY could all be wrong. Anything we believe could turn out to be wrong. The question is, which beliefs are more LIKELY to be correct?
The problem with Protestantism and Sola Scriptura is that pretty much any interpretation of scripture is equally likely to be correct as long as it fits the text. An Orthodox interpretation is more likely to be correct than a protestant one because the Orthodox interpretation is really just the passed down interpretation of the people who met the Apostles in person and could ask them "hey, what did you mean when you wrote verse 5 over here?" (There were no verses back then, but you catch my drift.)
There is no scenario in which Protestantism makes sense. If the Apostolic churches are wrong, then Christianity is simply an unlikrly worldview and should not be believed.
@@bad_covfefe If I may ask, as good faith as I possibly can, why is it that eastern Orthodoxy is the one true church and not Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, or the Assyrian church of the East? Sincerely curious because I am personally burdened trying to find the one true church out of all the ones I mentioned. Thank you in advance
After a year of being a catechumen, me, my wife, and our 3 children are being received into the Orthodox Church on Saturday. Glory to God.
My family is evangelical, and I was too until age 12-14, and after two decades of atheism, I was drawn to Orthodoxy and now I'm a member of the Church. For me, the difference was that Orthodoxy isn't a proposition to accept on top of whatever paradigm you already hold (for most of us, that is material reductionism, maybe sprinkled with some caricature of spirits), but a whole paradigm. The symbolic/iconographic approach to reality give you a whole frame to understand what Christianity is about.
In two or three years, I changed from atheist with major in biochemistry and big fan of evolution, to an Orthodox Christian with a geocentric and creationist conceptualization of reality. And those are not just propositions that I feel obligated to hold, are just natural conclusions when the world that Christianity presents you unfolds: a Cosmos full of agency, with principalities, lurking chaos, overflowing with meaning and God's immanence.
Well said.
As a cradle Orthodox, it pains me that your understanding of Orthodoxy has led you to reject reason and science. That anyone today can pride himself on believing that the sun and the rest of the galaxy as well as the universe as a whole revolve around our little planet is truly mind-boggling.
@@vaska1999 There is no such thing as "objective motion", all motion is defined according to a reference point. The heliocentric model puts the Sun in the centre because it is bigger and the orbits are simpler; but the geocentric model can describe the same orbits, only with the Earth as the centre (Tychonic model), and more importantly: the centre is the place where the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection took place, this "little planet" is where the most important events in the history of the Cosmos took place.
Orthodoxy does not contradict the possibility of Creation through evolution and does not oppose Science or beliece there os a conflict between "Church and Science. There is no Science that can refute the existence of a Creator. Evolution 2.0 has a good exposition on rational arguments for thus and it is written by a Protestant.
I had the same exact way of thinking before going down the path of Orthodoxy. But I came to the conclusion that if Orthodoxy or Catholicism aren't true, Protestantism is even more wrong, and nothing matters anyway. Honestly, developing a respect for the Church Fathers is what settled it for me. When I read about their veneration of the martyrs and saints, of Mary... I couldn't look past it.
Hii, may I ask where you read about the Church Fathers’ veneration of the Martyrs and of Mary? I’d like to read about that. Thanks :)
@@sasharodriguez2494 I'm sure there are collections with quotes from them if you google it. But you can encounter pieces among different works. Augustine has also written about that, Athanasius has a prayer to Mary as well, Irenaeus also writes about Mary in Against Heresies.
To be honest even if you look online for a collection of sayings, and someone claims those are out of context, you'd see for yourself that regardless how out of context they are, a Protestant would likely not say something like that.
@@sasharodriguez2494You can start with the Martyrdom of Polycarp and then look into the Great Martyrs. Many of them suffered before St. Constantine the Great passed the Edict of Milan.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jybut there are mention that they venerated any saints. I honestly never found any evidence that first centuries christians were venerating. Some of the early writing actually seems to be very protestant and they did not want even any pictures to be in the place of worship
@@gabrielgabriel5177 Have you read the Martyrdom of Polycarp? They literally venerated his relics. Relics of martyrs were venerated in the early centuries as were icons. The Apostle Luke wrote the first icon. We have proof of icon veneration in the Old Testament temple worship and in ancient archeological sites like the Roman catacombs, Dura Europa and the Bethlehem Grotto. Stop protesting. It's futile.
My wife and I left protestantism behind for Orthodoxy, glory to God ☦️
@@buffcommie942 how is the commenter larping?
Amen
What does "LARP" mean please?
So did I and my wife.
My wife and I are in the process of becoming catechumens! My priest wants to talk to us next Sunday
I'm a protestant and very involved in my local church, though theologically as far as justification and the centrality of the eucharist I lean more heavily Orthodox. But I also see how God led me to be where I am and love it there and focus on doing the tasks Jesus called us to, loving our God with all my heart and loving my neighbor as myself. No matter which denomination I think if we are acknowledging Christ as king we are still all the body of Christ.
Well said, brother. Catholic here.
@@juancarlostownsend7013 But Catholics don't believe that. They believe we are damned if we are not in the church
These thoughts are really well articulated. These were exactly what my concerns and questions were prior to converting to Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, I don't have terrific answers as in my case it took a supernatural leading by the Holy Spirit in order to overcome these seemingly insurmountable hurdles.
I like how you pointed to "further up and further in". My experience with Orthodoxy has been that there really is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. As Frs. Damick and DeYoung are fond of pointing out- things arent always what they "are". Sometimes they are what they "do". I don't have answers for you, but want to encourage you to "walk the path" and see if things don't come into a bit more clarity for you, especially compared to online orthodoxy. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your journey with us! I wish you and your loved ones many blessings.
This! Since I’ve become a catechumen it’s been hard but also kind of a relief that the focus is not on this mental intellectual exercise that was Calvinism and now my spiritual life is just that spiritual. The emphasis on prayer and fasting and solitude and silence and on the Eucharist has really gave me a peace in my heart. It’s obvious that in the enlightenment/reformation reason was definitely elevated above Spirituality. It’s weird to contemplate how that has affected my upbringing in Protestantism and now my current life in Holy Orthodoxy.
I think it’s the other way around: having agnostic beliefs in our hearts leads to Protestantism. We’re basically only Protestant because of the cultural aspects, but in the heart we’re agnostic.
Very honest - try to become, what you really are before God: a child.
true... only dead people can convinced they believed. even thomas doubt Christ, mark run away when Christ arrested, peter deny Christ, luke run away and only come back when saul repent, cleoplas and most of 70 disciples depressed when Christ died, most of the apostles? go into hiding
I'm in this conflict right now as well. After several years of searching and praying, I'm still kind of stuck between my protestant upbringing (which I fell away from into Agnosticism from my teen years until my late 20s-when I had my first child), and the strong pull of the traditions/theology/community I have been exposed to with the Orthodox church in the past few years. Especially now that I have been tasked on leading my family (wife and three children now) spiritually and am responsible for their building their relationship with the Lord, I can only hope he shows me the best way forward, and also forgives me if I make a mistake or two along the way.
God bless you in your journey/walk with Him.
Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on us sinner. ☦️☦️☦️
The problem is that you don't understand your salvation. You were saved by placing your faith in Christ Jesus. If then you are saved, why are you trying to add to that salvation via man made traditions? If you are looking for a congregation or denomination that seems more structured, then that is fine, as long as they hold to the traditional protestant view of salvation. But if you are searching for a church that will save you, then you will fail miserably. What saves us is our faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross. It is not through works that we were saved, but it is a gift from God, through grace. If you have become an agnostic, it is not because of the church you grew up in. It's because of your own heart, and because you don't believe what is written in scripture concerning God. Whether you live alone on a deserted island, or surrounded by millions of believers, the only thing that will save you on the day of Judgement is whether you truly believed what God has spoken concerning his Son, and whether you repented of your sins and turned to him. We tend to overcomplicate the Christian faith. Salvation comes from believing. After that, we are to live our lives keeping God's commandments, and seeking him through prayer and the reading of his word.
@nerychristian There is more to salvation than merely believing. As Paul said. "even the devils believed." He also spoke about Abraham being justified in his works. Yes, we are to lean on God's words, and we are saved by His grace. But, in 2 Corinthians, we are told, "We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain." We are told to hold fast to the traditions passed down by word or epistle. Why even then mention that "if they were to write down all Jesus did, the world could not contain all the books that should be written" if it meant stay within the protestant cannon? Many books that were taken out of the cannon approved by Martin Luther are referenced. Enoch, Tobit, and more. There are many more passages in the current protestant bible that points to also looking past that. Martin Luther himself still held onto many traditions that Orthodox does, such as infant baptisms and more.
@@jlynn5680 Actually the apostle Paul said Abraham was justified by faith. He was talking about those who claimed that their righteousness came through circumcision, or by works of the law. But Paul taught that Abraham was justified by his faith, before he had ever been circumcised. Maybe you should read Romans again. And Paul also taught that if he, or an angel from heaven taught another gospel than the one they had already received, that person was to be acursed. Yes, a person who believes in Christ will also have a life filled with good works. But you are confusing salvation with sanctification and spiritual maturity. A person is saved by faith. Then once a person is saved, they are to seek daily sanctification, and a life that is full of the fruit of the holy Spirit... Love, joy, peace, kindness, faithfulness, patience, etc
Any Orthodox Christian will tell you that if you haven't already, visit a church. You can get online and learn the acedemics of the church, but there is nothing like experiencing the Holy reverence of the Liturgy. Prayers for you and your family, for God to lead the way. ☦️
I’m literally in the exact same boat as you. The parallels of both our journeys is fascinating to me.
Anyways, I’m praying you find a spiritual home for good just as I pray I do as well. I’m open to whatever church is the truth, even if there isn’t “One True Church” necessarily, that’s fine too…
Amen to that
You're concerned about Dogmas. Orthodox only declares a Domga to counter act a heresy. Everything else is mystery and holy traditions. May God bless your journey.
For sure! As the son of a convert, I have serious doubts about some Orthodox things (The Holy Fire, the snakes on that Greek island, talking decapitated heads, etc), but I am led to understand that I could become Orthodox without necessarily professing my personal faith in such mysteries/traditions, since they're not in the catechism... Does that sound right?
@@giuseppelogiurato5718 Well, it's orthodox, so yes and no.
My personal experience has been that I've accepted these things as I learn more about the faith and read about the lifes of the Saints. Some are probably embellished but reading about modern Saints, to whom there are still living witnesses, I accept these traditions because of the incredible things modern, living people have witnessed. I'm sure your journey is different than mine so my acceptance will be different than yours in type and time which doesn't make either of us right or wrong.
I too haven’t been convinced by the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and I can’t in good faith join these traditions. Still a committed Classical Protestant.
but that makes the presupposition that classical protestantism is the default, which it isnt.
@@hippios Baptists may be the default in America, but pretty much only in the South. The Midwest is Classically Protestant (Lutheran). Areas of Michigan are Reformed. The Anglican Communion is the largest Protestant denomination in the world. Don’t let one denomination define an entire group. Classical Protestantism is arguably the only true Protestant group. Also, Non-denom, SDAs, Mormons, and Pentecostals are not Protestant.
You should read the early church fathers, they scream what the EO and RCC are saying like transubstantiantion, salvation not by faith alone, confession to a priest etc...
you missed my point. i wasnt arguing a numbers game. you said you were unconvinced by Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and so choose to remain Classical Protestant. That just gives the reader the impression that you have somehow concluded that Classical Protestantism is the default Christian position to hold. Giving an explanation as to why you are convinced by this would be helpful when everyone knows that the Apostles were not classical protestants.@@mmtoss6530
Why are you convinced of Christianity at all? Take the same standard of evidence you are applying to the assumption of Mary and apply it to Mr YHWH making a real estate contract with the ancestor of the Jewish people.
This was very cool, calm, and collected.
Great things to think through!
So many important ideas were succinctly covered and kindly explored in this video, thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
I love how you laid this out. This is exactly where I am at.
same here
Thanks so much for this Austin. Keep up the honest truth seeking -- I think your channel really is bringing Christians from various traditions together in fruitful ways, and that at least is a way you are helping to answer Jesus' prayer in John 17:21-24.
This is because you don't do dabates. If you were put in the position to argue for, defend, or refute a position while being cross examined. Things would become much clearer faster and you'd be forced to assume something or clearly reject it.
I started out growing up in the Church of Christ. I fell into disbelief in my late teens through early 20’s but continued to pray and yearn for God to reveal himself in my life. I have in the last couple years been leaning heavily towards Orthodoxy. The more I investigate it the more I am drawn to it. At some point I’ve had to try to suspend my tendencies to over analyze and intellectualize everything to death. I just can’t accept the possibility of a Godless world where we all perish and cease to exist forever with no real meaning or purpose. Some will say that’s cowardly or weak. But at this point in my life I no longer care about that. I’ve made my commitment in my soul and spirit. If I’m wrong I’m wrong.
Praying for you and Eliza and your future children 💕 thanks for talking about all these difficult things.
Maybe 🤔 Ecclesiastical homelessness is by definition agnosticism.
No its not.
@@protector9513 The church is the body of Christ.
I think it’s certainly on that road….. I know several Protestants who are passionate Protestant Christians but don’t go to any church because they are all wrong…..
Protestantism led me to Deism.
Thank God, I was led back to Catholicism like 5 years later.
You’re not alone. Protestantism led almost all of America’s founders and writers of the constitution to deism. Thomas Jefferson was a deist and said that miracles never happened. He made his own bible where he cut out all examples of miracles. See the trend.
reading the debates between Catholicism, orthodoxy, oriental orthodoxy etc showed me Protestantism was true
It depends on which group of post Reformation churches one follows. There are also a number that are lost in the wilderness just as many pre-Reformation churches@@buffcommie942
Sounds like you were already Roman Catholic at heart, and would not settle for anything less than an institutional church.
@@buffcommie942 Without attending an Orthodox church for some time you wont be able to know what the life of the incarnate God is from the inside, anymore than you can look through the window of a house and know what its like to be part of the family that lives there. Much love! I hope you check it out!
Hi Austin. I just think that whatever questions or objections you may have against the Catholic church becomes worse when you direct them to Protestantism. Example, the question of authority. When you pose that question against the pope, the Protestant answer to authority is each and every individual's "own" interpretation. That means each Protestant is his own pope.
I appreciate what I hope is actually your honesty, but I would suggest that most protestant denominations quickly develop their own long list of dogmas which are often about fifteen minutes old. What the Orthodox and Catholic traditions preserve is a much longer witness to the struggle of the faithful to understand what is essentially beyond our understanding. To say that something is 'dogma' means that it will not lead one astray. I particularly love the story of the assumption of the Theotokos because that story closely parallels the story of the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, complete to Thomas' absense on the day of her Dormition, and his return seven days later, when her tomb is opened and it is empty. History? Perhaps not in the 19th century German sense, but truth, in a very profound way of prophesying, of iconizing, of proclaiming, the fate of all those who let Christ into their lives as intimately as did Mary. Regarding children, it does seem that the children of Orthodox families are much more likely to continue in the faith as adults than the children of protestants.
Great comment
On this point about personal certainty, the difference comes from the mindset on authority: one vs. the community. For example, the Apostolic traditions affirm that it was the Church that gave us the Bible, declared which books were or not inspired, using Tradition, that is, the received theological tradition as a criteria to canonize books and to discard other books that contained heterodox views, though they might have been used locally by different groups in worship. Under this mindset, a passage of the Bible with multiple possible interpretations is clarified by an external authority: the Church. I trust Christ gave us his Church and thus trust the Church, however unclear I might be about an idea. If one comes from a Bible-only mindset, the Bible is the sole authority, but the person becomes the interpreter, choosing to which denomination to belong based on the denomination's agreement with a personal interpretation of Scripture. Under this second mindset, everything is on the table to one's personal agreement. The problem still exist also, in some manner, in the apostolic traditions: is the Pope scriptural? Catholic vs. Orthodox. Yet, beyond this point, the authority is given to the Church. One might not understand or might not be convinced, but it doesn't matter, there is the trust the Church will not guide us astray. God bless you in your process!
Unfortunately as I have studied I have to disagree with almost every assertion you just made. You can't equate "the church" or "tradition" as having a direct or obvious continuity from the first church to now. The idea that "the church" or "tradition" that was applicable in the first few centuries equals X or Y Christian communion is untenable. It is that very issue that keeps many from binding our conscience to traditions of men.
@@BrianLassekDid Christ lie when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church?
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy do the scriptures lie when they say the body Christ is not divided? Jesus most definitely did not lie, but that doesn't equal his words being understood and used properly. Blessings brother
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy//did Christ lie when he said the gates of hell will not prevail//
No but you seem to think the interpretation of that verse is self-evident. Jesus is referring to the unending continuation of faithful believers until the end of time. Nothing about a magisterium with the charism of infallibility.
@@ElvisI97 I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic. Rome schismed from the Church. Orthodoxy has held the faith of the Apostles to the current day and will until the end of eternity.
It's quite clear to me that EO and RC's saying this aren't actually engaging with proper Protestantism. They are not representing the position correctly. sure there are liberal movements here and there and whatnot, but rarely have I heard one of these other groups represent the Protestant movement from its actual positions, points and strengths. It's usually very low level representation. Dr. Ortlund usually say this also.
Read Rock and Sand by Fr. Josiah Trenham. He's a former Presbyterian minister who became an Orthodox priest. He wrote that book as an Orthodox appraisal of the Protestant Reformation. He goes over the Majesterial Reformation, Radical Reformation and the Counter-Reformation as well as noting certain Protestant virtues.
I’m having a hard time coming up with a name of a prominent Orthodox apologist in the US/UK who is not a convert from Protestantism...
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy I'm well familiar with Trenham. Great guy, and i appriciate a lot of his content. Foundationally i disagree with his view of sola scriptura and tradition though.
@@WufflesGhosts Lol i totally disagree on Ortlund. I also don't think your idea of reinterpretation of the bible as a possibility really holds any water in serious Protestantism. That's where we differ with EO - we don't look at the Bible as a hard book to interpret, it's not a closed book outside of the EO church. It is the standard, and it's very clear in what it teaches for salvation.
As a former reformed/ Protestant, the cards have already been pulled and that glass house has shattered. So for me knowing what I know today would be embarrassed to call myself a Protestant. I look at it like this, I know for sure without a doubt the Protestant faith is not the true faith and so I either become an atheist.. or I trust in Gods church ( Orthodox)and pray this “ glass house” don’t shatter as well. When I was at my spiritual crossroads and knew I could no longer be apart of the only church I knew (Protestant/reformed) I prayed God would show me the way and that’s when i ram into Fr Josiah Trenham. That was 2 years ago and my life hadn’t been the same. And not all good either. It’s been very hard on my wife n kids cause they’re still Protestant and think I’ve turned from the faith and defected … sadly. That’s Protestantism for ya lol.
Keep praying 🙏 I am a cradle orthodox who “converted” to orthodox in my adulthood. Unfortunately, my parents who are also cradle orthodox, don’t know the treasure they have under their nose. I had glimpses of what orthodoxy is when I lived with my grandmother and we walked before sunrise to a monastery next village (2 hrs through the woods with a few older ladies) to get there in time for the Divine Liturgy. I watched her kneel and pray every night and she would wake up in the middle of the night to read her kathisma (psalms). I watched her pray and cry for her youngest son to return (he left for Ukraine) and the joy she had in her eyes when he returned months later. I was maybe 6. When she was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, she would give thanks to God for all her blessings.
My parents never went to church. They are the product of communist suppression. So today I pray for them! I give thanks to God for the glimpse of true faith that I am able to remember seeing, and I pray that God opens the eyes and hearts of my parents so they can also long for that kind of faith and love!
May God answer your prayers and give you patience!
I was brought up Catholic, but also found personal issues with such questions as the Assumption and papal infallibility - plus others, such as that the Eucharist becoming the literal Body and Blood of Christ in it's physical makeup.
It was only many decades later when I first heard of the Eastern Orthodox Church and looked into it that I discovered these Western innovations appeared AFTER the Great Schism between East and West, and that Orthodoxy doesn't hold those beliefs. Although Orthodoxy does believe the bread and wine do become Christ's Body and Blood, they don't claim to know that claim is manifest. It's a mystery.
I could say that I decided to convert to Orthodoxy because it holds the dogmas and teachings that the whole Church had before the schism, but that didn't end up being the whole story. It was actually the ethos of Orthodoxy and understanding in the nature of God's relationship to creation and Man that convinced me - which is quite different from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
But, the clearing up of the original questions I had was the 'nudge' that took me to explore Orthodoxy and eventually convert.
Great video, Austin! Thanks for sharing! I definitely wish there was more objective evidence for some of the claims of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. At the same time, after reading some of the church fathers it seems as though many aspects of my low-church evangelical tradition are disprovable/clearly contradicted, which creates far more cognitive dissonance for me than merely a lack of positive evidence for a doctrine. I cannot prove the Assumption of Mary or the Immaculate Conception, but I don’t feel that I can disprove these beliefs either (of course, if further reading changes my mind on this, the house of cards principle you mentioned would apply). The hardest part of becoming or being Catholic for me would be having faith that the barque of Peter is unsinkable, when it kind of looks to me like the sinking process is well underway.
Right on, bro. I appreciate you going down the rabbit hole...and double dog dare...excellent points.
Man can you ask interviewees how often they pray and what does their prayer life look like? You know the saying - theologian is the one that prays, and one that prays is a theologian
It's really interesting how they pray, what it looks like, what's aim of their prayer, what they pray for, etc
I don’t see how you can get an infallible book of scripture without an infallible church that has to assemble and make the decision as to what is divinely inspired and what isn’t. If you can do that for the Scriptures themselves, it seems a church can do that for dogma as well.
God works perfectly through imperfect people. not that complicated. church doesnt need to be infalible. only God
@@francischoi7191So then you deny the Apostle Paul when he says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth?
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Does having truth neccessarily require being infallible? Israel was the pillar of truth in the OT period, arguably they did not posses any infallible office, outside of the words of God, Moses and the prophets in the Torah.
Apostle Paul does not neccessarily suggest your interpretation. We all agree that the Truth (Christianity) can only be found in the Church. I haven't seen a lot of non-Christians spreading the Gospel lately. 'Truth' is not equal to infallibility.
@@daliborbenes5025 I never claimed infallibility in the office of Patriarch, Metropolitan, Bishop or priest. I'm not a Roman Catholic. The conciliar dogmatic teachings of the Orthodox Church found in the Ecumenical Councils is infallible. We also have the Scriptures, their interpretation by the Holy Fathers, hymnography, lives of saints and the canons which are used to guide us. All of this is Holy Tradition, the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church Whom Christ promised would lead and guide us into all truth. We don't depend on one man like the Papists and the Head of our Church is Christ.
@@daliborbenes5025 There can only be one pillar and ground of the truth. To claim multiple contradicting faiths are all the Church is to believe in relative truth and nullify the words of the Apostle Paul.
Austin, have you read True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort? It really helped me to understand Mary
Love your thoughts on this. I'm in a similar place. I left Catholicism for a non denominational church and finally found God there after years of searching within Catholicism.
To me it's simple. I clearly see the Holy Spirit working through my new church, and know that the Spirit led me there. So I know that my church is part of The Church. And therefore I know that Catholic and Orthodox claims of exclusivity are false, which prevents me from submitting/assenting to either system.
Wonderful video! My same concerns allowed me to find the Anglican Church in North America. It’s got its own problems, but the fact that it’s set itself up to be the middle way between so many Christian positions means that I’m free to worship Christ without infringing on my convictions.
If that is to be read as “Does Protestantism necessarily lead to Agnosticism”, then the answer is no. Of course someone could go from Protestant to Agnostic but the same goes for Catholics and Orthodox . I’ve met or known a fair number and seen even more on social media .
Theology leading to agnosticism isn't the same as a person becoming agnostic.
Anyone who leaves Protestantism to become a Roman Catholic is obviously someone who was never a true believer or read his bible.
Consistent Protestants should either be Orthodox, Catholic, or Agnostic. The logic of Protestantism directly led to the spread of deism, atheism, and progressivism.
Hey can you clarify how the entire argument of "all dogmas have to be perfect, therefore if one breaks it all breaks" doesn't apply to scripture? By definition the writing of scripture created this multiplication of dogmas problem you mentioned with a higher rate then I think has ever happened before. Thank you and God Bless.
Wow your line of thinking is deeply thought out and pastoral.
I can’t relate to this kind of agnosticism, but I do relate to your concern for outsiders who seek to get in the door.
In terms of most basic dogmas to get Christians hit the ground running, I’ve held to this rule of thumb - so far as it is necessary to get people born again and help them cultivate spiritual knowability
Born Again
1) Repentance
2) Believe in Jesus
3) Baptism (immersion)
4) Receive the Holy Spirit (Not necessarily confirmation nor christmation)
Knowability
1) Receive the Eucharist
Whether Christians could discern and sense the Holy Spirit indwelling, coming, and leaving is the key to erase intellectual doubt about the faith. There will remain no lack of assurance about one’s salvation.
In terms of knowability, I am afraid I agree and only agree with the Orthodox - so far as we are enabled to know through our continual struggle to reverse the consequences of our Edenic fall in the context of a sacramental life receiving the Holy Spirit and participating in the Eucharist.
Protestantism lead me to apostasy and Christ led me to absolute truth.
Part of life is wrestling with questions that in the moment are confounding or at least offer no obvious easy answers. What's interesting is after a period of time when you revisit the questions the knots which were most troublesome are now undone with a simple tug like a shoelace waiting to be undone . I'm sure you'll have that experience at some point with this question and others.
I posted a comment on the first video.
We have children and we have a son that will do his first communion this year.
We are raising him Evangelical & Catholic. He has noticed some differences and when he is older we will have discussions with him about the differences & at some point he will make some sort of a decision as to his faith as an adult. We stress the love of Jesus & having a personal relationship with Him.
I have not worried about how being raised in both would confuse him or make him doubt his faith later on.
This video has made me to think about it, but at this point I’m still not worried.
We all serve the same Father, Son & Holy Spirit. We just worship & show our faith a little differently.
May God continue to bless you in your journey, and may God bless you & your wife with healthy vibrant children with a heart for God.
I'll be praying for your son, because, honestly, his parents are setting him up for failure. The Catholic Church does take this very seriously, warning couples against "disparity of creed" and of raising children in both traditions. Too often, it just means the kid is going to end up with nothing. I just don't understand this kind of thinking in young couples. You wouldn't do this kind of pick and choose, it's all the same with school work or with how he behaves at home or in public. Why would you opt to cripple his faith life?
Honestly Bruce, you need to pick one or the other. Either make him a good Catholic or make him a good Evangelical. The fact that he's going to receive the very body, blood, soul and divinity of God the Son in the Eucharist ought to be telling you and your wife something extremely profound. And that is, Evangelicalism is out. You say we all serve the same Father, but I'd like to remind you that God does NOT accept all worship as the same. And God has actually prescribed how the Church worships, and it's not the Evangelical way and it's not "our little different way".
I came to the same conclusions, abt what is the most necessary doctrines to believe in in order to be an actual Christian (and not just become part of an institution that calls itself "the" Church), hence why I've chosen to stay Protestant (and I was a week away from becoming a catechumen of the E.O.C.). Thank you, Austin!
Not for many it doesn't, and many have left orthodoxy for agnosticism. Lots of generalizations in these comments and it hurts and isn't Christ like
This is very anxiety provoking. I’m just glad I was baptized into a historical church thank god
Good point here about the "house of cards." Right now, I know fellow Catholics (even clergy) who are leaving the faith in dismay at Pope Francis. The claim of infallibility seems to have been put to a severe test, if not simply shattered, in the minds of many who have stayed in the Church because they see it as a firm rock on which to stand amid the shifting sands of secular ideology. An argument can be made that what the Vatican has recently called into question is not strictly speaking "dogma," but Catholics have always seen the truth-claims of the Church as more extensive than defined or credal propositions. It is crushing people's faith to see age-old beliefs cast aside and even ridiculed by our leaders.
For Orthodoxy, The church isn’t a magisterial overlord dictating our beliefs.
The Church has been described to me - more like a group project.
We are participating in a group project of being faithful to Christ.
So when we say the church believes X - we mean “the people of the group over time have kept this thing.“
Scholars and saints may have produced written works that impacted the church…… but it’s really the group that’s dictated whose works were carried on.
So beliefs are vetted through the group over time.
So if something’s believed or practiced - it’s not trusting ‘The Magisterium of Important Imperial Dogmatic Overlords’ it’s more like……
The Holy Spirit has worked through the imperfect church to preserve a way of following Christ over time.
So the question is: do we trust the Holy Spirit has worked through this group of Christian? To preserve faithfulness to Christ?
If so, how much was preserved?
And does all of that matter?
Personally, I didn’t need to answer that as much as answering….
Is it possible things were lost to those who dropped out of the group project?
And even more zoomed out -
Does this system seem more likely to have preserved what Christ handed down to the Church?
Does it matter?
Can the truth be preserved through a people group?
Excellent comment. Especially the question of does this system seem more likely to have preserved what Christ handed down to the church. This question was ultimately compelling enough to lead me to converting to Orthodoxy from the protestantism of my adult Christian journey. And the conciliar ecclesiology of EO is what convinced me not to return to the Catholic church of my upbring. That the body as a whole has had to willing receive and confirm through time what would be preserved by virtue of the truth of these things being whitnessed by the Holy Spirit in the full life of the Church across centuries with shocking consistency and clarity despite not having a top down authority is nothing short of miraculous.
@@SweetImmaculateHeart I think you are right! This is the greatest miracle of all!
Well said.
We have imperfect Saints which is hard to explain but we are after all people…and that’s the point.
God can transform people like us. There is hope.
From my own research, I would say yes and no.
Some things The Church (particularly Orthodoxy) has preserved relatively well. For example, the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome claims that the early church fathers, including Polycarp who was a disciple of John, believed in it. Assuming Jerome isn’t lying (considering he translated the Vulgate I wouldn’t think so) and that he knows what he’s talking about (probably a smart guy), then he’s telling the truth. I understand this as a Protestant.
However, it’s very clear the church has lost some of the early church practices. Originally, we celebrated “Easter” (really just Messianic Passover) on the same day as the Jews. John the Apostle taught and advocated for this according to Polycarp. We know this. However, The Church under Constantine fabricated Easter in an antisemitic decree and went against the wishes of John the Apostle.
So the question to me is, what have we lost and why? I think what gets me about Orthodoxy and Catholicism is the claim to be the early church. Which early church? Certainly not the church of the apostles, if we can ignore their wishes so blatantly and never correct it. I think they represent an early form of the Gentile church but not THE early church.
Protestantism comes from the desire to rediscover the early church under the apostles. It’s the whole reason for sola scriptura. Because abuses based on “tradition and authority” rather than concrete scripture were promulgated (ie indulgences, which the apostles would have never supported). We’ve done a horrible job as a whole rediscovering the early church. We’ve mostly been an ahistorical bunch of complainers for the most part, some complaints being legitimate and others not.
Just my take. I desire to see the early church today. More Jewish influence, less pagan/Greek influence.
The Jewish passover was and is still recognized in Orthodoxy as Holy Friday, the day Christ was crucified. John the Apostle never advocated that Easter should be celebrated on the day Christ was crucified. Orthodox call Easter Pascha, meaning passover. Christ is the fulfillment of Passover through the Resurrection. Orthodoxy is the continuation of the faith God delivered to the Jews. Try researching the Jewish roots of Orthodoxy. For example, we use the Psalms as our prayer book. The Orthodox have preserved the teachings/traditions of the Apostles basically unchanged. I suggest that when you research Orthodoxy, try using Orthodox sources to speak for themselves.
Thank you for this brother! I appreciate your thoughts and perspectives! Looking into Catholicism and Orthodoxy in a world where Christianity is what it is today, I think it makes sense to characterize Orthodox or Catholic dogmas as additions - especially in comparison to less demanding Protestant systems. But I think this is a matter of perspective and certainly a product of living in a post C.S. Lewis, secular and Protestant western world.
I guess for me - as terrible as this may sound - I wasn’t just running towards Orthodoxy, I was running away from a faith that I couldn’t trust anymore: and there are numerous reasons why I did not trust the tradition I had previously been a part of. It’s more than just throwing one’s weight behind a 2000 year old tradition as a matter of psychological assurance. It’s also a matter of projection. How and why are we so divided as Christians today? How did this historically come to be? Why does Christianity seem to be disappearing in western societies? How do I participate in or perpetuate the spirit of these forces that may contribute to or have historically contributed to the disintegration of Christianity and in some places the disappearance of the Christian faith altogether in Western societies? I began to see the faith I once held as untrustworthy in light of these questions. I likewise worry about the world my kids will grow up in, and I wanted them to have the opportunity to participate in a faith that took the burden of an individualistic faith off their shoulders and that prized and provided a way of life that prized community and relationship above belief, that could provide them with a way of life that could carry them throughout their life. All I was taught growing up was that what matter above all else was the thoughts one happened to hold; your actions were tertiary and believed to just randomly - and perhaps even spontaneously - follow from your correct beliefs. I came to believe the opposite over time. Our way of life determines our beliefs or at least informs us as to what we find “believable.” Faith begins in the heart which is cultivated personally through community where The Way of Life can be found. Our experiences are primary and our knowledge merely tertiary.
Austin, have you considered that you may be trying to figure out too much on your own? If I recall Christs apostles knew nothing about scriptures and didn’t even really know His way until the Holy Spirit illumined them. They weren’t even looking for it 😅
You know, talking about children, I told my children that the reason we are going to church so far away every Sunday (about 40 min) is because when the world around them changes and they are so lost and confused, they can always go to church and have confidence that the teachings there have not changed since the resurrection of the Lord and they will find the truth and the real Christ there. The real and unchanged message of the Gospel is there! Whether you like it or agree with it, or not, it is there unchanged from generation to generation! I trust that my church will not ACCEPT the truths and the demands of the world, just to fit in. Can any other church make that claim? Yes, maybe some regional beliefs and practices have developed over the years, like caroling, or blessing of the houses at Theophany, or egg hunting, or walking around the church with icons of your patron saint on Sunday of orthodoxy… but those are not dogmas or necessary for salvation! Oh, how I wish you could let your guards down and let God in! As elder Paisios said: you don’t know the power that is in you!
I pray for your peace and for your mind to be illumined so that you will find the truth that you are so desperately searching for!
But I have faith that you will! May God bless you!
I, an Orthodox inquirer, have tried to ask my Pentecostal dad about matters of truth and certainty and he’s responded “I guess we’ll find out someday” as in when we are already dead and being judged. Sorry, I can’t live like that.
@@nonnymoose6260 I understand there’s mystery, but I’m not super down with saying that whether baptism is necessary or not is a mystery haha. But thank you, much appreciated!
I have never gone through an experience like yours, but I do have my own faith journey. Keep praying and asking for God’s guidance. It is He who will lead you to the place He wants you.
You should read The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God by St. John Maximovitch. Its written in a simple manner but has a comprehensive description of her life, the doctrines we hold about her and the history behind them. It has lots of beautiful icons of the Theotokos. Its also inexpensive.
No disagreement on this. However, I respectfully suggest that the relevant threshold question shouldn't be "Can I wholeheartedly accept all the obligatory dogmata in either the Orthodox or Roman Catholic tradition?" , but rather "Is there any single dogma in either tradition that I absolutely cannot accept, even as a working proposition?" If the answer is Yes with regard to either tradition, that should be dispositive regarding that tradition, though not necessarily a confirmation of the other. If the answer is No - then I guess you'll have to just keep pondering...
You will be in my prayers.
Austin - you expressed the concerns on both sides very well and I think what you have said is fair. My own conversion to Catholicism from Lutheranism was based on what I viewed as the best overall coherency both historically and theologically (and liturgically). My assessment was that Protestantism had the more significant problems. Much more in the end. And then facing up to making that hard choice. It was a 7 year process.
Moreover, I also sense some apologists on all sides tend to lapse (it seems to me) into what I would call a historical-fundamentalism as opposed to a legitimate and necessary concern for a meaningful historicity. For example, a belief that an event occurred in history is not identical with a belief in an eyewitness to that event. This is often conflated, for example, in the Assumption of Mary. I attempted to go on and give my own view on how to assess the Assumption of Mary but as I copied from a previous comment elsewhere, the UA-cam algorithm deleted my entire comment. Austin - I would be glad to send it over to you. Just IM me on Facebook if interested.
Thanks for sharing a bit more of your story, Todd. I do think that apologists on both sides can lapse into overly simplistic explanations. Unfortunately, apologetics is often more about scoring points than discovering truth
Austin have you read “The Life of Antony” by St. Athanasius?
Commenting bc I also want to know.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Tell me you will spend 15 minutes looking at the book and I'll send in another donation. A little bigger - not huge mind you.
drive.google.com/file/d/1xcQmbjKTMoyy00D3v6OSwgEPAj2iIDDb/view?usp=drivesdk
It seems to me that even though Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have a different take on the the death of the God-bearer (i.e. The Blessed Virgin Mary) and even the conditions of her birth' both are Ancient Christian Traditions that understand that she has a pivotal role in the Plan of Salvation The various Protestantisms are either indifferent to or actually discount her place in Christian history and the Plan Of Salvation. The renowned Church Historian the late Jaoslave Pelican, explores the place of Mary in the Christian Community in his work. A must read.
Can agnosticism lead to Protestanism?
Protestantism does not lead to someone becoming agnostic anymore than Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy does. It is not a matter of religious affiliations, but a spiritual matter of the heart and your personal relationship with God. Over the years I had once found myself a believer in all three denominations, but I was never truly satisfied spiritually, I felt as though I was being held back in my faith. Now I put no stock in religion because it is religion that turns brothers in the Lord against one another. It is religion that make us say to one another, you are not a true Christian, you are not a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have been condemned to hell many times by people from all three of these denominations, simply because at that time I was a believer in one over the other, I have even had people say to me anathema. Religion causes nothing but division amongst the body of Christ, and who above all seeks to destroy the body of Christ through division and corruption, the evil one, our adversary the devil.
The apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences in ministries, but the same Lord, there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. The apostle Paul later goes on to say that those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor and then he goes on to say that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.
But this is the complete opposite of what we are doing when we say to one another your not a true follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are the ones causing division/schism when we say to those of a different ministry "We are the one true Church". There is a reason why Jesus condemned sectarianism and I believe that is why. Jesus said in John 3:18, he that believes on him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God.
And if we truly believe on him then we should love him with all our heart, with all our soul and with all our mind, and if we love him then we shall obey his commandments as Christ said in John 14:15.
The apostle Paul says in Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
And so it is for this reason I do not condemn any individual member of the body of Christ simply because we disagree on many doctrinal beliefs, for even the apostle themselves and the early Church disputed amongst themselves on many issues, but you know what they didn't do, they didn't consider anyone lesser of a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, because even though they disputed on many non salvific issues, they still loved one another and saw each other for who they were, brothers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, because they agreed on who Christ truly was and they all believed and loved the Lord Jesus Christ and obeyed his commandments.
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all.
Former Evangelical/Pentrcostal and firmly and joyfully in an AnglicanChurch. For us, it’s been a “deeper conversion”. My husband is our priest and we are home. Love the Prayer Book, the Daily Office, the great hymnic tradition (I’m the principal musician), the joy of having icons in the Nave with us as we worship, the ancient Liturgy, chanting the Psalm, etc. All this without some of the topics fraught with disagreement in the larger Church.
That sounds lovely
I'll comment because of how many eastern or roman peeps there are here. In my looking into church history, i only became a bit more classically protestant. I will say that rome and the east make many claims that are not very compelling the same way that many of the biblical claims are. I need hard evidence to stake my life on something, I need conpelling objective evidence. I see it in Christ, and I am a protestant due to my diggings in the history so far. Im still learning and still digging. I was ripped apart last year, looking at my faith critically, and i considered the east and rome. Their claims didnt hold up. I think this "mass conversion" is a response to radical evangelicalism. Many of those conversting, to me, dont make the greatest claims and seem to fall short on arguments too. Not to say they arent genuine, but they are not convincing for me to convert. Often times I just get a "its just obvious" and if you actually try and read the history, it really isnt at all. I hope to dig deeper, and im actually thinking about going to school for theology, as to interact with these things in a scholarly way, as to not discount any tradition. I love those eastern and roman brothers and sister's, but we as protestants have a duty to uphold our veiws in a more classical and popular way.
Very well said
@@WufflesGhosts i dont understand the problem with private judgment. catholics and orthodox use their private judgment to agree with the church or catholicism/orthodoxy. youre using private judgment to conclude that either the catholic or orthodox church is the one true church.
@@WufflesGhosts it's really not as it's not the only authority, just the only infallible one. Stop straw manning. Also how do you know which one true church is the one true church? You use private discernment to choose which true church is the true church lest you be damned.
@@WufflesGhosts coptic, greek, assyrian, Roman etc etc etc all claim the one true church. People get into discussions on the history, theology and all sorts of things and end up all sorts of places. It's not so obvious meaning you MUST use private judgement to discern which one true church is the one true church.
@@WufflesGhosts also "biblical claims" mean those claims directly found in the bible. That of the resurrection and the life Jesus for example. Those types of claims have hard evidence that I'd stake my life on. The assumption of mary I would not stake my life on at all and I'm not even convinced it happened at this point. Also the claims about icons in the early church and those types of things I don't find very compelling.
I’ve said in the past I would love to see a video - on what is the character or nature of the Church - did Christ found a Church that has the ability to teach in a binding matter (thus the charism of infallibility) and if that is part of the character of the Church - founded by Christ - where does that character reside or what are the limits of the Church s ability to bind believers to certain beliefs. Is the Church founded by Christ visible (with both wheat and Chaff) or is the Church founded by Christ not visible in that we have no ability to identify that Church that He founded?
Does the Church presuppose apostolic succession ? Etc etc etc
When I read the pastoral epistles (1&2Timothy and Titus) it seems to me that binding teaching authority and apostolic succession are assumed by Saint Paul - he as an Apostle picks successors and accordingly affirms that their teaching will be binding on believers.
So would love to hear this subject discussed in depth. For me - I don’t see Protestantism as a viable option - as this paradigm which seems obvious in scripture - is simply not found within the Protestant philosophical approach to Christianity.
Many issues to look at regarding what is the nature of the Church founded by Christ.
It nearly did for me, but I do also recognize that’s not necessarily representative.
Exactly.
Something I find a bit frustrating in all of this, and no one is talking about it, is that when you practice these traditions whether catholic, orthodox or protestant, and you begin to have a mystical experience that includes boosted creativity, enlightenment, peace, reduced anxiety, improved productivity, modified behaviors, all stemming from an active dialog with the Holy Spirit, you KNOW it's true. The words of God defy man's constructs. Go where the Pneuma Parakletos takes you.
As a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism, I cannot deny that the Holy Spirit has changed lives in other Christian traditions.
this resonates. I have also experienced this mystical change but without aligning with a specific denomination. i grew up non-denominational and now attend an anglican church, but i wouldnt consider myself anglican (not confirmed). Simply taking weekly communion with belief in Real Presence has been the gamechanger.
Excellent point
I think the reasons they aren't mentioned is because these changes can be explained quite easily psychologically (ex. Cognitive Dissonance and Resolution, Psychological Transformation, Self-Actualization etc). My family who converted from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism have had similar experiences to yours. There are plenty more atheists who experience many of these feelings when they leave their previous faith commitment. Part of it is from find your own homeostasis in light of previous cognitive dissonance which frees up space to explore others things, boosting creativity, which was previously stress restricted.
@ElvisI97 I think you are exactly right. I also think that these psychological happenings are known to occur, and therefore can be leveraged as incentive to convert or de-convert. Peter even says in 2peter 1, that it's the "response to God's promises" that exercising things like generosity, Moral excellence, self-control, godliness, brotherly love, etc will supplement your faith. If you're in between or relating more with agnostic/atheists belief systems but lack a faith to supplement, you may not achieve the same senses. A creation lacking the love from its creator type of thing.
A few things that come to mind as one who converted 20 years ago to the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church is an enormous tent. There is much more latitude for understanding Church teaching than might appear from the outside - ESPECIALLY if one only listens to the increasingly fundamentalist voices in popular Catholic apologetics (in my judgement, voices that are overrepresented in the pool of Catholic guests on GS). If one looks at the real workings of the Church the "house of cards" model itself falls apart. The Church can always self-correct. I recommend Richard Gaillardetz fine book, By Whay Authority?: Foundations for Underatanding Authority in the Church. Richard would have made for a fine guest on the program. Sadly, he passed away last year. Maybe we could see some America Magazine guests or Boston College guests in the future? It is a false stereotype that these more "progressive" (for lack of a better label) Catholics do not have a deep personal faith. We do! It is possible to be a devout Catholic and, while trusting the Magisterium, question "just how may these Dogmas be so"?
@@pattym.wilhelm9252 Amen!!!
@@pattym.wilhelm9252 This is so much madness! I am flabbergasted that so many good Catholics - who I once respected - are totally losing their minds! And yet many are remaining calm and steadfast. I was pleasantly surprised to see my own Bishop, The Most Reverend David J Bonnar, featured in America Magazine with a very positive take on Fiducia Supplicans. He grounded his reflection in Pope Francis' Evangelii Gaudiem (The Joy of the Gospel). Bishop Bonnar speaks of how profoundly The Joy of the Gospel rejuvenated his own journey. When we celebrate the "joy" of the Gospel are we not also celebrating its "simplicity"? We are not so different - Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants - when we focus on this joyful "Gospel Simplicity".
I really like your take on things. I feel like I’ve had a similar or am still in a similar journey that you are going on. I was Catholic left it wet protestant for most of my 20s and had discovered eastern orthodoxy. But like you I have issues with orthodoxy in Catholicism. And just like this video and you discuss I feel like the logical conclusion of protestant ism is your own pope and basically universalism. I do agree with a lot of your issues. Which can make convert into either one of those face offputting. But I do have a lot of reservations on the protestant movement and if it even has a future. Has been seen with the mainline denominations a lot of them are basically agnostic or secular While the Baptists and Evangelical kind of go off the rails and have made the sacraments become barely symbolic at best. Plus you get a lot of actual heresies out of them. Such as multiple baptisms with some of the Baptist. What do you have the one in the Pentecostal. In conclusion I think going Catholic or Orthodox is probably the best way to make sure that your grandchildren will be believers.
Perfectly articulated. I have nothing to add but the fact that I remain protestant in large part because of church fallibility and the premise of Sola Scriptura. I love your videos brother, please keep doing what you're doing.
That doesn't address the question at all. You aren't Catholic or Orthodox because you don't accept the truth claims that they make.
Cool.
Well take the same standard of evidence you are applying to Catholicism and Orthodoxy and apply it to your own beliefs.
Why do you believe Jesus rose from the dead, but not that Mary appeared in Portugal?
Why do you believe in the authority of the Bible, but not the magisterium?
If you were consistent, you'd be out of Christianity.
@@thephilosopherfromdixie7466 Good points. It comes down to discernment really. I believe the Bible is infallible and God breathed as was the process by which it was consolidated and administered by the magisterium. This doesn't imo make the magisterium infallible for all of time, as the Bible is indeed. The pope? Fallible. Abusive practices of Indulgences? Fallible. Marian dogmas? Highly questionable. Purgatory? Highly questionable. The Catholic church's evolution (change) on “no salvation outside the church”? Makes me question its fallibility. I'm not sure if this answers your question but this is where I'm at. I have much to learn and I'm open to healthy dialogue.
As for Mary appearing in Portugal vs Jesus rising from the dead, one is littered throughout the new testament and is a central part of the gospel the other I have never even heard about until now.
@@thephilosopherfromdixie7466Your example about the ressurection and Fatima are not comparable.
Firstly Roman Catholics are allowed to disbelieve the Fatima apparitions. Which some do. Jesus’ ressurection falls within a category called public revelation.
Public revelation: This encompasses the body of faith, as found in the scriptures, and the teaching of the church public revelation, is considered essential for all Catholics to believe and is concluded with the death of the last apostle.
Private Revelation: apparitions like those at Fatima fall under private revelation. These are believed to be revelations from God, or the Saints to individuals after the time of Christ and the apostles the church may pronounce such revelations as “worthy of belief” but belief in them is not mandatory for Catholics. They are meant to offer guidance or inspiration, but not to add to the definitive body of Church teaching.
Also, you'll find many Eastern Orthodox who completely reject all of the Marian apparitions. So this isn't an argument uniquely against Protestants holding to the ressurection and not the Marian apparitions.
By Church fallibility, do you mean the human side that tends to err in its administration at times because of human weakness and passions or the Divine side in its dogmas and Holy Tradition? Remember that since the Church is the Body of Christ it has both the Divine and human sides.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Definitely the former but I guess both as I believe Catholicism as we know it has errors. We're probably going to disagree on what “the church” is though. With that being said, I won't pretend to have all the answers. I'm open to education.
Whether anyone admits it or not, there can only be one truth. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." When you experience Christ through the Holy Spirit, you will be able to discern Truth, Christ, through the revelation in the nous. You cannot experience Christ rationally. First, seek repentance. Then ask Christ to show you the way to Him, to Truth. It is Christ who has authority. Which church has Christ at its head? Find Christ and you will find His church.
Have you looked into Newman's Illative sense?
My question is: Could you please reference where the Catholic Church claims that the apostles themselves handed down icon veneration?
You may find this documentary helpful. Also, check out Seraphim Hamilton, a former Gospel Simplicity guest's YT Channel and look for the videos with Michael Gartner disputing Gavin Ortlund. There are several. They prove the case from archaeology, history, Scripture and the Church Fathers. ua-cam.com/video/7jvap4ItDlk/v-deo.html
I think if you have a need for an institution then anything less than that will probably shake your faith. Thankfully my confidence is in the Word of God not an institution.
The Word of God set up a Church so believe also in His Church which is Orthodoxy.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy and God never promised us a Church that doesnt have to submit its teachings to what He says.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 That statement is illogical and impossible.
That’s why I think Sola Scriptura is the wise choice.
One thing we all agree on is that the Scripture CANNOT be wrong.
But that doesn't help, because our interpretations of it can be very wrong. There isn't even a theoretical way under Sola Scriptura to identify a correct position. "Well this interpretation makes a lot of sense to me" is not an indication of truth, because "makes sense to me" is subjective: different things do or don't make sense to different people.
The interpretations of the ancient church have a much better chance of being correct, so immediately we get back to Orthodoxy or Catholicism as the best answer.
Thousands of competing interpretations can't all be right. The very idea of Sola Scriptura wouldn't have been feasible either before the invention of the printing press, 1500 years after Christ's death. What did everyone do before that?
The answer to your title question is yes: over time, the inner logic of Protestant private judgement, rejection of incarnational authority, and desacralization of the world inevitably lead to agnosticism/atheism/secularism. This is accepted as an obvious historical fact in academia. Suan Sonna has done a few videos on this.
Protestantism then Agnosticism then in the end Atheism is the logical conclusion if you lack an infallible mechanism ie: universal magisterium by which God revelation is guaranteed, articulated and preserved.
I was born and raised protestant and have always been so. I've observed on multiple occasions those raised Catholic who were more agnostic become devout when they convert to protestantism. Overall though I believe it's more a disposition more than anything else. We can only serve one master and many simply choose to only serve themselves.
Weak Catholics are easily pulled into Protestantism. Unfortunately we haven't had good catechesis in the last 50-60 years. As adults, many people choose to study too, where as children they were just doing what they were told to do and not really paying attention. "Church hopping" is common among Protestants too. Not all stick with the denomination they grew up in, because something else sounds more "true" later on, especially if someone outside of the family suggests it.
@@julieelizabeth4856 I’d say that’s true to a degree but even though I came from a low church solo scriptura upbringing I’m actually attracted to Lutheranism (at least classical Lutheranism as represented by Chemnitz, Gerhard, Hamann, and others) because I oddly think enough it’s more sola scriptura and more interested in reading scripture with the Church fathers than just through a lens of modernity
you make a lot of sense. I am greek orthodox and I said to a Catholic once, a catholic who was concerned about Vatican 2 maybe being wrong (which it is). That if the pope infallibly signed off on Vatican 2 dogma, that shows you the pope is not infallible when making doctrine and that itself is one of the big points of Roman Catholicism. That has been one of the big issues between the east and west. He could not answer it. I believe the Orthodox position is less susceptible to these issues because as Pope Benedict said, the orthodox church is petrified (turned to rock) and hasn't let go of the first 1000 years of history. Kind of funny when another Roman claim is as the inheritor of Peter the rock.
And I don’t understand the comment “stretch credulity.” We literally believe a man was crucified and died and three days later rose from the dead. If you believe that then it should be easy to believe something like God making Mary one of the first participants in the new life meant for us. Also what of all the Marian apparitions and miracles surrounding her? Have you investigated this much?
I don't really see a problem with honest agnosticism. The statement, "I don't know," implies that you have questions that you want answered. This is entirely different from shrugging off the proposition of God's existence with a skeptical "I don't care." Skepticism hides behind the position, "prove it to me," which is antithetical to faith. But true agnosticism is a quest for knowledge that should support or disprove truth claims. If Christianity is true, and it is, then agnosticism will eventually reach that conclusion. Plain skepticism, on the other hand, stands in the way of honest seeking for Truth. Not every Truth can be proven like a mathematical theorem, which is what skepticism demands.
Maybe not agnosticism, but definitely relativism.
Also, the Protestant experiment has led to the current secular modern world. Since Protestantism is a process of reducing the faith to smaller and smaller sets of doctrines, it's a short jump to saying that none of them can be known for sure.
LOL. It was not Protestantism that led to secularism. It was the ideologies of secular philophers that led to that. Combine that with corporatism, mass media manipulation, and the takeover of educational institutions by marxists and communists.
we didn’t choose the families we were born into, our intelligence level, what access to information we would have, what spiritual influences would enter our lives. you just have to surrender to christ and ask that he spiritually lead you. you will literally go insane….trust me… i was falling into utter despair. no matter what “side” you chose, somebody thinks your going to hell. i was so arrogantly assured in my own little theological bubble before and very judgmental of non-christians. i now have a deep understanding how difficult faith can be.
Please explain how any of your arguments mean “therefore I stay evangelical and without a bishop even though I know every Christian ever says I need one”
But they have Bishop TD Jakes 😂😂😂
I hope you continue to pray for an increase in faith - understanding will follow. Don’t be discouraged by the vastness of information. Too much would be lost if one demanded an oversimplification. Ultimately the Church is accepted as true or not. But consider this - what are the implications if the Church is wrong?
Hi Austin, I think a better question to ask is whether Protestantism leads to amorphous, liberal Christianity. I say this because a person might have a strong conviction about the truth of Christianity (perhaps even just the basic claim that God raised Jesus from the dead), maybe because of experiential reasons, but they may find it difficult to identify what Christianity is, precisely.
My experience is that the same scepticism keeping one from Catholicism destroys the Classical Protestant position, if not faith altogether.
I'd love to know what is stopping you from sliding across the spectrum to the kind of liberalism that denies (for example) the authority and reliability of Scripture, but continues to identify with Christianity in some way.
This could be an interesting follow up
My Orthodox priest said we didn't have to believe in the Dormition, which I thought was kind of crazy. He said the minimum was the Nicene Creed. This is just what he told me. I know an amazing Orthodox man who doesn't believe people will be in hell forever, but will all repent and get out at the final judgment. He's a layman, but he chants, fasts, loves Jesus with his whole heart, but his theology is not typical. I think it's a broad tent, amazingly.
This is my same observation from a Catholic perspective! At Mass we only profess the Nicene Creed. This is significant. Never, for example, was I asked to stand up and explicitly proclaim the Assumption. I think your Orthodox priest would stress that we must be intellectually honest with our own capacity to understand these matters. Perfectly "understanding" the Magisterium of the Church in every area and "trusting" in that Magisterium are two different things. I often say that I could very easily be Orthodox if my local situation were different. As it is, the Catholic Church is the most organic fit for me. I believe with Yves Congar and John Paul II that the Church must breath with both of her lungs.
Unfortunately the belief that everyone will eventually will be saved is a heresy of Origen called apocatastasis. It was anathematized at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Do not be deceived. We do not teach that.
@@quayscenesStop trying to deceive an Orthodox inquirer with your ecumenistic panheresy. We will not submit to your Pope.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jyYou don’t submit to logic
It's as if you're shopping for a good deal. Sometimes you buy something that you fall in love with, even if its not a good value!
This is an important topic, and one you have inspired us to cover in our next episode (hopefully coming out this Tuesday!)
The downside of internet apologetics is that each tradition in convinced the literature clearly leads to them, and it is only because someone hasn't read enough that they have not converted to Orthodoxy/Catholicism/Etc. The reality is this isn't true, and it only produces a false sense of intellectual superiority, or worse, accusations of intellectual dishonesty to non-converts.
One primary issue is the mischaracterization that traditional Protestants are bound only by personal interpretations of Scripture (ie: no creed but the Bible, or "pastor Jim said..."). This is certainly true for new age groups such as restorationists, but entirely false for those who would consider themselves part of the Protestant tradition.
Traditional, or magisterial, Protestants are bound by the authority of the early councils and three creeds of the church, there is no room for rejecting these teachings as foundational for faith and practice. There is, however, a difference between these three traditions in what they hold as valuable or essential, as you have pointed out.
For those interested, we will be engaging with this topic this week, and our conversation will feature both a Protestant who has joyfully converted to Catholicism, as well as one who has remained Protestant.
Our goal is not to defend one tradition or the other, but to provide clarity and continue the discussion on this topic of conversion and ecclesiastical homelessness.
all comes down to objective Truth and the importance of tradition, hierarchy, and authority.
protestantism heavily emphasizes self interpretation to scripture and there hardly any guard rails preventing the endless proliferation of new denominations (that have core theological disagreements with each other) and like you mentioned unhealthy skepticism leading to agnosticism or worse atheism from deconstruction. Roman Catholicism has the Pope and the Magisterium while EO have the Patriarchs with both having Apostolic succession and the sacred traditions anchored to them.
Q: Did Jesus lie when He said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth?
If yes: become agnostic or atheist (as Christ is a liar)
If no: become Roman Catholic or Orthodox (as apostolic succession is the universal witness of the church)
Excited for this video! I vote no, because the evidence for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus is there and needs to be taken into account. In my experience, though, it has led to flirtations with deism - questioning whether God is choosing to be actively at work in revealing Himself and guiding people into truth.
This video does well articulate many views I have about the fine line of tradition and apostasy. I am into apologetics, and so I want to be consistent. I should regularly ask myself where I'm being charitable to basic Christianity and uncharitable to Traditional Theology.
For example, the Four Gospels authors have been traditionally held by all Christians from as early as about 180 A.D., and is only recently coming into question. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary tradition has also been held by the entire Church as early as about 150 A.D., and has only recently come into question by Protestants over the last 200 years. So, is it inconsistent to accept the tradition that dates as early as 180, but not the tradition that dates as early as 150?
Now, if we're just going by dates we know these traditions were introduced by, then holding to the Traditional Authors while rejecting the Perpetual Virginity would be inconsistent. But things are never that simple. The Gospel authors are not just Clement of Alexander and Irenaeus of Lyons who said this about the same time, but also Tertullian 20 years later, and lost writings of Papias about 50 years earlier, as well as many other quotations within the Church Fathers. In contrast, that earliest source of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a gnostic source which is known to be a forgery (The Protoevangelium of James). Furthermore, the multiple mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the Gospels would be more likely given they are actual brothers and sisters. I've found all the Catholic and Orthodox responses to the "brothers of the Lord" lacking.
So it is not just the date the belief is introduced, but the evidence in addition. And that matters a lot. I think dogma is by definition believing something regardless the standing of the evidence, and so if I find a teaching to be lacking sufficient evidence, I am going to be skeptical about it, and I think that's honest. And you're right, -to the outside world these unsubstantial dogmas do make Christianity look bad. Young Earth Creationism alone has driven thousands away from the faith.
But as for me, I think the Anonymous Authors Theory atheists promote is more desperate dogmas than the Perpetual Virginity.
Answer is, yes.
I have given a bit up on my obsession with finding the one true church and faith. I enjoy my Protestant background. Do I think it's the only true church? No, and I understand why a lot people are dissatisfied with it. But I feel my home there at the moment. Orthodoxy feels foreign and wouldn't let me concert without my partner converting too, which I don't want to force upon her, as she is baptized somewhat agnostix Christian.
Have you heard of the word theologoumena before? It's not a word that easily rolls off the tongue, but I believe it's the word that you're describing without realizing. It means the things that fall under individual opinion rather than authoritative doctrine. While it doesn't cover things like iconodulia (that is doctrinally enshrined in Orthodoxy), it does cover things as well established as the Dormition of the Theotokos to even things like the immaculate conception. It's worth researching and I hope this helps in some way.
The Dormition of the Theotokos is not a theologoumena. It's a major feast of our Church.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Kinda interesting how it works, but its both a major feast and a theologoumenon actually. This is one of the points of the disagreement we Orthodox have with Catholics because it's a matter of historical fact and is a major part of the tradition, but the Orthodox have never seen it necessary to dogmatize it like the Catholics have
@@jairiske I'm not sure if the Dormition of the Theotokos is mentioned in any of the Ecumenical Councils. Even if it's not, according to lex orandi it can't be a theologoumenon. It's what we believe because we have it in our hymnography. You can't pick and choose which feasts you want or don't want to believe in Orthodoxy.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy I agree that the dormition is something we believe and not doing so would be inconsistent. What I'm describing is a hierarchy. Its not a dogma of the church because its not necessary to salvation, however to deny it is to deny a historical fact
My favorite word! 😸
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, I’m on the same path you are on. In many ways it’s uncomfortable, I wish I could just trust the church right. When you have various teachings that are a regular practice of faith in the life of a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, but they are not in scripture or can’t be historically traced back to the apostles then what do I do? I feel like the common argument I hear from priest is just come to the church and start doing what bothers you. The problem I have is this doesn’t prove whether that teaching is true but forces yourself into a routine that you become comfortable with and accept eventually at some point. I say this with great respect to Catholic and Orthodox Christian’s. There is much I am learning from you as someone who comes from Protestantism. I just cannot break my conscience on certain teachings that don’t seem to be apostolic, if I turn out to be wrong, may it be that the Lord has mercy on me.
I do agree that such advice, while common, is not very helpful. If we applied it to other things, we would quickly see it's not always wise
I would read the christian mystics. They have helped me slow down over rationalizing everything and I trust my internal experience so much more know.
Interesting.
After many years of research on the history of the Church, patristic texts and various Christian traditions, I come to the conclusion that there is something wrong in each of them. I think we have a very romantic vision that one of the denominations contains 100% truth and is exactly the church that Christ intended (at least in terms of doctrines and practices). I think we have to accept that each tradition is a divine-human creation and that is why in each of them we will find some errors, strange practices, weaknesses and dogmatic statements in areas where there are great doubts. I am very attracted to Catholicism and Orthodoxy because of the tradition and beauty of the liturgy, but entering these churches I would feel like I was committing suicide on my own mind by accepting as a dogma something that common sense and available sources tell me are not true. If these churches did not emphasize their elitism so strongly and did not put at least the most questionable issues on a knife's edge, it would probably be easier for me.
So you think we Orthodox people lack common sense? That's pretty arrogant.
can you elaborate this "feel like I was committing suicide on my own mind by accepting as a dogma something that common sense and available sources tell me are not true", about the dogma and what "common sense" and available sources thats said its not true... cause i seen different things from sources in the west and east
I am 100% with you on this. Trust your conscience and pray. The Lord will lead you. I've been going to a Catholic church for 25 years, because my wife is Catholic, but I remain Protestant while I study the Fathers and the Early Church. If it wasn't there in the beginning, or it wasn't agreed upon in Ecclesiastic Council before the Schism, I don't feel compelled to accept it.
Protestants dropped out a lot that maybe they shouldn't have, but both the Orthodox and Catholics developed their own peculiarities. God knows your devotion. Choose to follow Him, and He will lead you.
@@bad_covfefe-- Maybe you just lack humility.