If you're interested in a more scriptural explanation for why I chose Catholicism over Protestantism, you can see this old, but still relevant video: ua-cam.com/video/HkqPjxp2Ltw/v-deo.html
I'm confused you are trying to prove what your saying by showing hower faults this is culcher shock to me I never knew that this was a problem my church that I call overbearing changing i would be surprised there was a debate on allowing contemporary christian music in the church this is a problem that I didn't know about but your church allow idolatry the worship of Mary and the saints infant baptism speaking to the dead you didn't disprove anything you know you can't defend it so you don't even talk about any of these points at all so you just put the attention to us and replacing false doctrine with reason like confessing to a priest for forgiveness and changing the the Sabbath I digress I don't like my church over use of Ellen G White and there proud attitude I try not to have a bias to my church or my self it was hard trying not to defend Elin G White but I had to learn you need to do too my friend
@@antoniochristie1231 You can't use the proven false prophecies of Elin G White because that's why most Christians consider the SDA a non Christian cult. i can give you Bible verses for all your questions (as you will see below and on Brian's videos), but first you must answer my following questions?:1. If every man from Adam to Moses kept the Sabbath, why is the Hebrew word for the weekly Sabbath found in the ten commandments, never found in the book of Genesis? Why is no one before Moses ever being told to keep the Sabbath. Why are there no examples of anyone keeping the Sabbath? 2. Why were the Patriarchs never instructed about he Sabbath, but were instructed regarding: offerings: Gen 4:3-4, Altars Gen 8:20, Priests: Gen 14:18, Tithes: Gen 14:20, Circumcision: Gen 17:10, Marriage: Gen 2:24 & Gen 34:9. Why would God leave out the "all important" Sabbath command? 3. If the fact that God wrote the 10 commandments on stone proves they are forever, then whatever happened to the two stone tablets that God gave Adam at the beginning of time? Why is Moses the first one to see a stone tablet written by the finger of God? 4. Why is the weekly Sabbath commandment never quoted in the New Testament? 5. Why is the Sabbath the only one of the ten commandments that are said to be "throughout your generations", the usual phrase that indicates it was a temporary ceremonial law only for the Jews? 6. Why is there no example of exclusively Christians coming together on the Sabbath day as a church or prayer meeting after the resurrection of Christ? 7. Why is there no command in the New Testament for Christians to keep the Sabbath holy? 8. While Paul taught in the synagogues up to 84 times, why does the Bible never say he kept the sabbath? 9. If Paul's action of preaching to non-believers 84 times in the book of Acts on the Sabbath make him a Sabbath keeper, is a Seventh-day Adventist pastor a Sunday keeper if we invite him for 84 Sundays in a row to teach us about God's word? 10. How could Adam, Noah and Abraham keep the Sabbath, when Deuteronomy 5:2-4 says that the 10 commandment covenant (see was "not made with any of the fathers of Israel who lived before Moses." 11. If the Sabbath was intended for all people, both Jew and Gentile, then why does Exodus 31:16-17 state that the Sabbath was a sign between God and the "Children of Israel" instead of clarifying that it should be kept by all people of all nations for all time? 12. Why is the Sabbath never mentioned in the Book of Job? The title character of this book is said to be the most righteous and religious man that ever lived (next to Jesus), but with that being the case, how come his story is completely void of any reference to the Sabbath or any other law/restriction given by Moses? 13. If breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death in the Old Testament (Exodus 31:14 & 35:2), why is it not condemned in any way, shape, or form in the New Testament? Various passages in the New Testament list numerous types of sinners who will not inherit the kingdom (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Revelation 21:8 & 22:15), but none of those lists ever mention Sabbath-breakers. Why is that?
@William Cloud "We got our bible from Wycliffe who translated it from your twisted scriptured evil Latin Vulgate to English." Okay, this line is interesting. You got your bible from Wycliffe. Doesn´t that sound disturbing even to you? From one man? I´d much rather trust the Church that Christ founded. Second, if the Vulgate is "twisted and evil" then how is it possible that its mere TRANSLATION is somehow not twisted and evil?
@William Cloud I believe that you do know that when Christ said ‘call know man father’ he was employing hyperbole; You just choose to ignore it. When Stephen the first martyr preaches to the unbelievers, he refers to Abraham as father; Acts 7:2. When Paul is defending himself against the mob, he address them as fathers; Acts 22:1. In 1 Cor 4:15 Paul gives himself the title father. There is no way that anyone killed 100million. That is such a silly claim! 100 million REALLY! You fail to mention how Calvinist Protestants killed Lutheran Protestants for refusing to deny the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist; John 6:52-60. Nor How many Catholics were killed by Protestants. Read 2 Thessalonians 2:15 on tradition and please good luck trying to find a verse to back up the man-made teaching of Sola Scriptura. Mary is in the bible and has nothing to do with the false clam pagan Goddess thing. Luke 1:28, Lk 1:43, Lk1:48 and the anti-Christ attacks the Church that defends Mary in Revelations 12.
I was born Catholic then left became an atheist then Catholic again for about a month then became protestant. I originally found your channel when i was a protestant and watched your video on why you arent protestant. You made very good points but i was blinded by pride. I reverted back to Catholicisim a month ago when i went to Eucharistic addoration. i could not deny that the Eucharist was Jesus. I could no longer be a protestant after, im glad to have a united community in Catholisism as well like Jesus prayed for. happy to be home :).
was it necessary to be baptised again.? i mean,you were already baptised as a child ,and baptism can be recieved only once. so,wa there any special prayer or ritual for your reconciliation with the catholic church?
@William Cloud I'm sorry but this is not correct. All Christian's (both Catholics and Protestants alike) receive an indwelling of the Holy Spirit through Trinitarian Baptism. This is has been consistently understood since the time of the apostles, coming directly from our Lord in John 3:5. We should hope and pray for all men to be Baptized, as this is the great commission given to us by Christ. God bless.
@William Cloud I'd like to hear what you think "being born again of water and the spirit" means. It also seems like you're ignoring Matthew 28:19 when Christ says, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
Jesus as THE LOGOS was one of the major reasons I reverted back to Catholicism. At the very early stages of my journey I had already decided that relativism was stupid, that there is objective truth... I may not know what it is, but I could be humble enough to pursue it. I learned the idea that Jesus is the Logos and how that relates to consciousness... the ability to reason. We can know truth by use of logic. We have truth because God IS Truth, in the same way that we have love because God IS Love (philosophical particulars vs universals vs THE Universal). In my journey back the question was on the table of protestantism or catholicism. I stumbled upon where the idea of relativism began - the idea of the "double truth" proposed by Marcilius of Padua. Luther was a fan. Marcilius said that there are some things you can know by faith like the creed and some things you can know by reason like science and they can contradict each other and both be true. When I dug further into this idea I saw that one way this was proven was by showing that the concept of The Trinity was inherently illogical by using a deductive reasoning formula. But they made an error in their calculations!!! Eventually Luther took these ideas, called reason the "devil's handmaid" and warned people against using it. Reason cannot be inherently evil if Jesus is the Logos! Therefore, protestantism is founded on the splitting of faith FROM reason. Catholics believe in faith AND reason... Multiple truths vs one objective truth. Jesus is the Logos, ie. Divine Reason and creative order. Relativism is chaos... just look at our world. When you look at how logos process/ordering works you realise you place objective truth outside of yourself, humble yourself enough to agree you need to learn it, and journey toward it. You place as your highest value something that is outside of yourself. This is the very premise of what is the model of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. It is this that western civilisation is built on... hence we are logos-centric. The opposite of this, which is the model of relativism, is to not place the locus of truth outside of yourself but within yourself, think your truth is yours and no one can change it thereby not work towards refining which leads to idol worship of the self. It is the very premise of the model of EQUAL OUTCOME. Protestantism at its foundational core, which began with the alteration of the definition of truth itself, leads to a kind of idol worship of the self... in a way that stunts growth in holiness. Hence sola fide takes primacy in their doctrine... (and even that can be refuted scripturally very easily.) God bless all you protestants... really I do love you and pray constantly for you. As Scott Hahn describes it, it's a kind of schizophrenia of truth. Hence chaos. So some of what is believed is very true while other ideas are like half truths or incomplete truths. I personally cannot accept this idea of double truths and relativism. I love my protestant friends, but I do not love this idea. I truly do understand We live in really confusing times as these ideas now have percolated for centuries and are the predominant modern worldview. I just don't think it's true. [Might I recommend Scott Hahn's "Forerunners of the Reformation". Scott is a protestant minister who converted to Catholicism. ua-cam.com/video/CTMX4C169bg/v-deo.html]
"Relativism is chaos... just look at our world." I lived my adult life as an agnostic/atheist/Buddhist. Then the relativism of our age, which has grown increasingly hostile and illogical, propelled me to reconsider God. I wanted something long-tried, thoroughly considered, and less susceptible to whims. I am attending the Catholic church.
I'm finding less and less reasons to remain a Protestant. Edit: I watched Brian’s supplementary video on why he converted to Catholicism. As he mentioned Matthew 7:21-23, I felt an overwhelming sense of dread; a realization that merely professing Faith in Christ is insufficient in order to be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Second Edit: I wanted to update you all and say I made my general confession on August 7th and just was confirmed into the Catholic Church (August 11th, 2024) and received my first Holy Communion. Thank you for the initial nudge in the right direction, Brian 🙏
You will always be welcome to the Catholic Church. Keep digging and you will find many more reasons for coming back home. Until then, I'll be praying for you as my brother in Christ.
I'm curious, are you Methodist, Lutheran or Calvanist? These are a pretty easy switch with regards to the other -- not so savory -- protestant theology out there. In any case, I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms if all requirements and education are met.
Heh. I know how you feel. That's where I was, fourteen years ago. I entered the Catholic Church in 2010. Allow me to encourage you: For every single question you have about the Catholic faith, there IS a good answer. When you find that answer, you'll often find yourself saying, "That's so beautiful! That's so exactly right! That explains so much!" And then you'll find yourself saying, "Why didn't anybody ever tell me this before? Why were the Catholics I knew, most of them, so bad at explaining it? Why did I have to look so hard to find someone who could spell it out clearly and winsomely? Why did even some of the clergy try to water it down, or downplay it, instead?" If you're like me, you may even say, "Good grief, the Catholic faith is like the biggest Secret Conspiracy in the whole world...and still true! And yet it somehow manages to BE a big misunderstood secret in spite of being perfectly open and available to all honest inquirers. How does that even happen?" Hang in there. It's a wild ride. Have faith in God. Keep praying something along these lines, "God, I will go where You want me to go, say what You want me to say, do what You want me to do, and give away whatever You would have me give away....only, don't let me be led astray into anything other than Your Truth, and if there's some part of Your Truth that I'm unable yet to grasp, give me the humility to patiently accept my own confusion, and don't let me come hastily to a wrong conclusion just because it's easier on my brain!" One more thing: I said above that, for every question about the Catholic faith, there IS a good answer. I have found this to be true. BUT..., for certain contentious topics, I found myself stuck for a long time. Others have experienced this; and it's different topics for different persons. For some people, it's the papacy. Not for me: Once I understood the Petrine Office as the New Covenant version of the Al Bayith (chamberlain/prime minister/grand vizier/chief steward) under the Davidic Kings, many things related to the papacy suddenly became clear. Isaiah 22's description of the role a good Al Bayith (Eliakim) should play in the Kingdom looked just like a good pope; whereas the earlier description of a bad, embezzling, presumptuous Al Bayith (Shebna) looked a lot like the bad popes. But the Marian stuff was less-easy for me. I could see how the Marian dogmas *could* be true; but I couldn't easily see why I should be fully confident that they *were* true. And more than that, there was the *way* guys like St. Louis de Montfort talked about Mary. I had to remind myself: "I'm a 21st century American. By the standards of most human cultures over the ages, I'm cold and unemotional. But de Montfort is a Frenchman from 200 years ago. All that flowery, poetical, over-expressive devotional verbiage fits how he thinks you should address the King's Mom. I guess what I'm saying is: There is excellent reason to hold that the Catholic Church is exactly what she claims to be: Christ's intended community of disciples for communicating the gospel to the world, constituted of all those in communion with an Apostolic Successor bishop who's in communion with the Petrine Successor, preserving the faith through time until He returns, in spite of being populated by a mix of good and bad men, wheat and tares, Eliakims and Shebnas. But I think God doesn't usually allow us to become fully-comfortable with EVERY doctrine in Catholicism BEFORE we decide to become Catholic. In my experience, what He does is: - He lets you become familiar with just enough to know that it's true, even if there are bits you don't "get"; - He shows you some part that you explicitly DON'T "get," at least not yet; - ...and then He says, "You already know enough. Do you trust Me with the rest?" Like I said: A wild ride. God bless.
Would love to have you in the church , my recommendation , either a Eastern Catholic Rite or a TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) church like the FSSP . God Be With You.
Probably a stupid question but you say you finding less reasons to remain a protestant, is this because you are losing faith in god? Is it because you disagree with doctrine? BOTH?
Getting confirmed this Christmas, your channel has been a major help in me understand the Catholic method of faith and spirituality, I can say from experience coming from a Pentecostal church i had arguments with my fellow church-goers because I tried to make a pro life argument, but from a secular philosophical standpoint, and they got mad at me for not defending the pro life stance by quoting the Bible, and this was well before I ever began exploring Catholicism, so yeah I can definitely relate to this annoying mindset.
@@Arguvandal Yeah, the were upset that my defense of pro life doesnt include a "because God says so" argument. I don't know how they can't understand that you can't say God says so as an argument if the other person doesn't believe in God. And they didn't like that
@@LucasKellis mindblowing. Of course God is not okay with it, but even if I would look at it the "secular" way I would still think it vile. Some people who follow our Lord really need to stop being so hostile to other believers...
As a catechumen, with a Baptist background, I'm learning more, not only about the Gospel, but the importance of Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture; along the way, I'm realizing what was missing in my Baptist experience, reasoning, logic, and the bonding of the Church by rituals and rites. Not bandage, which enslaves the mind and destroys the soul, but a unity of brotherhood, which strengthens believers and shows forth Christ in Christian love. I thank God for my new Catholic family, and I hope to prove a worthy disciple of Christ.
Jesus Christ did not write or send a Book : he sent apostles. And those apostles or their successors decide to write or authorize the book we know. "There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written."
You nailed it when talking about "Secular Stage Production", Bands, Smoke Machines and lets not forget in house coffee shops, I am going through RCIA and will join the Church this Easter. I never dreamed I wouod be converting to Catholicism until I walk into a Catherdral on a whim for Mass, no coffee, no band (just a beautiful choir), no talking, just silent reverence and kneeling before our Lord, The whole Mass was dedicated to worship, not a bumch of frivolous distractions followed by a brief feel good message, I have not looked back since. I God everyday for leading my wife and I to the Catholic Church. You have a new subscriber, love your videos!!
Precisely! They cut the 73 down to 66 with a pair of scissors, it's pathetic. Aside from that the person claiming something isn't in the Bible isn't in the Bible themselves.
@Breas the Beautiful read the actual passage with the commandments in both Exodus and Deuteronomy, it's more than obvious that Protestants subdivided them wrong.
Also Luther saying: Jesus you were wrong, your church HAS been prevailed by the gates of hell, but no worries I will set it right - (goes on and starts Protestantism)
@Breas the Beautiful we don't pray to statues, they are merely reminders. We pray to God in heaven. Would you consider creating all statues a sin? Or only praying to them? Cause I don't know where you heard that we PRAY TO THEM. If you have photographs of your family on the wall should I assume you PRAY TO THEM? Or that they are just there to remind you of those who passed away?
Yep- I was an atheist that eventually became Catholic *because* of their rich, rational, philosophical arguments... Quoting the bible at me wouldn't have done ANYTHING.
@@Melissa-gn3dv Jesus was responding to Satan who was quoting Scripture the only way he does. Out of context to promote a lie. Moral of the story? NEVER interpret Scripture outside of the Church Jesus established and gave His authority to. Jesus also warned the Pharisees that they search the Scriptures yet still refuse to come to Him. So we learn that even enemies of Jesus can quote Scripture and even study it and STILL not believe the AUTHENTIC Jesus as opposed to the imaginary one they invent. Who saves NOBODY.
@@Melissa-gn3dv I think the results vary depending on the condition of people's hearts. Scripture says God hardened people's hearts who already were fighting against him, like Pharoah. God's word can be shared with thousands but most of them will probably reject it because of their heart condition.
@@mrjeffjob When pope John Paul 2nd kissed the Quran was he doing so because of the interpretation of scripture in the Roman church? Seems like obvious heresy to do such a thing. (Edit - the Quran is heretical and a denial of the Christian faith)
@@mrjeffjob When the Roman church offers communion to known unrepentant sinners who support abortion and homosexual marriage, are they doing so from a correct interpretation of scripture?
As a protestant, I am very surprised by the fact that your use of logical arguments more than anything else was opposed by protestants of all people, especially considering that I have found that rational argument consistently tends to be the most reliable way to debate and persuade non-Christians about many of our theological convictions, and have been encouraged by my church to use my reasoning for exactly this purpose.
@Collins Anosike OK, thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, many people do think that the Church teaches that sex is only for procreation and nothing else, so we should be careful about reinforcing that misconception. Also, I think MariaSonia was in fact defending the virginity of Mary.
In case you haven't already, you might want to read Pope Benedict's "Regensburg Address" which addresses the necessary role of reason in any concept of god.
Aquinas arguments are medieval bullshit which several atheists debunked many times. I would say the existentialist approach is the best argument for Christianity. I mean Kierkegaard and Dostoevskij
I left Protestantism for Catholicism because I couldn't find a logical reason to stay (and many logical reasons I _should_ make the change) and all the while, various Protestants were saying that I didn't have enough faith that [insert their particular tradition here] was the right way and that I shouldn't use reason to make decisions like this.
@Levi Care to elaborate how that went down? Also. As a Protestant it’s been my POV that a rising secular culture makes the old Prot.-Cath. squabbles a luxury we can no longer indulge. Yet IMO neither side can quite claim a high ground either.
@@JNF-SATX Here's the "short" version of the story: I was raised in a Protestant home on the "evangelical" end of the spectrum. I had nearly zero interaction with Catholics (other than those who were only Catholic by name) and basically thought of them as just another denomination, and one that likes tradition a lot. As an adult, I started a new job working in close quarters with a pair of passionate Catholics (one a convert from agnostic opinions, and the other born and raised Catholic). I realised that I should do a better job of understanding _what_ I believe and be able to defend my beliefs, as not everyone can be right. As I started trying to put my opinions down on paper, I took two different directions. I would say "I believe _this_ is correct because..." and then I'd also take the offensive position and say "I *don't* believe in _this opposing opinion_ because...". The first thing I realized was that all the reasons I had been given and continued to be told that Catholicism was a valid form of Christianity were a combination of misunderstanding, intentional misdirection, "fake news", and things like that. It didn't take long for me to truly believe that my Catholic co-workers were "just as Christian" as I was. At this point my stance was "If what the Catholic Church teaches is in fact what they believe and the anti-Catholic stuff I had heard is nonsense, there's nothing wrong with that." The problem was that I realised I _liked_ a lot of the "traditional things" done in the Catholic Church and more "traditional" denominations. I liked the candles, the insence, the days for remembering special occasions and people. As I read more about them, I couldn't find any reason _not_ to partake in those traditional things, and that being more involved in my faith would be a beneficial change from my lax, unstructured form of faith. As much as I didn't want to admit the the Catholic Church was correct in their opinions on a myriad of issues, I had to be honest and say that if the Catholic Church was truly a valid form of Christianity, it would benefit my personal faith to explore joining. This was where things got messy. My mom, my wife's mom (my wife was a few steps behind me at this point, going in the same direction), our pastors at the Canadian Reformed Church we were attending, and various other connections from different backgrounds started to voice their opinions. They'd say "The Catholic Church is wrong because of _this_ and _this_ and _this_." And I would either respond with "_That_ isn't something the Catholic Church teaches" or "What makes your church denomination right on that issue", and in the end, I could never get a solid "Our church is right because" rather than a "Catholic Church is wrong because" kind of answer. In the end, the only set of doctrines that consistently could defend themselves on every question I could ask, as well as show a historical precedent for their existence (i.e. not just showing up out of the blue 500 years ago) were the doctrines of the Catholic Church. My mom doesn't like the choice, but her opinion is that we don't have to follow "all the wrong teachings" (the things she disagrees with) of the Catholic Church to participate, and that we are still saved. My mother-in-law, on the other hand, has said that we're "being risky with our salvation" by following "too many traditions of men" while at the same time, being unable to defend her own traditions. I agree with your comment about the squabbles. The various disagreements and lines being drawn within Christianity have made it rather hard to defend it to an outsider. If it were possible for all of us to team up and be consistent in our appearance and actions from "the world's" point of view, it would be so much easier to defend our beliefs!
Jacob Felty I agree with you there is way too much fighting that is still happening between Catholics and Protestants. As a Protestant I can see many Catholics who have Christ as their Lord and many who do not. Same goes for Protestants. I'd rather both sides get together and logically talk about our differences instead of name calling which accomplishes nothing good.
Levi I left organized religion, with all its creeds and dogmas and virgin births, because I couldn´t find a logical reason to stay. It was time to think for myself instead of having a religion do the thinking for me.
Hold up, did you just use Steven Furtick as an example of "Conservative Christianity"? Look up R.C. Sproul Sr., John MacArthur, Matt Chandler, Alistair Begg... Those men are genuine conservative christian pastors.
1517 lol, you could see it that way, or you could see that their heart is in honouring God and what He had left us in His word to the best of their understanding. The altar, by which I believe you mean communion, they respect as the rich symbolism that Christ meant it to be, there is no need to make it more significant than it already is by adding in strange mysticism when the very act of partaking irreverently is said in scripture to be taking on a judgement against oneself. It is the same with baptism, it is important in its symbology, in the obedience to Christ, and in it’s public nature, why add anything more? Why add mystic properties to such a rich sacrament? Especially since the scriptures do no such thing? As for double predestination even the staunchest Calvinist would agree that you don’t have to believe it to be saved. But in all honesty I would rather be a bit of a humbug but in line with the word of God than the alternative.
@@AlexandreFrenetteJ this response actually shows no knowledge about what "Sacrament" or "mystic" means. This old rationalist heresy of leaving behind the transcendence of Divine symbols can be very persuasive, but Christ states clearly im the Gospel that when He talked about his flesh and blood, He really meant it.
@@gustavofontinelli9662 No, not at all, and the text is very clear on that: see Luke 22:17-20 "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the (n.1)fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. (n.2)Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you (n.3)is the new covenant in my blood." n.1 - Jesus himself said "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine" hence it is wine, and remains so. n.2 - He specifically says "...Do this in remembrance of me.” highlighting the clear purpose of this new sacrament, that this is to be a new tradition in the same way as Passover was the old tradition, using the elements, bread and wine, as symbolic tools in the same way was unleavened bread and the lamb was used to remember the circumstances in which Israel left Egypt. Just as no Jew would have believed that the 10th plague would strike his family if he failed to observe Passover properly but the symbolism remained significant, Communion doesn't entail literally partaking of Jesus' flesh and blood rather it symbolizes the believer's partaking of Christ's sacrifice. n.3 - The wine symbolizes the new covenant (in His blood which is soon to be spilled). Don't get me wrong, symbolism is highly important and useful, but also don't make it weird and add a whole bunch of extra-scriptural esoteric nonsense that only serves to distract from the purpose of the sacrament.
@@AlexandreFrenetteJ Again, tje sacraments are not just symbolism, as shown in John VI, 47-55 I Corinthians XI, 23-26 and 27 In this verses, we have Christ responding to Jews, who worried what he actually meant by eating his body, that His flesh is food INDEED and His Blood is drink INDEED. Then, St Paul says that we Christians must eat and drink His body until He comes and also we are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord if consuming it in an unworthy manner.
Me too. But he was immersed in the Medieval intellectual tradition which was exclusively Catholic. He also had a lot of help from his Catholic friend, Mr. Tolkien.
C.S.Lewis was the first to make it clear to me that, as soon as a materialist claims to be making a true statement, he has departed from materialism, because mere matter and energy can be neither true or false. In other words, as Brian implies here, once you get a materialist atheist arguing / reasoning with you, you've already won, because he's sawn off the branch he was sitting on. God bless you, sirs. Free Thulcandra!
Please pray for my girlfriend. It's short-lived for us to have a conversation about Christianity (she's non-denominational and I'm Catholic). We try to show each other videos and sermons, and we can have a good conversation about it for a few minutes, but it always seems too short like there's something missing. It's also seemingly fruitless to start a conversation about Christianity and hold onto it for more than a few minutes. We're both religious, but we can never seem to keep the fire going. Please pray for us.
It's not about who's right or wrong. It's about loving what you both know is true: God loves you JesusChrist did not 'die' for catholics or protestants He died for us all. I am a Catholic, my husband is evangelical. Bottom line : we want the same, but have different ways to get there
If either one of you don't convert to the others beliefs, you to non denominational or her to Catholicism, assuming you both want kids, it won't work out. The faith you both would want to raise your kids in will cause a lot of relationship problems for you two. One of you will want to raise them as Catholics and the other as non denominational. I encourage you to end it while you can. I'm on the outside looking in so I know my comment doesn't hold that much weight to you and should be taken with a grain of salt. But end it before you do something life changing like impregnating her or marrying her. I know it's easier said than done.
You need to get a Catholic girlfriend. Break up with this one today. Faith is the core of every other thing in a person's life, you need a partner who's on the same page with you.
joseph jackson You need the Holy Spirit’s leading my friend. He’s the only One who is able to give clarity. Seek Him and ask for guidance. And regarding the other comments suggesting to leave because of denomination. I have a question; have you surrendered to the same Jesus? Are you living for Him? For that’s the true essence of Christianity period, regardless of denomination. God bless
“We’re not going to convince atheists to convert to Christianity by quoting scripture at them”. Logically, I would agree with this. Before I was a Christian, “Bible thumpers” were the last people I wanted to listen to. If I was to be convinced that there was a God, I wanted a logical, verifiable reason to do so. But that wasn’t what caused my conversion. I found myself under the sound of God’s word one day, and that broke through to me. Maybe others have different experiences, but that was mine. I’m nondenominational btw, but I find Catholicism and Orthodoxy very interesting and I hope to learn more. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. (Romans 10:17)
The Bible was created by the Church as an education tool for Christians. It is not the be-all and end-all. New converts will not be convinced by our education tool, so we need to try other ways. The Gospel of St John was written to evangelise the Greeks, and incorporated Greek philosophy, which was true, into Christian theology. This was extremely successful at gaining converts.
That was an absolutely beautiful and lucid description of how we evangelize both atheists and agnostics. That is probably one of my favorite talks you’ve given, so elegantly put and so simple.
Along with logical progressions and reason, I believe the Church gives us a very PHYSICAL way to worship Christ that is deeply rooted in scripture and apostolic tradition. Not only does it connect us throughout time to the body of Christ, it physically, spiritually, and mentally connects us to our faith by holding us accountable and giving us many daily resources to help us in our faith journey. I thank God every day for my Catholic faith that keeps me grounded and anchored in the Lord!
Brian , first time poster I love your videos and approach like sitting across from a friend , spot on the use of reason, we can win converts along with a honest explanation of the faith and what we are going through now. You know as a convert this is a difficult time in the church. You are doing God's work in these videos , informing and sharing. God bless you and yours.
The content is far better than the title. Thank you for your balanced words, and qualifying much of what you said. A lot of the more Historic Protestant Traditions are not so hateful towards Reason. (shout-out to my fellow Anglican peeps!) :)
Yes! A wonderful video but like you've said the historic traditional/catholic branches of the reformation (Anglo-catholic and Evangelical catholic/Lutheran) don't share this outright hatred of reason and use of pagan philosophy. It's strange to hear Luther as the given beginning of this tendency, but most will pick and choose how they characterise him. A quote from Luther, "Before faith and the knowledge of God reason is darkness in divine matters, but through faith it is turned into a light in the believer and serves piety as an excellent instrument." (Conrad Cordatus Jan 1533, sourced 'What Luther says' by Plass pg1165). Basically, reason is a powerful tool. Used by enemies of The Faith it is an abomination, harlot of the devil; used by those in Christ it is a wonderful light pointing to and revealing salvation in Jesus. It might be the same in the Anglican tradition, for the 'Lutherans' we've been struggling against perceived corruption in the medieval church on one side and perceived blind reason of those who reject the mysteries/sacraments on the other. Thank God for the earthly wisdom and reason He continues to give even to the pagan, but when reason throws the baby out with the baptism water, rejects the history of the church, I'll agree with that other Luther quote apart from The Faith reason is a whore.
@@j.g.4942 unfortunately, both Rome and the Reformed think that we Anglicans are a bunch of Presbyterians with Prayer Books (except for the Uber-Reformed who think we're Papists). Anglicanism has always maintained that we are fundamentally Catholic. We look at ourselves as simply reforming to what the Undivided Church taught. As Lancelot Andrewes says, we hold to one Church, Two Testaments, Three Creeds, Four Councils, and Five Centuries of Christianity.
@@barelyprotestant5365 wonderful to hear, we 'lutherans' are alike but tend toward accepting all 7 ecumenical councils (issues with the 7th) just trying to remove parts contrary to scripture and the clearer teaching of the fathers. Talks with the east were hard though, with all that turkey in Constantinople
@@j.g.4942 we accept the Christological clarifications of the 5th-7th Councils. However, as an Anglo-Catholic, I have to respect the Oriental Orthodox insofar as Ecumenical Councils are concerned. While I agree with the 4th, it did cause a split. We need to heal that schism before we can claim any Councils are "Ecumenical".
@William Cloud You are saved dear. All the best you will today Reach heaven as Jesus will take you up?? Is this what you think?? Or believe?? Cause clearly you don't want to listen like Jesus does or want to reason like God does.
Brian - your sound logic and appeal to reason are what I appreciate the most about your videos. While I certainly consider the Bible a source of truth in my Christian life, I am no longer a Bible verse quoting machine; my former self as an Evangelical. Every debate with Protestants tends to end in verses vs verses and Protestants think they hold the high ground when it comes to interpretation and canon. I can easily share your videos with my separated brethren because your logic and reason circumvents any interpretation of scripture. We often forget that while we consider Aristotle and Plato the fathers of logic and reason, they are God's philosophy that He set in motion.
Virtually all Evangelicals I know make the mistake of assuming that others, including atheists, hold the Bible in high regard. Evangelicals attempt to evangelize using Biblical quotes and then appear surprised when they get laughed at or ignored.
Brian, while I am not a fan of Christian rock music I know others who it connects with. I went to a funeral of a friend of mine at a largely black Baptist church. And I was deeply moved by the emotion and passion with which they sang gospel music. An experience that I am truly grateful for as I have now become a fan of that genre. And I say this as a Lutheran. I think we need to be careful not to silo Christian worship and expressions that may be different than our own. Those wonderful people at Mount zion Baptist church bring great honor to the Lord in their singing. And we in the broader Christian community are better off for it. If we all just stuck with liturgical worship, we would miss these other expressions of love and devotion. And respectfully, I don't think we would be better off without it. Blessings.
I agree, I may not always be a big fan of more contemporary Christian music, but I think it is perfectly acceptable. As long as it glorifies God and the church feels a connection to the lyrics that brings them closer to God the music is fine. I do have a problem with turning into a concert. It's not a concert, it's a group of people coming together to make a joyful noise unto the lord.
In some ways I think a lot of "modern" services and masses end up being limp imitation of the black church. Both European protestants and catholics have a rich musical and celebratory tradition of their own that I think is in danger these days. I also think you'll be surprised at how deeply the black church is tied to and influences American music.
A significant number of "I converted to Catholicism/Othrdoxy from Protestantism" videos are basically this. It's very easy to roam the internet for cringe Evanjellies and then deconstruct them. It's the Christopher Hitchens formula. The criticism is needed, but one only need look at what's currently unfolding in Catholicism to understand this problem is much broader than denominational battles.
Eye-opening point about the Catholic Church's adaptation of human reason. I never made that connection before: the early Church realized that human reason could bridge the gap in evangelizing to outside cultures (e.g., Greeks, Romans and other Gentiles), who wouldn't have a clue about scriptural quotations from the Old Testament/Mosaic laws/prophets/other Hebrew scriptures. Now I know what to say if anyone ever objects to the Church's traditions of (extra-scriptural) philosophy, theology, or reason in general. Great content as usual, Brian - thanks for all you do and please keep up the good work!
I really appreciate your articulation in this video Brian. It's a distillation of a conflict that arises when my girlfriend (she is protestant) and I try and reconcile our faith differences with our relationship. She always gets frustrated when I integrate logic and reasoning into the discussion and highlights the less than satisfactory use of scripture. I will acknowledge with humility that I need to be stronger in my grasp of Gods word, but I think that goes without saying for anyone. My articulation seems to not have the full impact of its truth as a result.
I totally agree with you. I'm in a similar situation, and yea it's quite challenging. Sometimes it's even difficult for her to talk about it to me (maybe I'm also to blame, I just subtly try to give her ideas). But yea, I hope my prayers and my values/actions can see more of it. God Bless and I'll be praying for you man. :)
But how do you know if your traditions are from God or man? The verse, "There is a way which seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death. " comes to mind. I hold tight to only the scriptures because I can be sure that they are the inspired word of God. Anything else, I can get wrong.
@@Melissa-gn3dv before scripture was tradition it's important how the scriptures came to be and most of All how to interpret that falls clearly on the Catholic church leaders
This is the first of your videos I have ever watched. I have just subscribed. I attended a Protestant University for two years and I had to defend Catholicism almost daily. I heard this response more than once: "Why don't you ever quote Scripture?" It was because I was using logic and reason and yes, it drove them crazy. I don't say that with pride, I say it because it was effective and help plant seeds of thought in them. Pax.
@Apu Apustaja Most philosophers are atheist. Same goes for scientists. Much more atheistic than the normal population. Like there's a reason physicists aren't perplexed over how jesus walked on water. There's a reason it's seen as a story by default.
Interesting. Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
A good quote from Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris, On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, par. 9: "For the human mind, being confined within certain limits, and those narrow enough, is exposed to many errors and is ignorant of many things; whereas the Christian faith, reposing on the authority of God, is the unfailing mistress of truth, the follower of which will be neither enmeshed in the snares of error nor tossed here and there on the waves of fluctuating opinion. Those, therefore, who to the study of philosophy unite obedience to the Christian faith, are philosophizing in the best possible way; for the splendor of the divine truths, received into the mind, helps the understanding, and not only detracts in no way from its dignity, but adds greatly to its nobility, keenness, and stability."
I'm a Protestant who highly respects Catholicism. I am having a hard time connecting with your critiques of Protestantism however. Reasoning from the scriptures was the primary reason for the Protestant reformation. My perception from Luther's 95 theses is less toward corruption from Paganism, but corruption from power, selling of indulgences etc. and misreading scripture that was available only to those who could speak Latin, those who dared translate it so that people could read the Bible for themselves being put to death. I realize that there may be Protestants who have something against reason, though this is not a uniquely Protestant problem. We find this in any major religion. Primary teachers within mainstream Protestantism encourage people to think, and most of today's top Christian apologists are Protestant. The encouragement for people to read and understand Scripture for themselves, to reason from it and bring their questions to God, is something that Catholicism has until very recently seemed to lack. Critical thinking and authoritarianism tend to be at odds with each other, and Catholicism's structure at the very least is more authoritarian, though high church models within Protestantism also tend to be authoritarian.
Yes but this is a double-edged sword since this attitude has led to Protestants being more susceptible to making concessions to secular society. I personally prefer the hierarchy present in the Orthodox or Catholic churches but I am not opposed to people being Protestant as long as they follow Christ and remember we are all brothers and sisters
I currently worship in the Wesleyan Methodist Church. But in 20+ years in numerous denominations, I have seen many of the concerns you raise. I have seen teenagers told that their parent's cancer was the direct result of unbelief. I have seen parents told that their child's fatal accident was punishment for sin. I have seen new believers walk away from the faith because they were told that there was no logical reason for salvation and they just need to have faith. I have seen young lives destroyed by sexual abuse at the hands of pastors and priests alike. I have seen people forced out of leadership positions within the church because they dared to challenge abusive behaviours. These offenses are not caused by Protestantism or Catholicism. They aren't even caused by Christianity or religion as a whole. These offences are caused by fallen souls who exist in every single community on earth. Maybe the problem isn't reason, or logic, or rock bands. Maybe the problem is that we cannot all agree on the common tenets of the faith. We all believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was resurrected and now intercedes on our behalf.
Well said, I debate this so much with people. Lemme just say though, I've never, not once gotten an atheist to consider Christianity using Scripture. I have, however gotten them to consider Christianity by explaining different apparitions or even a pagan belief that Catholicism didn't accept, but used to convert people. There are many ways to evangelize just using the Catechism or an apparition. God bless and have a good day.
DANIEL LEEPER what 😮. Go back a read read what you just write scriptures itself have the most beautiful power within. Remember Jesus said everything will pass but the word of God will never pass
Entire revivals and awakenings have happened based on scripture. America had 3 great awakenings that transformed and revived our nation, based on scripture. And look at the hundred of thousands converted by the messages of Billy Graham. Your limited experience is just that, limited.
Thank God you made this video so many young Catholics leave the church because a Pentecostal, Baptist, etc.. shows up and tells them about how nice their music is at there church and how they feel the presence of God there. This is a huge problem especially in America and we need to start speaking up about this issue. God bless you all
@Matt Mayuiers . I'm telling you it means nothing. . I don't care about your definition or what people think it means these days. . You bring your 'antisemitism' out of nowhere and then tell 'we' "all can stop bringin that up"? Are you OK? . There is no 'point' and I'll do what I want for as long as I want. Get it?
Thank you for making this video. I watched Bishop Barron’s speech and the following Q&A at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops the other day and it really struck me when one bishop voiced concern that in efforts to evangelize that the church would lose sight of things like “not going to Mass every Sunday being a mortal sin” and it just struck me as...missing the point. What does it matter if the person doesn’t believe at all yet and doesn’t ever come to Mass? You’re not going to convert an atheist by trying to instill fear of Hell. Fear of God’s judgement holds no power over them if they don’t believe in God or Hell yet.
On the other hand, by only focusing on new converts, the Church risks losing her own flock to the world and perhaps worse. De-emphasizing the seriousness of mortal sin is a great example of this.
St.Paul in the new testament cited pagan poetry approvingly to the pagan philosophers he debated with which proves pagans can get things right even if they also get alot wrong. All truth springs from God so we don't say something is necessarily false just because a pagan said it or because it's not in the bible as long as it doesn't contradict it.
How did you learn so much? As a busy Catholic how can I learn like you? What books, what schools, what stages, how can a busy working mom learn her faith better when are parish offers minimal additional teaching outside of Mass?
I'm not a busy Catholic parent, but my mother certainly was. She had eight kids and yet she managed to learn a ton about her faith. I think one of the ways she did it was just by making an effort to get up a bit early every day, and spend some time praying and reading before she had to get us up for school. But so much of what will work for you depends on what your family life is like, how old your kids are, whether you have a job outside the house, etc. One thing that might work is just setting aside a bit of time for reading about the faith on Sundays. If you have your husband's cooperation, you could even set aside a time where everyone in the family reads from the life or writings of a saint, Church documents, or some other book about the Faith.
Andrew Sheedy I read a ton, take CD courses but I feel alone. I’m in a book club and the ladies just look at me a bit weird when I speak about my opinions and thoughts based on what I know and have read. My parish has no bible study or theology. Mostly altar society and such. I guess I just need to find someone to converse with that are not afraid to go deep with our faith and I know I need guidance. My husband is protestant so he does his own thing. Maybe i’ll find a community (Not internet folk) of people, real people, I can see, that want to grow in knowledge of their faith.
@@m2sotolopez Sounds like you're doing what you need to do! But being alone is tough and doesn't have an easy solution. I'll say a prayer that you find a group you can join. Best of luck to you!
remember though that protestants are still followers of Christ and the goal should be to help those who don't yet believe rather than fighting over secondary theological issues :)
Relevance is not a virtue... Great point... Well done video... When I started memorizing the Our Father and Hail Mary in Latin back in Lent 2020, I lost touch with the meaning of the words, for a while. Then, as I started getting better, that returned, even amplified. One benefit that was added was a renewed appreciation of the Universality of the Church. It is a bit of an analogy to learning Reason - it takes a while before the real value emerges, but it is powerful and legitimate when it arrives. The bridge concept was really helpful, Reason will be my project for 2021... God Bless...
I appreciate your videos Brian. I would encourage your investigation of Luther and the use of reason as sometimes it seems you caricature his position. The Lutheran reformers were not against reason or the church fathers tradition, they quote Ambrose and Augustine regularly in the Book of Concord which is obviously a work of reason and rhetoric. I agree with your defense of the use of reason as a shared faculty in the public square. Cheers!
Hey man, just discovered this channel. Love it. Subscribed and hit the bell. Belated welcome to the Catholic family! You're setting the bar high for the rest of us--good, we can use encouragement. Cheers and God bless!
I couldn't agree more with the full substance of this video. I just discovered your channel and your whole approach resonates so strongly with me. I'm really glad I stumbled upon it. There's something I noticed near the end of the video that I wanna remark on, but first I thought it might interest you to know a bit of my background perspective. I also was an atheist/agnostic. I encountered Jesus through a purely academic, historical study of the ancient Israelites, the Hebrew Bible, and eventually the story of the Messiah. So, for me, reason was absolutely fundamental to my conversion. From the sound of it, my trajectory has been much like yours, except I took the history and philosophy approaches in reverse order. It was reason that helped me to see that the Gospels are reliable, that Christian history makes no sense on materialistic analysis, and ultimately that Jesus is God. I never could have seen any of that if the Holy Spirit hadn't opened my eyes and scrubbed my heart of the prejudices I had against Christianity. But nor could I have accepted it if the claims were unreasonable. As I was forced to accept that the accounts in the New Testament represent reliable, extremely well corroborated records of events, I had to start describing myself as an agnostic who accepts that Jesus did what is claimed, but without purporting to know the implications of that. And I can see now that the mental gymnastics that kept me from accepting the obvious implications of the gospels were motivated by a deep-seated presupposition of materialism, a vestige of my scientific background and training. I just presumed that nothing immaterial exists, and even if it does, it's not worth talking about since it couldn't possibly influence our world, so nobody could possibly know any more about it than anyone else. At first, acknowledgement of Jesus didn't lead me to acknowledgement of God, because I believed the very concept of God was incoherent and/or vacuous. As such, I hoped to find some materialistic explanation for everything the Apostles witnessed. And it was from that point of view that I started studying Christian philosophy more deeply, ultimately to reconcile myself to God. As such, I am currently converting to Catholicism. As for my comments on the video: I don't think reason is, in principle, untrustworthy. Everything humans do could be fallible. But the whole enterprise of reason is manifestly an effort to control for fallibility. Just like the enterprise of science. In science, we don't just accept the first bit of evidence we collect. We repeat many trials, over and over. We try to change things up to see if there are confounders. We have peers review our work. Other peers will try to reproduce our work to show that our findings weren't just a fluke, an isolated incident. So, although all the individual tools of science are intrinsically fallible, the very essence of science, the thing that makes it so distinct from many other human enterprises, is the sophistication of its validation mechanisms. And what is science? It's a rational system for querying nature. Pure reason can't do what science does, just as empirical observation can't prove what reason proves. But science is built by, beholden to, and organized around reason. It operates according to the very same principles of verification, argumentation, and falsification that reason does. In logic, we systemize every step of the process of reason in order to scrutinize it for the errors that humans are known to make. The very purpose of logical argument is to allow for scrutiny. We make deductive arguments in a very particular way, organizing them almost like mathematical proofs, such that the whole train of thought can be broken down into discreet premises and conclusions, connected by logical relations. This facilitates falsification of individual components. A postulate can be shown to be false far more easily than a simple claim can be shown to be unsound. And by separating the argument into multiple relations, it's easier to identify whether the relation between a conclusion and a premise is valid. This is how we've managed to identify all the known logical fallacies. We know what logical fallacies are precisely because the purpose of logic is to control for fallibility. Similarly, it's much easier to falsify a premise (or at least show it to be uncertain) than to falsify a claim in isolation. Anyway, all the same can be said for inductive arguments, in the sense that reductionism makes it easier to validate the soundness _or_ the cogency of an argument. But ultimately I think this arises from a confusion of terminology. People use "reason" in a lot of different ways. Sometimes it's treated as just a synonym for thought. Properly it should refer to thought that is structured and disciplined by philosophical principles. The kind of thought that Socrates systematized and on which the western intellectual tradition has stood for practically all of its known history. Human thought is fallible, and that fallibility can infect everything humans do, strictly speaking. But fallibility is not a word I'd use to describe reason (and therefore logic) because all reason is, is a system for getting the fallibility _out_ of human thought. Reason certainly isn't anything else. It doesn't serve any other purpose, nor have any other organizing principle. It doesn't have any goal of its own. Like science, it's a tool that can be directed toward whatever the bearer chooses. So, what is the nature of that tool? For what reason was it developed? It seems clear that reason was developed in response to observations of the fallbility, inconsistency, and mutual exclusivity of human opinions. At least in the history of the Greek tradition (the oldest rational tradition for which we have compelling historical evidence), the proper canonization of reason was preceded by philosophical controversy between wildly disagreeing schools of thought with unexamined conclusions. As in Christianity, the discipline of philosophy needed a mechanism for settling disputes. As technology has advanced, we've forgotten the necessity of reason, as more and more of our questions and disputes have fallen under the microscope of empiricism. Today, many people think the means of validation is empirical inquiry. But only recently have so many things in the universe become immanently testable. In the time of Socrates, even questions we now consider scientific needed to be answered largely by reasoning. There's nothing wrong with using reason to arrive at tentative answers to pressing questions. We still do it today. But the sheer number of questions the physical sciences have answered has led to a kind of scientific chauvinism. A presumption, seen in works like Stephen Hawking's last book, that physical sciences can answer every question worth asking. This chauvinism is so strong that, when confronted with questions that science can't answer, the response is not to admit that the chauvinism was misplaced; instead, the response is to assert that such questions are not even legitimate questions, or that they concern merely imaginary or transitory phenomena. But we all know that questions about immaterial things are perfectly legitimate and even likely the most important questions. Unfortunately, as I'm sure we all have sensed, this attitude of "scientism" has trickled down to the laity, to the extent that we have forgotten what reason is and what it's for. But I do think we're seeing a revival of appreciation for reason, the cracks in scientism are beginning to show, and its stranglehold is loosening. And that's exactly as it should be - reason isn't just normal human thought about serious matters. Reason is a tool for falsification and therefore discovery. And even today, reason can give us greater certainty about things within its domain than science can give us about things within science's domain. The laws of logic are far more secure than sensory observation or even the laws of physics. Where premises are very certain, conclusions can be very certain. I don't mean to suggest that human argumentation is infallible. We need to temper our thought with humility, of course. We ought to assume our initial thoughts are always wrong. But that's precisely what reason is. When I say we shouldn't conflate reason with thought, that's what I'm trying to get at. Reason isn't thought, it's a system for disciplining thought. So to be humble, we shouldn't discredit reason or cast doubt on its ability to cultivate certitude. Instead, to be humble, we should _use_ reason. Of course it's not the only tool at our disposal. Many arguments can be falsified empirically as well. But as I've said, empiricism is a rational system. It depends on reason. So our empirical inquiry can only be as secure as our reason is. If we don't trust reason, then how can we trust our empirical study of the Bible? If we don't trust reason, we can't even know what it asserts, much less apply the principles of empiricism at scale to a study of it. So, we have to temper everything with reason. Our own thoughts through pure logic, but also our interpretation and analysis of the Bible, our physical experiments and discussion thereof, and our discourse with each other. Reason isn't some kind of alternative approach that competes with scripture. Reason is a set of principles around which we organize our thoughts and arguments, so it's upstream of everything we do, including reading, interpreting, analysing, and arguing about the Bible. It's possible to reason independent of the Bible, and it's possible to read the Bible without reason. But the choice to apply reason or not to is upstream of the actual reading and understanding of the Bible. And reason in analysing the Bible makes all the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.
"And whenever this accusation arises, it’s usually at the hands of someone who is clearly aligned with a protestant theological position. And not all protestants would be motivated by this instinct, but for those that are, I would say they come by it honestly as something inherited from a tradition of thought that goes all the way back to Luther." Maybe it's really from people who can think for themselves, read the Bible for themselves, and come to the conclusion that God told us what we need to know approximately 1400-1500 years before Luther. Catholics in general, and you in particular because of what I just quoted, need to understand that Luther has very little to do with Protestantism. Protestantism come from the desire of people to be free to know the Word of God. It was happening before Luther was even born.
6:35 Paul made the gospel relevent to the culture he was preaching in, yet he did NOT compromise truth. The number of Protestant churches that go against the LGBT way of life are MANY; and we pay a price for it by being labelled 'old-fashioned' Just because a handful succumb to LGBT, meanwhile the rest fight against this ideology, invalidates your point about Protestantism.
A few problems I have with your presentation: 1) The rejection of vestments, choirs, etc. was historically done for doctrinal reasons, such as the Regulative Principle. It wasn't done for relevancy. 2) Rome is massively guilty of relevancy herself. There are all types of sects within the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, including liberal types who want to make homosexuality normal because the culture demands it (well, because the priesthood is gay, really). Not to mention Vatican II, which was at least partly a hippy-led attempt at eschewing the ancient Liturgy _for relevancy_ . 3) Since we live in a fallen world, there are limits to the usefulness of reason (Gen 1v17 Eph 2v1). This is, in my understanding, the heart of the Eastern rejection of Natural Theology. If I'm correct, then it isn't fair to take aim at Protestants and call them schismatics when Rome is actually the odd one out.
The Catholic Church isn't but many members of the Church are guilty of relevancy. The true teaching of Christ is alive and well within the Catholic faithful. For over 2000 years Satan has struggled to destroy the Church and today is no different. Protestants are lost. They have no true north. Any Protestant can interpret Scripture to meet their personal needs and they do which is why there are so many different denominations.
@@flisom Hi Fred, what do SSPXers and pro-LGBTers actually have in common? They are more different from each other than Westminsterites (presbys) are from 1689ers (baptists), yet you would call the latter two different denominations. For all intents and purposes, SSPXers and liberals are two _Roman Catholic_ denominations! Also, any Protestant can't justifiably abuse Scripture like that, at least not if he is claiming to be in line with historic Protestant (apostolic) thought. We must interpret Scripture in light of the history of the Church. The only problem is almost no-one has much of an idea about the history of the Church. I think this is not just a Protestant issue.
Trixie Obbit the teaching of the Catholic Church is unchanging since it was passed to us from Christ through his Apostles. Any Catholic professing beliefs other than what has been passed down for the last 2000 years is not in full communion with the Church. Even if it’s the Pope!
I relate very heavily with the first 30 seconds of this video. I mean...memorizing a particular code (or in this case, a Bible verse) to flash to another in a debate to symbolize a highly particular rand lengthy message rather than using logic and a bit of theological stock knowledge is kind of tedious in my opinion. I'm not saying we shouldn't read the Bible, just that using what I mentioned above is way more effective and efficient when talking to others about religion.
Mary is a human; don't worship her. The real Mary would be appalled. Glad she is in heaven and doesn't hear this stuff. How do I say that? Jesus told the thief "this day you will be in paradise with me" . When we die we are no longer in the earth's timeline. We are at the end of time at the resurrection.
@@Naomi.B. why ask Mary to intercede when we are told to come to the Father through Christ? In fact we may boldly go to the Throne of Grace and find mercy.
@@olgaweisher9331 Do you believe the Bible is needed for salvation? If so, you have a lot of explaining to do. Can illiterates be saved, they can't read the Bible How were people saved before the Bible was compiled (late 4th century AD) The Bible is not needed for salvation The Church is
The reason that you hear little to no scriptures in catholic videos is simply the culture of the faith. Usually if scripture is involved in a catholic circle the speaker will lay out all of it at once. This is different from a protestant church where it is more interwoven into their conversation
I’m a Protestant and I agree with everything you said here. I won’t be coming Catholic for other reasons, but I am so frustrated that 21 century Protestism is now so shallow except in some Reformed thinking that it might not even consider itself evangelical or mainline. There probably are many of us who are on the periphery who at least feel we are kinda on our own.
What made me join Christianity was having people that told me "observe the world and verify for yourself if the Christian hypothesis is true" Had I been told "this is true because the Bible says so" I would've never changed my mind
@@oambitiousone7100 well, I mainly tried to focus on two things: the fact that Christian morality makes your life more fulfilling, and the fact that God has/wants a relationship with you. The first thing was easier of course, in fact I became convinced that Christianity works, as in, it actually makes you happy, before being convinced that Christianity is true (Christ walked on this earth, is the Son of God, died and resurrected to save us etc). It was actually a pretty long and painful process, I started from a hardcore atheist position, in the first few months I was in a bit of a crisis because it meant changing my whole position on pretty much everything and admitting I was wrong before. Right now I'm still in the process of learning and understanding/verifying things, but I can't deny that at least those two things, that Christianity works and that there is Someone who interacts and wants a relationship with you, are true.
Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Brian, I'm new to your channel, and while I like that you make thorough and thoughtful content, I think you should be cautious of lumping every denomination besides Catholicism into one label. I'm a Methodist, and my views and practices contrast starkly with, for instance, a very conservative Baptist. There are things I believe which you would presumably disagree with, such as women being able to serve as preachers. You and the Baptist would have common ground on that and other issues. However, there are other things I may have more common ground with you on than the Baptist---for instance, we likely agree that faith without works is dead and we need to be in mission with the poor and helpless, whereas the Baptist would likely place much more emphasis on "getting your soul saved." If you paint the issue as "Catholicism vs. the World," you sweep a metric ton of nuance and differences under the rug. On the bright side, seeing you stereotype all Protestants makes me reflect and think I shouldn't stereotype all Catholics.
Lily, do you think that Christ's truth is unchanging or can we change it as our lifestyles change? It's not a matter of being a conservative Christian or a liberal Christian if Christ's truth is unchanging.
So, I know that commenting on videos is essentially an exercise in futility generally. Nevertheless, I wanted to say that as a Lutheran pastor, I dug your video until, obviously, the 8:40 mark. Now, I don’t think this is intentional on your part, but I think you’ve engaged in a bit of equivocation in switching from reason’s role in explaining the faith to others to reasons use in internal theological debates. Luther’s objection, as best I understand it, had a couple different facets, such as: 1) How reason is sometimes used to silence or mangle Scripture (think of strict predestinarians for example), instead of letting paradoxes remain paradoxes. 2) How reason is sometimes elevated to or beyond Scripture (think here of the idea of transubstantiation, or purgatory, or the spiritual ladder-things believed because they make sense, regardless of the fact that they have not been revealed). Luther, again, as far as I understand him, didn’t object to reason as reason-reason is inescapable and there’d be no point in writing anything at all if you completely disregarded it; but to reason going beyond it’s human limitations.
Scott Smith oh please mr. Scott with all due respect how can you explain to me how the 1500 years of the church was wrong until Luther was born? I mean before Luther, we have so many great thinkers like St Thomas, Duns scotus, st Francis and you get on only look at one man to justify your so call truth? I can not reason with that, maybe because there have been so many influential people that God have work miracles through them, than maybe one person is not enough for me. On top of that haven’t seen no miracles related through him that have made me think that I believe in him.
Mom&son Quete Oh please? That’s a bit rude. 🙂 Nevertheless, Lutherans don’t teach that the church was wrong for 1500 years. We teach that certain errors and misunderstandings over time attached themselves like barnacles onto the faith and were causing significant damage to it. Miracles or no miracles, questions of doctrine should be determined by the truths of Scripture.
Scott Smith I think we should pay attention to miracles, because God works through them. To manifest what is truth as well, I again with all due respect don’t believe that the Bible have the whole answers for things we cannot comprehend. Even one of the apostles said it in the Bible John 21:25. We have the Bible as authority but is not our only way to know about God, Before the Bible we have oral tradition and still have. God bless.
Mom&son Quete God performs miracles, yes. But as concerns the things we can know with certainty are of divine origin, the Scriptures alone are our only recourse.
Scott Smith well I disagree, first because again it is not our only way to know the things regarding to God. How then people before the Bible knew how things were from God? Why do you think they end up martyrs, because of the Bible? Again I not be little the Bible, but I believe that God can and is able to work in many ways. Not only in the way that can make sense to us. Second I would invite you to take a look at Saint Pío of Pietrelcina, a Saint not only because the church said but because of the miracles God worked through him and if you genuinely look through the eyes of those that will let God surprise them, then you probably see something.
I realize I'm coming into your videos rather late in the game, but I'm very grateful you've chosen to post such thoughtful, insightful and respectful videos in comparing Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Speaking as a Protestant of 27 years, I'd like to offer some additional insights (my hope is with the same respect and consideration you showed): First; criticism where criticism is due. Far too many Protestant churches are 'going for the feels' instead of allowing themselves to be convicted, lifted and empowered by the Spirit through the reading, understanding and application of His Word. The stage, the lights, the screaming electric guitars should never be the focus (and I'm saying this as a guitar player). If, at the end, the congregants leave thinking, "what an awesome performance," that church needs to close its doors immediately. Second; just as much as Paul never mentioned stages, guitars, specialty lights or smoke machines, he never mentioned, "choirs, vestments, pews, organs or pulpits," either. There's nothing particularly holy/sacred about any of those things. The LORD that's being glorified, magnified and worshipped is what matters. It's about the heart and focus of worship, not the devices. Third; one of Martin Luther's biggest complaints was against the selling of indulgences in order to 'pay off' previous sins using money. That didn't sit well with him and led him to read, ironically, Romans; the letter sent to the initial catholic church at Rome. He found a number of glaring differences between what was being taught by the Roman Catholic Church at the time vs. Paul's initial admonishments. Fourth; I believe we have two, competing philosophies here. It's one thing to make Christianity relatable to a particular group, culture or time in history. It's quite another thing for Christianity to become compromised by a particular group, culture or time in history. Dressing in a way that's relatable to a culture but not compromising God's word is perfectly fine. Using instruments that are native to a people group but doesn't compromise God's word is just fine. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Paul adapted his style of preaching so as to reach as many people as possible while not watering down God's word. Reasonable? Yep. Relatable? Yep. Acts 17:22-23. Paul walked around Athens to learn their culture and spoke to them regarding their own religion. Reason? You bet. An explanation that was Christ-focused but relatable to that group? Also true. It wasn't one or the other. I use Wheaties as an analogy. For decades, they'd change the face on the box in order to reflect whatever sports star was popular at the time. However, inside, it was always the same bag of wheat flakes. In Christianity, the box can change with the times and culture, but the Spirit, His Word, His Truth should never change.
6:30 I’ll have to disagree with the relevance in regards to how church is conducted doesn’t work. I belong to a non-denominational church that if Paul was around he would call it a Milk church. We exist as a first step for people who have been away from the faith or never really had been a part and we’re seeing exuberant growth in the church to the degree of 100+ baptisms every 4 months. We have vibrant community group scenes and tons of outreach ministries. Is it anecdotal? Yes. But there’s no reason the success can’t be replicated elsewhere throughout the country. I was raised protestant but I’m someone personally who would attend an Orthodox Church if they were a force in my area.
Kilo it’s ideal for someone to turn to the truth by reason and logic. But that is not always the case. Cultural apologetics plays a big part in Evangelism as well.
Luther wasn't against using pagan philosophy to understand the faith (Plato was one of his influences). He was against the Church's overemphasis on pagan philosophy (namely Aristotelian thought) to the point where if it would choose to follow the philosophy over Scripture whenever the two were at odds with each other.
Great talk--thoroughly enjoyed it. I just re-read Anna Karenina by Tolstoy. When Levin discovered God through revelation after years of pursuing reason, this is what he said, "Reason discovered the struggle for existence and the law which demands that everyone who hinders the satisfaction of my desires should be throttled. That is the conclusion of reason. Reason could not discover love for the other, because it's unreasonable."
Thank you for taking on a difficult topic. As a reply to 'not being sufficiently based in scripture", your argument is good and fair. You don't point out Matthew 4:3 and 4:6, where Satan quotes scripture, or the issue of free will and the gift of intelligence and curiosity.. Please allow that 'mainline' Protestant denominations are not as hostile to reason as you indicate, and that the Catholic church has the Confession of faith/Oath of Fidelity where the Catholic person agrees to "adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate" if they will be in any position to teach or act as clergy, which solves some problems but creates others. This is a difficult topic, Peace be to you.
As a Protestant myself, I actually largely agree with your video and the arguments you make. Protestant watering down their doctrine and accepting things within their churches that are of the pagan culture. Also Protestant trying to be relevant in culture and sacrificing liturgy and not having the theological depth to sustain. And allot of protestants use their feelings as guide.
That is my biggest problem with Protestantism. They believe they are CORRECT based on their feelings. That is the sole reason you have 40 000 Protestant denominations since AD 1600 while Catholic church is still one and only since AD 1.
Marc Crotty I am sorry but I cannot become a Roman Catholic. I am interested to hear what RC have to say. I have read parts of RC catechism and I don’t believe it to be biblical.
@@Logstarau unfortunately your kind of Protestants are minority my friend. A kind interested in learning and exchanging points of view instead of proving others wrong. God bless brother.
The other cool thing to note is that Aristotelian reasoning was the cutting edge of scientific methodology at the time. It's refreshing to see that at one point the Church wasn't fooled by the false divide between science and religion. Furthermore, one can trace the use of these philosophic/scientific terms all the way to the scriptures. St. John opens his book talking about the Logos, which was a pagan term used since the preSocratics that St. John itdentifies with Christ. St. John may have been familiar with this term given the open discussion in Judaism about Hellenisation. Main point: What does modern scientific research teach us about our understanding and relationship to God? For 1st century Christians all the way to St. Aquinas' time (when the faith/reason conversation ramped up) this was not a scary question, it was a matter of course.
As a Protestant, I can totally agree with what he's saying about churches watering down the message, or simply making it a show with smoke machines and lighting. They are reducing the entire Christian life experience to a momentary, emotional experience. I do believe, however, that not all Protestant churches do this. In my country we have many small town churches that still hold traditional modes of worship and teach a solid Christian message. I don't have a problem in using logic as defined by Aristotle as a way to reason about faith, either. Logic is not pagan by definition. Logic is simply logic. That would be like saying that math is a pagan concept just because the person who invented was not a believer. Math is just math. While I'm not an expert in church history, I do believe the Catholic has indeed acquired certain traditions that are not in accord with Scripture, like bowing in front of carved images or praying to saints. There are instances of Protestantism that I would also argue are not in accord with scripture. Many years ago, for example, a church was selling... er sorry, giving out after a donation... these so called "blessed handkerchiefs". Pieces of cloth that had been prayed over and probably been soaked in holy water, or something similar. And if you just held one over a sick person while you prayed, then they would get better. Completely ridiculous.
As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I would note, that many of us are very traditional in our service, an outsider would be hard pressed to quickly notice the differences in our services. We also have a strong philosophical background. And Luther was a neo-platonist Augustinian Monk, and yes it is ironic that he used his training to criticize. Luther mostly did not have a really strong argument on Aquinas, nor do I think he really read in depth to deeper logic of Aquinas. He really got hung on the lack of the experiential aspect of belief, that he believed that Aquinas was professing. I understand both points. I do love the Roman Catholic philosophical tradition and am a fan of Aquinas. I do agree that many Protestants do the same thing they accuse Roman Catholics of.
Sorry you're wrong on you're understanding of what the Protestant are in protest about the Catholic Church. It is not studying and gaining wisdom from ancient Western literature, but adding to the historical doctrines of the scripture. Like the worship of Mary, purgatory and righteousness gained through works. By the way the rock concert church isn't a theological topic. It's a fad related to humanism and vanity. The persecuted church doesn't worship that way, which is by far the best example of the church.
@@EdwardAtkinson l know you don't believe you worship Mary, but having the whole of the the church pray to her as if she has the omnipotence of the Divine is very circumspect. Next believing she has power to change a "sinners" fate is equally a problem. Also believing that her birth was special and that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, even though Jesus's younger brother James was the head elder of the early Church. For us on the outside see these clearly non biblical revelations come from another god, and the best explantation would be the so called "Holy Mother of God, Mary" ...
Edward Atkinson In all of St. Paul’s writings, he didn’t mention Mary’s name once. Compare that to how often you invoke Mary’s intercession and you’ll see why it appears to others to be worship - especially if the language and body posture looks like worship.
I'm a Protestant Christian who loves Thomas Aquinas and all the intellectual traditions of the entire church. I depended on every source I could find when I was challenging the veracity of my Faith during a long period of questing in my youth (mostly through modern popularizers who nevertheless provided detailed sources, which I read. It's how I discovered Aquinas.). Yet as much as I appreciate all that theological reasoning and logic gave me back then, now,, 45+ years later, it is clearer that ever to me that we reasoners and logicians do inevitably reach an end to our reasoning and logic and arrive at a place where we must admit logic and reason can take us no further. We must make, as Kierkegaard called it, a leap to Faith. When one has reached the end of logic, of reason, of study and debate, finally, one must either say, "Because God said", or turn and walk away. I've personally seen atheists do both. So how can we criticize or think less of those believers who, more faith-fully it can be argued, begin at our end and never need to take that detour through Athens? I believe it was C.S. Lewis who argued that his need to "go through Athens" was a defect in his character and nothing to be proud of. Which is why he felt his parish experience of the Faith was essential to him as a professional intellectual. It compelled him by forced proximity to come to understand that he was not worthy to tie the boot of the laborer next to him who simply and joyfully embraced the declared Gospel.
@@josiahrandolphbaldwin8272 I consider myself a finished "product" since accepting Christ as the only Way Truth and Life. There must be some Catholics who feel the same way.
having lived in a rural area of a catholic country for 10 yrs now, I can totally understand why people tried to convert to protestantism. The fear, the guilt, the pressure is apparent on many peoples faces. the threat of hellfire to young kids, the gruesome lifesize crucifixes depicting graphic horror by the roadsides - for young toddlers to absorb into their brains, and seer the areas that normally would register fear or horror or empathy...and the past here was brutal: 100 yrs ago, people were starving in this valley - and the priests forbade them from taking fish from the rivers.worse still, in the mid 1600s, a story from a certain valley (there's a book about it), many men who left austria to work in germany came back with news of Luther and the protestant movement - and word spread in this valley, as the oppression of the catholic church was huge (plus they force a yearly subscription -and still do -, which was hard on the peasant farmers).so many converted to protestant. what happened? the catholic church rallied the men, and forced 1500 parents out of the valley - BUT - they stole 800 of their children, to be raised catholic. literally kidnapped them and kept them in the valley, and cast out the heretic protestant mothers and fathers. how can anyone be comfortable in an organisation with foundations such as these? the psychological attack on kids is real too - images of the most grotesque scenes of hell, and tortures of saints, decorate whole walls of churches here - all to enter into the innocent minds of children and lodge themselves forever as a fearful reminder. the one word i'd use to sum up catholics i see here, is fear. it's on their faces. honestly, I think Jesus would be appalled at the catholic way of doing things. my partner even remembers the priest being angry at her as a child when she was in confession (they were forced to), as she couldn't think of anything bad she had done. I've subbed to you, as I am a christian, and you seem a nice guy - but please step back - look down at the foundations - ask yourself if you're happy about it. and of course there's so so much more pain buried in the past...
jenn porter, sometimes the truth hurts. "To give a man's religion more respect than it deserves is to give that man less respect than he deserves." I can't remember where that quote came from but it has always struck me as, coincidentally enough, logical.
I can see why those WITHOUT logic would have an issue with others using it. You put it well. Not to mention that adding such common sense strengthens arguments in many cases like with the anti abortion side. For example the science ISN'T in the Bible, but it's great to talk about it as well.
HGR v. SBG I got a notification that you were asking for the link, but I can’t find the comment. Anyway, here’s the link. ua-cam.com/video/FQfy1G_PirM/v-deo.html
Here's the way Tertullian put it: "Whence spring those "fables and endless genealogies," and "unprofitable questions," and "words which spread like a cancer?" From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost." He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief." And again, St Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2: 1 When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear and much trembling, 4 and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive [words of] wisdom, but with a demonstration of spirit and power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.
Brian, I am a conservative Evangelical. I do not speak for so called "liberal Protestants" like the ones you depicted in the video. They aren't Christians in my opinion. On your first indictment of my group: There is nowhere in the Bible that states that church or worship services have to have pews and choirs. Please cite the passage of Scripture that states that. We use bands and musical instruments, not just because that's what is relevant to the secular world, but because it is who WE (and you) are and it's what we know. It is relevant to US. We don't spend our days listening to choirs. We listen to people singing and rapping over beats and instruments. Why must we be inauthentic when we are communing with God? The indictment you have levelled at Protestantism is actually an indictment on Catholicism. The mode of church and worship, or liturgy as you put it, employed by the Catholic church is archaic, robotic, and does nothing to help a Christian connect with God and honestly express his/her faith. God wants you as you are. The real you. Not the one who dons clothes he would never wear and a mask that conforms to "liturgical requirements". This is not the same as "selling out to the surrounding culture". I do admit that this happens in many Protestant (and Catholic) churches in an effort to fill them. When a pastor compromises on Scripture or refuses to delve into the less palatable parts of it to appease the world it's wrong and I denounce it. What the Catholic church did, however, was a complete twisting of Christian doctrine to conform to Pagan doctrine. The saints replaced the gods. Catholicism managed to incorporate idol worship into their teachings. This cannot be compared to using a band instead of a choir. The fitness trainer analogy you used is a false equivalency. On reason: I don't think your assertion that Protestants are anti-reason is fair or even true for that matter. I absolutely believe in reason as an important tool for explaining Scripture, especially to non-believers. However, I do concede that reason is limited in explaining the Bible. Not because the Bible is unreasonable. But because we as human beings do not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend God. He is too big, too holy, too good. At some point, preferably the beginning, a human being must surrender even his reason and simply submit to the Word of God. It's called obedience, and its required of every believer. Just as a child might not understand why their parents forbid them from doing something, we as Christians will not understand everything that God says in His Word. But we must submit to it as holy, true, sovereign and infallible. Reason is not something "added" to Scripture. It is inherent to it. What was "added" by the Catholic church wasn't reason. It was heresy.
The Catholic Church did add to scripture -- You know it as the New testament. You are welcome. And you clearly don't grasp just how incredible and spiritually fulfilling the liturgy/mass is based on your ignorant comments. You submit to scripture -- you mean your own private, fallible interpretation of it.
If you're interested in a more scriptural explanation for why I chose Catholicism over Protestantism, you can see this old, but still relevant video: ua-cam.com/video/HkqPjxp2Ltw/v-deo.html
I'm confused you are trying to prove what your saying by showing hower faults this is culcher shock to me I never knew that this was a problem my church that I call overbearing changing i would be surprised there was a debate on allowing contemporary christian music in the church this is a problem that I didn't know about but your church allow idolatry the worship of Mary and the saints infant baptism speaking to the dead you didn't disprove anything you know you can't defend it so you don't even talk about any of these points at all so you just put the attention to us and replacing false doctrine with reason like confessing to a priest for forgiveness and changing the the Sabbath I digress I don't like my church over use of Ellen G White and there proud attitude I try not to have a bias to my church or my self it was hard trying not to defend Elin G White but I had to learn you need to do too my friend
Replying to follow the conversation here :)
Also thank you for your videos Brian, keep up the good work
@@antoniochristie1231 You can't use the proven false prophecies of Elin G White because that's why most Christians consider the SDA a non Christian cult. i can give you Bible verses for all your questions (as you will see below and on Brian's videos), but first you must answer my following questions?:1. If every man from Adam to Moses kept the Sabbath, why is the Hebrew word for the weekly Sabbath found in the ten commandments, never found in the book of Genesis? Why is no one before Moses ever being told to keep the Sabbath. Why are there no examples of anyone keeping the Sabbath?
2. Why were the Patriarchs never instructed about he Sabbath, but were instructed regarding: offerings: Gen 4:3-4, Altars Gen 8:20, Priests: Gen 14:18, Tithes: Gen 14:20, Circumcision: Gen 17:10, Marriage: Gen 2:24 & Gen 34:9. Why would God leave out the "all important" Sabbath command?
3. If the fact that God wrote the 10 commandments on stone proves they are forever, then whatever happened to the two stone tablets that God gave Adam at the beginning of time? Why is Moses the first one to see a stone tablet written by the finger of God?
4. Why is the weekly Sabbath commandment never quoted in the New Testament?
5. Why is the Sabbath the only one of the ten commandments that are said to be "throughout your generations", the usual phrase that indicates it was a temporary ceremonial law only for the Jews?
6. Why is there no example of exclusively Christians coming together on the Sabbath day as a church or prayer meeting after the resurrection of Christ?
7. Why is there no command in the New Testament for Christians to keep the Sabbath holy?
8. While Paul taught in the synagogues up to 84 times, why does the Bible never say he kept the sabbath?
9. If Paul's action of preaching to non-believers 84 times in the book of Acts on the Sabbath make him a Sabbath keeper, is a Seventh-day Adventist pastor a Sunday keeper if we invite him for 84 Sundays in a row to teach us about God's word?
10. How could Adam, Noah and Abraham keep the Sabbath, when Deuteronomy 5:2-4 says that the 10 commandment covenant (see was "not made with any of the fathers of Israel who lived before Moses."
11. If the Sabbath was intended for all people, both Jew and Gentile, then why does Exodus 31:16-17 state that the Sabbath was a sign between God and the "Children of Israel" instead of clarifying that it should be kept by all people of all nations for all time?
12. Why is the Sabbath never mentioned in the Book of Job? The title character of this book is said to be the most righteous and religious man that ever lived (next to Jesus), but with that being the case, how come his story is completely void of any reference to the Sabbath or any other law/restriction given by Moses?
13. If breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death in the Old Testament (Exodus 31:14 & 35:2), why is it not condemned in any way, shape, or form in the New Testament? Various passages in the New Testament list numerous types of sinners who will not inherit the kingdom (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Revelation 21:8 & 22:15), but none of those lists ever mention Sabbath-breakers. Why is that?
@William Cloud "We got our bible from Wycliffe who translated it from your twisted scriptured evil Latin Vulgate to English."
Okay, this line is interesting. You got your bible from Wycliffe. Doesn´t that sound disturbing even to you? From one man? I´d much rather trust the Church that Christ founded.
Second, if the Vulgate is "twisted and evil" then how is it possible that its mere TRANSLATION is somehow not twisted and evil?
@William Cloud I believe that you do know that when Christ said ‘call know man father’ he was employing hyperbole; You just choose to ignore it. When Stephen the first martyr preaches to the unbelievers, he refers to Abraham as father; Acts 7:2. When Paul is defending himself against the mob, he address them as fathers; Acts 22:1. In 1 Cor 4:15 Paul gives himself the title father.
There is no way that anyone killed 100million. That is such a silly claim! 100 million REALLY! You fail to mention how Calvinist Protestants killed Lutheran Protestants for refusing to deny the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist; John 6:52-60. Nor How many Catholics were killed by Protestants.
Read 2 Thessalonians 2:15 on tradition and please good luck trying to find a verse to back up the man-made teaching of Sola Scriptura.
Mary is in the bible and has nothing to do with the false clam pagan Goddess thing. Luke 1:28, Lk 1:43, Lk1:48 and the anti-Christ attacks the Church that defends Mary in Revelations 12.
I was born Catholic then left became an atheist then Catholic again for about a month then became protestant. I originally found your channel when i was a protestant and watched your video on why you arent protestant. You made very good points but i was blinded by pride. I reverted back to Catholicisim a month ago when i went to Eucharistic addoration. i could not deny that the Eucharist was Jesus. I could no longer be a protestant after, im glad to have a united community in Catholisism as well like Jesus prayed for. happy to be home :).
was it necessary to be baptised again.?
i mean,you were already baptised as a child ,and baptism can be recieved only once.
so,wa there any special prayer or ritual for your reconciliation with the catholic church?
@@aldrinsojan.p.8834 confession and i said the apostles creed
@@sleppynoggin8808 Same. Confession is the way you reconcile with God and His Church. Glad that you're home, brother.
@@aldrinsojan.p.8834 I believe when you are baptize in the Catholic Church its done ,
@@aldrinsojan.p.8834so if you dont get baptised you go to hell? why dont you just call on the name of Jesus and let Him guide you
"Relevance isn't a virtue." Good line.
It is when it's relevance to God! In Christ, Andrew
@William Cloud : jimmyakin.com/library/sola-scriptura-and-private-judgment
@William Cloud I'm sorry but this is not correct. All Christian's (both Catholics and Protestants alike) receive an indwelling of the Holy Spirit through Trinitarian Baptism.
This is has been consistently understood since the time of the apostles, coming directly from our Lord in John 3:5. We should hope and pray for all men to be Baptized, as this is the great commission given to us by Christ.
God bless.
@William Cloud I'd like to hear what you think "being born again of water and the spirit" means.
It also seems like you're ignoring Matthew 28:19 when Christ says, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
@@matheusmelo4099 Being "born again" is scriptural. Christ said that nobody can enter the Kingdom lest he be re-born.
Jesus as THE LOGOS was one of the major reasons I reverted back to Catholicism. At the very early stages of my journey I had already decided that relativism was stupid, that there is objective truth... I may not know what it is, but I could be humble enough to pursue it. I learned the idea that Jesus is the Logos and how that relates to consciousness... the ability to reason. We can know truth by use of logic. We have truth because God IS Truth, in the same way that we have love because God IS Love (philosophical particulars vs universals vs THE Universal).
In my journey back the question was on the table of protestantism or catholicism. I stumbled upon where the idea of relativism began - the idea of the "double truth" proposed by Marcilius of Padua. Luther was a fan. Marcilius said that there are some things you can know by faith like the creed and some things you can know by reason like science and they can contradict each other and both be true. When I dug further into this idea I saw that one way this was proven was by showing that the concept of The Trinity was inherently illogical by using a deductive reasoning formula. But they made an error in their calculations!!! Eventually Luther took these ideas, called reason the "devil's handmaid" and warned people against using it. Reason cannot be inherently evil if Jesus is the Logos! Therefore, protestantism is founded on the splitting of faith FROM reason. Catholics believe in faith AND reason... Multiple truths vs one objective truth.
Jesus is the Logos, ie. Divine Reason and creative order. Relativism is chaos... just look at our world. When you look at how logos process/ordering works you realise you place objective truth outside of yourself, humble yourself enough to agree you need to learn it, and journey toward it. You place as your highest value something that is outside of yourself. This is the very premise of what is the model of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. It is this that western civilisation is built on... hence we are logos-centric. The opposite of this, which is the model of relativism, is to not place the locus of truth outside of yourself but within yourself, think your truth is yours and no one can change it thereby not work towards refining which leads to idol worship of the self. It is the very premise of the model of EQUAL OUTCOME. Protestantism at its foundational core, which began with the alteration of the definition of truth itself, leads to a kind of idol worship of the self... in a way that stunts growth in holiness. Hence sola fide takes primacy in their doctrine... (and even that can be refuted scripturally very easily.)
God bless all you protestants... really I do love you and pray constantly for you. As Scott Hahn describes it, it's a kind of schizophrenia of truth. Hence chaos. So some of what is believed is very true while other ideas are like half truths or incomplete truths. I personally cannot accept this idea of double truths and relativism. I love my protestant friends, but I do not love this idea. I truly do understand We live in really confusing times as these ideas now have percolated for centuries and are the predominant modern worldview. I just don't think it's true.
[Might I recommend Scott Hahn's "Forerunners of the Reformation". Scott is a protestant minister who converted to Catholicism. ua-cam.com/video/CTMX4C169bg/v-deo.html]
Logos is rising.
"Relativism is chaos... just look at our world." I lived my adult life as an agnostic/atheist/Buddhist. Then the relativism of our age, which has grown increasingly hostile and illogical, propelled me to reconsider God. I wanted something long-tried, thoroughly considered, and less susceptible to whims. I am attending the Catholic church.
This comment goes deep. I'm taking notes
Just listened to that Scott Hahn lecture & thank you for posting the link.
askmemakeup Buy Dr. E MICHAEL JONES book about Logos. Should’ve available soon.
I'm finding less and less reasons to remain a Protestant.
Edit: I watched Brian’s supplementary video on why he converted to Catholicism. As he mentioned Matthew 7:21-23, I felt an overwhelming sense of dread; a realization that merely professing Faith in Christ is insufficient in order to be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven.
Second Edit: I wanted to update you all and say I made my general confession on August 7th and just was confirmed into the Catholic Church (August 11th, 2024) and received my first Holy Communion. Thank you for the initial nudge in the right direction, Brian 🙏
You will always be welcome to the Catholic Church. Keep digging and you will find many more reasons for coming back home. Until then, I'll be praying for you as my brother in Christ.
I'm curious, are you Methodist, Lutheran or Calvanist? These are a pretty easy switch with regards to the other -- not so savory -- protestant theology out there. In any case, I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms if all requirements and education are met.
Heh. I know how you feel. That's where I was, fourteen years ago. I entered the Catholic Church in 2010.
Allow me to encourage you: For every single question you have about the Catholic faith, there IS a good answer.
When you find that answer, you'll often find yourself saying, "That's so beautiful! That's so exactly right! That explains so much!"
And then you'll find yourself saying, "Why didn't anybody ever tell me this before? Why were the Catholics I knew, most of them, so bad at explaining it? Why did I have to look so hard to find someone who could spell it out clearly and winsomely? Why did even some of the clergy try to water it down, or downplay it, instead?"
If you're like me, you may even say, "Good grief, the Catholic faith is like the biggest Secret Conspiracy in the whole world...and still true! And yet it somehow manages to BE a big misunderstood secret in spite of being perfectly open and available to all honest inquirers. How does that even happen?"
Hang in there. It's a wild ride. Have faith in God.
Keep praying something along these lines, "God, I will go where You want me to go, say what You want me to say, do what You want me to do, and give away whatever You would have me give away....only, don't let me be led astray into anything other than Your Truth, and if there's some part of Your Truth that I'm unable yet to grasp, give me the humility to patiently accept my own confusion, and don't let me come hastily to a wrong conclusion just because it's easier on my brain!"
One more thing:
I said above that, for every question about the Catholic faith, there IS a good answer. I have found this to be true.
BUT..., for certain contentious topics, I found myself stuck for a long time. Others have experienced this; and it's different topics for different persons.
For some people, it's the papacy. Not for me: Once I understood the Petrine Office as the New Covenant version of the Al Bayith (chamberlain/prime minister/grand vizier/chief steward) under the Davidic Kings, many things related to the papacy suddenly became clear. Isaiah 22's description of the role a good Al Bayith (Eliakim) should play in the Kingdom looked just like a good pope; whereas the earlier description of a bad, embezzling, presumptuous Al Bayith (Shebna) looked a lot like the bad popes.
But the Marian stuff was less-easy for me. I could see how the Marian dogmas *could* be true; but I couldn't easily see why I should be fully confident that they *were* true. And more than that, there was the *way* guys like St. Louis de Montfort talked about Mary. I had to remind myself: "I'm a 21st century American. By the standards of most human cultures over the ages, I'm cold and unemotional. But de Montfort is a Frenchman from 200 years ago. All that flowery, poetical, over-expressive devotional verbiage fits how he thinks you should address the King's Mom.
I guess what I'm saying is: There is excellent reason to hold that the Catholic Church is exactly what she claims to be: Christ's intended community of disciples for communicating the gospel to the world, constituted of all those in communion with an Apostolic Successor bishop who's in communion with the Petrine Successor, preserving the faith through time until He returns, in spite of being populated by a mix of good and bad men, wheat and tares, Eliakims and Shebnas.
But I think God doesn't usually allow us to become fully-comfortable with EVERY doctrine in Catholicism BEFORE we decide to become Catholic.
In my experience, what He does is:
- He lets you become familiar with just enough to know that it's true, even if there are bits you don't "get";
- He shows you some part that you explicitly DON'T "get," at least not yet;
- ...and then He says, "You already know enough. Do you trust Me with the rest?"
Like I said: A wild ride.
God bless.
Would love to have you in the church , my recommendation , either a Eastern Catholic Rite or a TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) church like the FSSP . God Be With You.
Probably a stupid question but you say you finding less reasons to remain a protestant, is this because you are losing faith in god? Is it because you disagree with doctrine? BOTH?
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD - Isaiah 1:18
Getting confirmed this Christmas, your channel has been a major help in me understand the Catholic method of faith and spirituality, I can say from experience coming from a Pentecostal church i had arguments with my fellow church-goers because I tried to make a pro life argument, but from a secular philosophical standpoint, and they got mad at me for not defending the pro life stance by quoting the Bible, and this was well before I ever began exploring Catholicism, so yeah I can definitely relate to this annoying mindset.
Hooh-hah! Welcome, brother.
Wait a second, did those people dislike your pro- life stance?
@@Arguvandal Yeah, the were upset that my defense of pro life doesnt include a "because God says so" argument. I don't know how they can't understand that you can't say God says so as an argument if the other person doesn't believe in God. And they didn't like that
@@LucasKellis mindblowing. Of course God is not okay with it, but even if I would look at it the "secular" way I would still think it vile. Some people who follow our Lord really need to stop being so hostile to other believers...
Welcome home!
As a catechumen, with a Baptist background, I'm learning more, not only about the Gospel, but the importance of Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture; along the way, I'm realizing what was missing in my Baptist experience, reasoning, logic, and the bonding of the Church by rituals and rites. Not bandage, which enslaves the mind and destroys the soul, but a unity of brotherhood, which strengthens believers and shows forth Christ in Christian love. I thank God for my new Catholic family, and I hope to prove a worthy disciple of Christ.
Jesus Christ did not write or send a Book : he sent apostles. And those apostles or their successors decide to write or authorize the book we know.
"There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written."
You nailed it when talking about "Secular Stage Production", Bands, Smoke Machines and lets not forget in house coffee shops, I am going through RCIA and will join the Church this Easter. I never dreamed I wouod be converting to Catholicism until I walk into a Catherdral on a whim for Mass, no coffee, no band (just a beautiful choir), no talking, just silent reverence and kneeling before our Lord, The whole Mass was dedicated to worship, not a bumch of frivolous distractions followed by a brief feel good message, I have not looked back since. I God everyday for leading my wife and I to the Catholic Church. You have a new subscriber, love your videos!!
Sorry not good at typing on my phone!
Also a big box building and a plain stage I don't even see a Cross .
Protestants: That's not in the Bible
Also Protestants: *Removes 7 books from the Bible*
Precisely! They cut the 73 down to 66 with a pair of scissors, it's pathetic.
Aside from that the person claiming something isn't in the Bible isn't in the Bible themselves.
@Breas the Beautiful read the actual passage with the commandments in both Exodus and Deuteronomy, it's more than obvious that Protestants subdivided them wrong.
@Breas the Beautiful LOL, explain the endless statues practically sponsored by God in the old testament.
Also Luther saying: Jesus you were wrong, your church HAS been prevailed by the gates of hell, but no worries I will set it right - (goes on and starts Protestantism)
@Breas the Beautiful we don't pray to statues, they are merely reminders. We pray to God in heaven. Would you consider creating all statues a sin? Or only praying to them? Cause I don't know where you heard that we PRAY TO THEM. If you have photographs of your family on the wall should I assume you PRAY TO THEM? Or that they are just there to remind you of those who passed away?
Yep- I was an atheist that eventually became Catholic *because* of their rich, rational, philosophical arguments... Quoting the bible at me wouldn't have done ANYTHING.
The Bible says that God's word never comes back to Him void. Jesus quoted scripture to Satan. We are to copy Jesus. The results are up to God.
@@Melissa-gn3dv Jesus was responding to Satan who was quoting Scripture the only way he does. Out of context to promote a lie. Moral of the story? NEVER interpret Scripture outside of the Church Jesus established and gave His authority to. Jesus also warned the Pharisees that they search the Scriptures yet still refuse to come to Him. So we learn that even enemies of Jesus can quote Scripture and even study it and STILL not believe the AUTHENTIC Jesus as opposed to the imaginary one they invent. Who saves NOBODY.
@@Melissa-gn3dv
I think the results vary depending on the condition of people's hearts. Scripture says God hardened people's hearts who already were fighting against him, like Pharoah. God's word can be shared with thousands but most of them will probably reject it because of their heart condition.
@@mrjeffjob
When pope John Paul 2nd kissed the Quran was he doing so because of the interpretation of scripture in the Roman church? Seems like obvious heresy to do such a thing.
(Edit - the Quran is heretical and a denial of the Christian faith)
@@mrjeffjob
When the Roman church offers communion to known unrepentant sinners who support abortion and homosexual marriage, are they doing so from a correct interpretation of scripture?
As a Lutheran Protestant, I can definitely see where you're coming from.
oliver I agree with that statement
“...[Reason] is the devils greatest whore.”
- Martin Luther’s Last Sermon in Wittenberg … Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546.
i truly lament that as lutherans we are being lumped in with biblicists. Luther wasn't part of that btw.
Alfredo Bullen Agreed, and neither were the Reformed/Calvinists.
@@donbaker7651 correct..although modern calvinists are biblicists..well...some of them. Baptists most def are
As a protestant, I am very surprised by the fact that your use of logical arguments more than anything else was opposed by protestants of all people, especially considering that I have found that rational argument consistently tends to be the most reliable way to debate and persuade non-Christians about many of our theological convictions, and have been encouraged by my church to use my reasoning for exactly this purpose.
@Aaron Gronsman That same approach is what made CS Lewis as influential as he is. It sounds two faced to bite the Catholic hand doing the same thing
If you are ok with using your God-given reason you should probably take a good hard look at your solae, since they don't hold up.
One example of reason or logic abusing scripture is when people assume Mary and Joseph had sexual relations because it's logical and reasonable.
@Collins Anosike That's certainly not what the Church teaches! I recommend reading Humanae Vitae, or studying Theology of the Body.
@Collins Anosike OK, thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, many people do think that the Church teaches that sex is only for procreation and nothing else, so we should be careful about reinforcing that misconception.
Also, I think MariaSonia was in fact defending the virginity of Mary.
In case you haven't already, you might want to read Pope Benedict's "Regensburg Address" which addresses the necessary role of reason in any concept of god.
OpusDogi is this on google?
God* (the G should be capitalized.)
Great stuff Brian, logic, reason, scripture and Thomas Aquinas is what attracted me to becoming Catholic.
Aquinas arguments are medieval bullshit which several atheists debunked many times. I would say the existentialist approach is the best argument for Christianity. I mean Kierkegaard and Dostoevskij
I left Protestantism for Catholicism because I couldn't find a logical reason to stay (and many logical reasons I _should_ make the change) and all the while, various Protestants were saying that I didn't have enough faith that [insert their particular tradition here] was the right way and that I shouldn't use reason to make decisions like this.
@Levi Care to elaborate how that went down?
Also. As a Protestant it’s been my POV that a rising secular culture makes the old Prot.-Cath. squabbles a luxury we can no longer indulge. Yet IMO neither side can quite claim a high ground either.
Ha...ha! It looks like you found the best "logical" reason. Welcome Home!
@@JNF-SATX Here's the "short" version of the story:
I was raised in a Protestant home on the "evangelical" end of the spectrum. I had nearly zero interaction with Catholics (other than those who were only Catholic by name) and basically thought of them as just another denomination, and one that likes tradition a lot. As an adult, I started a new job working in close quarters with a pair of passionate Catholics (one a convert from agnostic opinions, and the other born and raised Catholic). I realised that I should do a better job of understanding _what_ I believe and be able to defend my beliefs, as not everyone can be right.
As I started trying to put my opinions down on paper, I took two different directions. I would say "I believe _this_ is correct because..." and then I'd also take the offensive position and say "I *don't* believe in _this opposing opinion_ because...". The first thing I realized was that all the reasons I had been given and continued to be told that Catholicism was a valid form of Christianity were a combination of misunderstanding, intentional misdirection, "fake news", and things like that. It didn't take long for me to truly believe that my Catholic co-workers were "just as Christian" as I was.
At this point my stance was "If what the Catholic Church teaches is in fact what they believe and the anti-Catholic stuff I had heard is nonsense, there's nothing wrong with that." The problem was that I realised I _liked_ a lot of the "traditional things" done in the Catholic Church and more "traditional" denominations. I liked the candles, the insence, the days for remembering special occasions and people. As I read more about them, I couldn't find any reason _not_ to partake in those traditional things, and that being more involved in my faith would be a beneficial change from my lax, unstructured form of faith. As much as I didn't want to admit the the Catholic Church was correct in their opinions on a myriad of issues, I had to be honest and say that if the Catholic Church was truly a valid form of Christianity, it would benefit my personal faith to explore joining.
This was where things got messy. My mom, my wife's mom (my wife was a few steps behind me at this point, going in the same direction), our pastors at the Canadian Reformed Church we were attending, and various other connections from different backgrounds started to voice their opinions. They'd say "The Catholic Church is wrong because of _this_ and _this_ and _this_." And I would either respond with "_That_ isn't something the Catholic Church teaches" or "What makes your church denomination right on that issue", and in the end, I could never get a solid "Our church is right because" rather than a "Catholic Church is wrong because" kind of answer.
In the end, the only set of doctrines that consistently could defend themselves on every question I could ask, as well as show a historical precedent for their existence (i.e. not just showing up out of the blue 500 years ago) were the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
My mom doesn't like the choice, but her opinion is that we don't have to follow "all the wrong teachings" (the things she disagrees with) of the Catholic Church to participate, and that we are still saved. My mother-in-law, on the other hand, has said that we're "being risky with our salvation" by following "too many traditions of men" while at the same time, being unable to defend her own traditions.
I agree with your comment about the squabbles. The various disagreements and lines being drawn within Christianity have made it rather hard to defend it to an outsider. If it were possible for all of us to team up and be consistent in our appearance and actions from "the world's" point of view, it would be so much easier to defend our beliefs!
Jacob Felty I agree with you there is way too much fighting that is still happening between Catholics and Protestants. As a Protestant I can see many Catholics who have Christ as their Lord and many who do not. Same goes for Protestants. I'd rather both sides get together and logically talk about our differences instead of name calling which accomplishes nothing good.
Levi I left organized religion, with all its creeds and dogmas and virgin births, because I couldn´t find a logical reason to stay. It was time to think for myself instead of having a religion do the thinking for me.
Man, this channel, along with Catholic Answers Live, and Sensus Fidelium are fantastic!
Hold up, did you just use Steven Furtick as an example of "Conservative Christianity"?
Look up R.C. Sproul Sr., John MacArthur, Matt Chandler, Alistair Begg... Those men are genuine conservative christian pastors.
1517
lol, you could see it that way, or you could see that their heart is in honouring God and what He had left us in His word to the best of their understanding.
The altar, by which I believe you mean communion, they respect as the rich symbolism that Christ meant it to be, there is no need to make it more significant than it already is by adding in strange mysticism when the very act of partaking irreverently is said in scripture to be taking on a judgement against oneself.
It is the same with baptism, it is important in its symbology, in the obedience to Christ, and in it’s public nature, why add anything more? Why add mystic properties to such a rich sacrament? Especially since the scriptures do no such thing?
As for double predestination even the staunchest Calvinist would agree that you don’t have to believe it to be saved.
But in all honesty I would rather be a bit of a humbug but in line with the word of God than the alternative.
@@AlexandreFrenetteJ this response actually shows no knowledge about what "Sacrament" or "mystic" means. This old rationalist heresy of leaving behind the transcendence of Divine symbols can be very persuasive, but Christ states clearly im the Gospel that when He talked about his flesh and blood, He really meant it.
@@gustavofontinelli9662
No, not at all, and the text is very clear on that: see Luke 22:17-20
"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the (n.1)fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. (n.2)Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you (n.3)is the new covenant in my blood."
n.1 - Jesus himself said "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine" hence it is wine, and remains so.
n.2 - He specifically says "...Do this in remembrance of me.” highlighting the clear purpose of this new sacrament, that this is to be a new tradition in the same way as Passover was the old tradition, using the elements, bread and wine, as symbolic tools in the same way was unleavened bread and the lamb was used to remember the circumstances in which Israel left Egypt.
Just as no Jew would have believed that the 10th plague would strike his family if he failed to observe Passover properly but the symbolism remained significant, Communion doesn't entail literally partaking of Jesus' flesh and blood rather it symbolizes the believer's partaking of Christ's sacrifice.
n.3 - The wine symbolizes the new covenant (in His blood which is soon to be spilled).
Don't get me wrong, symbolism is highly important and useful, but also don't make it weird and add a whole bunch of extra-scriptural esoteric nonsense that only serves to distract from the purpose of the sacrament.
@@AlexandreFrenetteJ Again, tje sacraments are not just symbolism, as shown in
John VI, 47-55
I Corinthians XI, 23-26 and 27
In this verses, we have Christ responding to Jews, who worried what he actually meant by eating his body, that His flesh is food INDEED and His Blood is drink INDEED. Then, St Paul says that we Christians must eat and drink His body until He comes and also we are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord if consuming it in an unworthy manner.
CS Lewis was actually pretty influential in my conversion
Me too. But he was immersed in the Medieval intellectual tradition which was exclusively Catholic. He also had a lot of help from his Catholic friend, Mr. Tolkien.
C.S.Lewis was the first to make it clear to me that, as soon as a materialist claims to be making a true statement, he has departed from materialism, because mere matter and energy can be neither true or false.
In other words, as Brian implies here, once you get a materialist atheist arguing / reasoning with you, you've already won, because he's sawn off the branch he was sitting on.
God bless you, sirs.
Free Thulcandra!
Please pray for my girlfriend. It's short-lived for us to have a conversation about Christianity (she's non-denominational and I'm Catholic). We try to show each other videos and sermons, and we can have a good conversation about it for a few minutes, but it always seems too short like there's something missing. It's also seemingly fruitless to start a conversation about Christianity and hold onto it for more than a few minutes. We're both religious, but we can never seem to keep the fire going. Please pray for us.
It's not about who's right or wrong. It's about loving what you both know is true: God loves you
JesusChrist did not 'die' for catholics or protestants
He died for us all. I am a Catholic, my husband is evangelical. Bottom line : we want the same, but have different ways to get there
If either one of you don't convert to the others beliefs, you to non denominational or her to Catholicism, assuming you both want kids, it won't work out. The faith you both would want to raise your kids in will cause a lot of relationship problems for you two. One of you will want to raise them as Catholics and the other as non denominational. I encourage you to end it while you can. I'm on the outside looking in so I know my comment doesn't hold that much weight to you and should be taken with a grain of salt. But end it before you do something life changing like impregnating her or marrying her. I know it's easier said than done.
You need to get a Catholic girlfriend. Break up with this one today. Faith is the core of every other thing in a person's life, you need a partner who's on the same page with you.
joseph jackson You need the Holy Spirit’s leading my friend. He’s the only One who is able to give clarity. Seek Him and ask for guidance. And regarding the other comments suggesting to leave because of denomination. I have a question; have you surrendered to the same Jesus? Are you living for Him? For that’s the true essence of Christianity period, regardless of denomination. God bless
I will keep you guys in my prayers 🙏
“We’re not going to convince atheists to convert to Christianity by quoting scripture at them”.
Logically, I would agree with this. Before I was a Christian, “Bible thumpers” were the last people I wanted to listen to. If I was to be convinced that there was a God, I wanted a logical, verifiable reason to do so. But that wasn’t what caused my conversion. I found myself under the sound of God’s word one day, and that broke through to me. Maybe others have different experiences, but that was mine. I’m nondenominational btw, but I find Catholicism and Orthodoxy very interesting and I hope to learn more.
“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. (Romans 10:17)
God is an idea given to you by others.
The Bible was created by the Church as an education tool for Christians. It is not the be-all and end-all. New converts will not be convinced by our education tool, so we need to try other ways. The Gospel of St John was written to evangelise the Greeks, and incorporated Greek philosophy, which was true, into Christian theology. This was extremely successful at gaining converts.
As a Protestant, I appreciate your balanced critiques here.
Become Catholic!!!!
That was an absolutely beautiful and lucid description of how we evangelize both atheists and agnostics.
That is probably one of my favorite talks you’ve given, so elegantly put and so simple.
...except that his central premise is incorrect. One needn't compromise to make one's argument more relevant. Any skilled orator understands this.
Along with logical progressions and reason, I believe the Church gives us a very PHYSICAL way to worship Christ that is deeply rooted in scripture and apostolic tradition. Not only does it connect us throughout time to the body of Christ, it physically, spiritually, and mentally connects us to our faith by holding us accountable and giving us many daily resources to help us in our faith journey. I thank God every day for my Catholic faith that keeps me grounded and anchored in the Lord!
Brian , first time poster I love your videos and approach like sitting across from a friend , spot on the use of reason, we can win converts along with a honest explanation of the faith and what we are going through now. You know as a convert this is a difficult time in the church. You are doing God's work in these videos , informing and sharing. God bless you and yours.
The content is far better than the title. Thank you for your balanced words, and qualifying much of what you said. A lot of the more Historic Protestant Traditions are not so hateful towards Reason. (shout-out to my fellow Anglican peeps!) :)
Yes! A wonderful video but like you've said the historic traditional/catholic branches of the reformation (Anglo-catholic and Evangelical catholic/Lutheran) don't share this outright hatred of reason and use of pagan philosophy.
It's strange to hear Luther as the given beginning of this tendency, but most will pick and choose how they characterise him.
A quote from Luther, "Before faith and the knowledge of God reason is darkness in divine matters, but through faith it is turned into a light in the believer and serves piety as an excellent instrument." (Conrad Cordatus Jan 1533, sourced 'What Luther says' by Plass pg1165).
Basically, reason is a powerful tool. Used by enemies of The Faith it is an abomination, harlot of the devil; used by those in Christ it is a wonderful light pointing to and revealing salvation in Jesus.
It might be the same in the Anglican tradition, for the 'Lutherans' we've been struggling against perceived corruption in the medieval church on one side and perceived blind reason of those who reject the mysteries/sacraments on the other.
Thank God for the earthly wisdom and reason He continues to give even to the pagan, but when reason throws the baby out with the baptism water, rejects the history of the church, I'll agree with that other Luther quote apart from The Faith reason is a whore.
@@j.g.4942 unfortunately, both Rome and the Reformed think that we Anglicans are a bunch of Presbyterians with Prayer Books (except for the Uber-Reformed who think we're Papists). Anglicanism has always maintained that we are fundamentally Catholic. We look at ourselves as simply reforming to what the Undivided Church taught. As Lancelot Andrewes says, we hold to one Church, Two Testaments, Three Creeds, Four Councils, and Five Centuries of Christianity.
@@barelyprotestant5365 wonderful to hear, we 'lutherans' are alike but tend toward accepting all 7 ecumenical councils (issues with the 7th) just trying to remove parts contrary to scripture and the clearer teaching of the fathers.
Talks with the east were hard though, with all that turkey in Constantinople
@@j.g.4942 we accept the Christological clarifications of the 5th-7th Councils. However, as an Anglo-Catholic, I have to respect the Oriental Orthodox insofar as Ecumenical Councils are concerned. While I agree with the 4th, it did cause a split. We need to heal that schism before we can claim any Councils are "Ecumenical".
@William Cloud You are saved dear. All the best you will today Reach heaven as Jesus will take you up?? Is this what you think?? Or believe?? Cause clearly you don't want to listen like Jesus does or want to reason like God does.
Brian - your sound logic and appeal to reason are what I appreciate the most about your videos. While I certainly consider the Bible a source of truth in my Christian life, I am no longer a Bible verse quoting machine; my former self as an Evangelical. Every debate with Protestants tends to end in verses vs verses and Protestants think they hold the high ground when it comes to interpretation and canon. I can easily share your videos with my separated brethren because your logic and reason circumvents any interpretation of scripture. We often forget that while we consider Aristotle and Plato the fathers of logic and reason, they are God's philosophy that He set in motion.
Virtually all Evangelicals I know make the mistake of assuming that others, including atheists, hold the Bible in high regard. Evangelicals attempt to evangelize using Biblical quotes and then appear surprised when they get laughed at or ignored.
True.
you got that right
That's what Jesus told us to do
Just because you don't hold the Lord and his revealed will in high regard doesn't mean that we'll stop
Brian, while I am not a fan of Christian rock music I know others who it connects with. I went to a funeral of a friend of mine at a largely black Baptist church. And I was deeply moved by the emotion and passion with which they sang gospel music. An experience that I am truly grateful for as I have now become a fan of that genre. And I say this as a Lutheran. I think we need to be careful not to silo Christian worship and expressions that may be different than our own. Those wonderful people at Mount zion Baptist church bring great honor to the Lord in their singing. And we in the broader Christian community are better off for it. If we all just stuck with liturgical worship, we would miss these other expressions of love and devotion. And respectfully, I don't think we would be better off without it. Blessings.
I agree, I may not always be a big fan of more contemporary Christian music, but I think it is perfectly acceptable. As long as it glorifies God and the church feels a connection to the lyrics that brings them closer to God the music is fine. I do have a problem with turning into a concert. It's not a concert, it's a group of people coming together to make a joyful noise unto the lord.
In some ways I think a lot of "modern" services and masses end up being limp imitation of the black church. Both European protestants and catholics have a rich musical and celebratory tradition of their own that I think is in danger these days. I also think you'll be surprised at how deeply the black church is tied to and influences American music.
Mentions conservative evangelical christianity, shows video of Steven Furtick 🙄
I came to the comments section to type this exact thing.
I cringed!
I suppose he can be forgiven for not being aware.
Mikael Nyman my church is like the rock concert he mentioned except it’s just a band, not flashing lights or anything
A significant number of "I converted to Catholicism/Othrdoxy from Protestantism" videos are basically this. It's very easy to roam the internet for cringe Evanjellies and then deconstruct them. It's the Christopher Hitchens formula. The criticism is needed, but one only need look at what's currently unfolding in Catholicism to understand this problem is much broader than denominational battles.
Eye-opening point about the Catholic Church's adaptation of human reason. I never made that connection before: the early Church realized that human reason could bridge the gap in evangelizing to outside cultures (e.g., Greeks, Romans and other Gentiles), who wouldn't have a clue about scriptural quotations from the Old Testament/Mosaic laws/prophets/other Hebrew scriptures. Now I know what to say if anyone ever objects to the Church's traditions of (extra-scriptural) philosophy, theology, or reason in general. Great content as usual, Brian - thanks for all you do and please keep up the good work!
You are a great man, Brian. You do a good informative job. Continue. God bless you.
That was the best introduction to and ad I've ever seen on youtube, made me want to watch the whole ad.
I really appreciate your articulation in this video Brian. It's a distillation of a conflict that arises when my girlfriend (she is protestant) and I try and reconcile our faith differences with our relationship. She always gets frustrated when I integrate logic and reasoning into the discussion and highlights the less than satisfactory use of scripture. I will acknowledge with humility that I need to be stronger in my grasp of Gods word, but I think that goes without saying for anyone. My articulation seems to not have the full impact of its truth as a result.
I totally agree with you. I'm in a similar situation, and yea it's quite challenging. Sometimes it's even difficult for her to talk about it to me (maybe I'm also to blame, I just subtly try to give her ideas). But yea, I hope my prayers and my values/actions can see more of it. God Bless and I'll be praying for you man. :)
The beauty about being Catholic is that we live in the word it's a combination of scripture and tradition
But how do you know if your traditions are from God or man? The verse, "There is a way which seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death. " comes to mind. I hold tight to only the scriptures because I can be sure that they are the inspired word of God. Anything else, I can get wrong.
@@Melissa-gn3dv before scripture was tradition it's important how the scriptures came to be and most of All how to interpret that falls clearly on the Catholic church leaders
Before the bible was codified in 382 and printed in the 16th century, word of mouth and Sacred Tradition, which St Paul talks about were crucial
You are perfect with your logic! I am always engaged on your topics and your take on it.
You might want to study logic. Brian's logic is generally awful.
This is the first of your videos I have ever watched. I have just subscribed. I attended a Protestant University for two years and I had to defend Catholicism almost daily. I heard this response more than once: "Why don't you ever quote Scripture?" It was because I was using logic and reason and yes, it drove them crazy. I don't say that with pride, I say it because it was effective and help plant seeds of thought in them. Pax.
Brother Damien If you value logic and reasoning why aren’t you atheist?
@Apu Apustaja Most philosophers are atheist. Same goes for scientists. Much more atheistic than the normal population.
Like there's a reason physicists aren't perplexed over how jesus walked on water. There's a reason it's seen as a story by default.
Interesting.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Well said, Brian. Thank you for making this video!
A good quote from Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris, On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, par. 9:
"For the human mind, being confined within certain limits, and those narrow enough, is exposed to many errors and is ignorant of many things; whereas the Christian faith, reposing on the authority of God, is the unfailing mistress of truth, the follower of which will be neither enmeshed in the snares of error nor tossed here and there on the waves of fluctuating opinion. Those, therefore, who to the study of philosophy unite obedience to the Christian faith, are philosophizing in the best possible way; for the splendor of the divine truths, received into the mind, helps the understanding, and not only detracts in no way from its dignity, but adds greatly to its nobility, keenness, and stability."
I'm a Protestant who highly respects Catholicism. I am having a hard time connecting with your critiques of Protestantism however. Reasoning from the scriptures was the primary reason for the Protestant reformation. My perception from Luther's 95 theses is less toward corruption from Paganism, but corruption from power, selling of indulgences etc. and misreading scripture that was available only to those who could speak Latin, those who dared translate it so that people could read the Bible for themselves being put to death. I realize that there may be Protestants who have something against reason, though this is not a uniquely Protestant problem. We find this in any major religion. Primary teachers within mainstream Protestantism encourage people to think, and most of today's top Christian apologists are Protestant. The encouragement for people to read and understand Scripture for themselves, to reason from it and bring their questions to God, is something that Catholicism has until very recently seemed to lack. Critical thinking and authoritarianism tend to be at odds with each other, and Catholicism's structure at the very least is more authoritarian, though high church models within Protestantism also tend to be authoritarian.
My thoughts exactly.
Yes, I agree.
Yes but this is a double-edged sword since this attitude has led to Protestants being more susceptible to making concessions to secular society. I personally prefer the hierarchy present in the Orthodox or Catholic churches but I am not opposed to people being Protestant as long as they follow Christ and remember we are all brothers and sisters
❤... mic drop
I currently worship in the Wesleyan Methodist Church. But in 20+ years in numerous denominations, I have seen many of the concerns you raise.
I have seen teenagers told that their parent's cancer was the direct result of unbelief. I have seen parents told that their child's fatal accident was punishment for sin. I have seen new believers walk away from the faith because they were told that there was no logical reason for salvation and they just need to have faith. I have seen young lives destroyed by sexual abuse at the hands of pastors and priests alike. I have seen people forced out of leadership positions within the church because they dared to challenge abusive behaviours.
These offenses are not caused by Protestantism or Catholicism. They aren't even caused by Christianity or religion as a whole.
These offences are caused by fallen souls who exist in every single community on earth.
Maybe the problem isn't reason, or logic, or rock bands. Maybe the problem is that we cannot all agree on the common tenets of the faith. We all believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was resurrected and now intercedes on our behalf.
Well said, I debate this so much with people. Lemme just say though, I've never, not once gotten an atheist to consider Christianity using Scripture. I have, however gotten them to consider Christianity by explaining different apparitions or even a pagan belief that Catholicism didn't accept, but used to convert people. There are many ways to evangelize just using the Catechism or an apparition. God bless and have a good day.
DANIEL LEEPER what 😮. Go back a read read what you just write scriptures itself have the most beautiful power within. Remember Jesus said everything will pass but the word of God will never pass
Entire revivals and awakenings have happened based on scripture. America had 3 great awakenings that transformed and revived our nation, based on scripture. And look at the hundred of thousands converted by the messages of Billy Graham. Your limited experience is just that, limited.
Thank God you made this video so many young Catholics leave the church because a Pentecostal, Baptist, etc.. shows up and tells them about how nice their music is at there church and how they feel the presence of God there. This is a huge problem especially in America and we need to start speaking up about this issue. God bless you all
Yeah, if God is merely a "burning in the bosom" or "fuzzy feeling" then even the Mormons are right.
LOGOS IS RISING. DR E MICHAEL JONES
@Matt Mayuiers thanks
Dr e Michael Jones is our leader
@Matt Mayuiers everything that is anti catholic is satanic
@Matt Mayuiers "antisemitic" means nothing
@Matt Mayuiers
. I'm telling you it means nothing.
. I don't care about your definition or what people think it means these days.
. You bring your 'antisemitism' out of nowhere and then tell 'we' "all can stop bringin that up"? Are you OK?
. There is no 'point' and I'll do what I want for as long as I want. Get it?
Thank you for making this video. I watched Bishop Barron’s speech and the following Q&A at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops the other day and it really struck me when one bishop voiced concern that in efforts to evangelize that the church would lose sight of things like “not going to Mass every Sunday being a mortal sin” and it just struck me as...missing the point. What does it matter if the person doesn’t believe at all yet and doesn’t ever come to Mass? You’re not going to convert an atheist by trying to instill fear of Hell. Fear of God’s judgement holds no power over them if they don’t believe in God or Hell yet.
On the other hand, by only focusing on new converts, the Church risks losing her own flock to the world and perhaps worse. De-emphasizing the seriousness of mortal sin is a great example of this.
St.Paul in the new testament cited pagan poetry approvingly to the pagan philosophers he debated with which proves pagans can get things right even if they also get alot wrong. All truth springs from God so we don't say something is necessarily false just because a pagan said it or because it's not in the bible as long as it doesn't contradict it.
How did you learn so much? As a busy Catholic how can I learn like you? What books, what schools, what stages, how can a busy working mom learn her faith better when are parish offers minimal additional teaching outside of Mass?
I'm not a busy Catholic parent, but my mother certainly was. She had eight kids and yet she managed to learn a ton about her faith. I think one of the ways she did it was just by making an effort to get up a bit early every day, and spend some time praying and reading before she had to get us up for school.
But so much of what will work for you depends on what your family life is like, how old your kids are, whether you have a job outside the house, etc.
One thing that might work is just setting aside a bit of time for reading about the faith on Sundays. If you have your husband's cooperation, you could even set aside a time where everyone in the family reads from the life or writings of a saint, Church documents, or some other book about the Faith.
Andrew Sheedy I read a ton, take CD courses but I feel alone. I’m in a book club and the ladies just look at me a bit weird when I speak about my opinions and thoughts based on what I know and have read. My parish has no bible study or theology. Mostly altar society and such. I guess I just need to find someone to converse with that are not afraid to go deep with our faith and I know I need guidance. My husband is protestant so he does his own thing. Maybe i’ll find a community (Not internet folk) of people, real people, I can see, that want to grow in knowledge of their faith.
@@m2sotolopez Sounds like you're doing what you need to do! But being alone is tough and doesn't have an easy solution. I'll say a prayer that you find a group you can join. Best of luck to you!
I don't know if it's here or on any other Catholic channel mentioned, but here is an online course: spt.franciscan.edu/programs/aa-theology-online/
This is the best video I have watched that I can confidently share with my Protestant and non-Christian friends. Thank you.
remember though that protestants are still followers of Christ and the goal should be to help those who don't yet believe rather than fighting over secondary theological issues :)
@@Peter-xm7fz That is correct. I used to be one of them. :)
Relevance is not a virtue... Great point... Well done video...
When I started memorizing the Our Father and Hail Mary in Latin back in Lent 2020, I lost touch with the meaning of the words, for a while.
Then, as I started getting better, that returned, even amplified.
One benefit that was added was a renewed appreciation of the Universality of the Church.
It is a bit of an analogy to learning Reason - it takes a while before the real value emerges, but it is powerful and legitimate when it arrives.
The bridge concept was really helpful, Reason will be my project for 2021...
God Bless...
Wow, excellent video. I like your videos, because they are logical. Jesus is logos, logic.
If you think his videos are logical, I'd hate to think what you would consider illogical. Raise your standards or you'll fall for any scam.
I’m rarely disappointed with these videos!
I appreciate your videos Brian. I would encourage your investigation of Luther and the use of reason as sometimes it seems you caricature his position. The Lutheran reformers were not against reason or the church fathers tradition, they quote Ambrose and Augustine regularly in the Book of Concord which is obviously a work of reason and rhetoric. I agree with your defense of the use of reason as a shared faculty in the public square. Cheers!
Being born again led me to Christ. I realised I don't need anyone to get to God, I have a direct line.
2nd Birth Don’t believe in the stories
Brian is great 👍
Hey man, just discovered this channel. Love it. Subscribed and hit the bell. Belated welcome to the Catholic family! You're setting the bar high for the rest of us--good, we can use encouragement. Cheers and God bless!
I couldn't agree more with the full substance of this video. I just discovered your channel and your whole approach resonates so strongly with me. I'm really glad I stumbled upon it. There's something I noticed near the end of the video that I wanna remark on, but first I thought it might interest you to know a bit of my background perspective. I also was an atheist/agnostic. I encountered Jesus through a purely academic, historical study of the ancient Israelites, the Hebrew Bible, and eventually the story of the Messiah. So, for me, reason was absolutely fundamental to my conversion. From the sound of it, my trajectory has been much like yours, except I took the history and philosophy approaches in reverse order.
It was reason that helped me to see that the Gospels are reliable, that Christian history makes no sense on materialistic analysis, and ultimately that Jesus is God. I never could have seen any of that if the Holy Spirit hadn't opened my eyes and scrubbed my heart of the prejudices I had against Christianity. But nor could I have accepted it if the claims were unreasonable. As I was forced to accept that the accounts in the New Testament represent reliable, extremely well corroborated records of events, I had to start describing myself as an agnostic who accepts that Jesus did what is claimed, but without purporting to know the implications of that.
And I can see now that the mental gymnastics that kept me from accepting the obvious implications of the gospels were motivated by a deep-seated presupposition of materialism, a vestige of my scientific background and training. I just presumed that nothing immaterial exists, and even if it does, it's not worth talking about since it couldn't possibly influence our world, so nobody could possibly know any more about it than anyone else. At first, acknowledgement of Jesus didn't lead me to acknowledgement of God, because I believed the very concept of God was incoherent and/or vacuous. As such, I hoped to find some materialistic explanation for everything the Apostles witnessed. And it was from that point of view that I started studying Christian philosophy more deeply, ultimately to reconcile myself to God. As such, I am currently converting to Catholicism.
As for my comments on the video: I don't think reason is, in principle, untrustworthy. Everything humans do could be fallible. But the whole enterprise of reason is manifestly an effort to control for fallibility. Just like the enterprise of science. In science, we don't just accept the first bit of evidence we collect. We repeat many trials, over and over. We try to change things up to see if there are confounders. We have peers review our work. Other peers will try to reproduce our work to show that our findings weren't just a fluke, an isolated incident.
So, although all the individual tools of science are intrinsically fallible, the very essence of science, the thing that makes it so distinct from many other human enterprises, is the sophistication of its validation mechanisms. And what is science? It's a rational system for querying nature. Pure reason can't do what science does, just as empirical observation can't prove what reason proves. But science is built by, beholden to, and organized around reason. It operates according to the very same principles of verification, argumentation, and falsification that reason does.
In logic, we systemize every step of the process of reason in order to scrutinize it for the errors that humans are known to make. The very purpose of logical argument is to allow for scrutiny. We make deductive arguments in a very particular way, organizing them almost like mathematical proofs, such that the whole train of thought can be broken down into discreet premises and conclusions, connected by logical relations. This facilitates falsification of individual components. A postulate can be shown to be false far more easily than a simple claim can be shown to be unsound. And by separating the argument into multiple relations, it's easier to identify whether the relation between a conclusion and a premise is valid.
This is how we've managed to identify all the known logical fallacies. We know what logical fallacies are precisely because the purpose of logic is to control for fallibility. Similarly, it's much easier to falsify a premise (or at least show it to be uncertain) than to falsify a claim in isolation. Anyway, all the same can be said for inductive arguments, in the sense that reductionism makes it easier to validate the soundness _or_ the cogency of an argument.
But ultimately I think this arises from a confusion of terminology. People use "reason" in a lot of different ways. Sometimes it's treated as just a synonym for thought. Properly it should refer to thought that is structured and disciplined by philosophical principles. The kind of thought that Socrates systematized and on which the western intellectual tradition has stood for practically all of its known history. Human thought is fallible, and that fallibility can infect everything humans do, strictly speaking. But fallibility is not a word I'd use to describe reason (and therefore logic) because all reason is, is a system for getting the fallibility _out_ of human thought. Reason certainly isn't anything else. It doesn't serve any other purpose, nor have any other organizing principle. It doesn't have any goal of its own. Like science, it's a tool that can be directed toward whatever the bearer chooses.
So, what is the nature of that tool? For what reason was it developed? It seems clear that reason was developed in response to observations of the fallbility, inconsistency, and mutual exclusivity of human opinions. At least in the history of the Greek tradition (the oldest rational tradition for which we have compelling historical evidence), the proper canonization of reason was preceded by philosophical controversy between wildly disagreeing schools of thought with unexamined conclusions. As in Christianity, the discipline of philosophy needed a mechanism for settling disputes.
As technology has advanced, we've forgotten the necessity of reason, as more and more of our questions and disputes have fallen under the microscope of empiricism. Today, many people think the means of validation is empirical inquiry. But only recently have so many things in the universe become immanently testable. In the time of Socrates, even questions we now consider scientific needed to be answered largely by reasoning. There's nothing wrong with using reason to arrive at tentative answers to pressing questions. We still do it today. But the sheer number of questions the physical sciences have answered has led to a kind of scientific chauvinism. A presumption, seen in works like Stephen Hawking's last book, that physical sciences can answer every question worth asking.
This chauvinism is so strong that, when confronted with questions that science can't answer, the response is not to admit that the chauvinism was misplaced; instead, the response is to assert that such questions are not even legitimate questions, or that they concern merely imaginary or transitory phenomena. But we all know that questions about immaterial things are perfectly legitimate and even likely the most important questions. Unfortunately, as I'm sure we all have sensed, this attitude of "scientism" has trickled down to the laity, to the extent that we have forgotten what reason is and what it's for.
But I do think we're seeing a revival of appreciation for reason, the cracks in scientism are beginning to show, and its stranglehold is loosening. And that's exactly as it should be - reason isn't just normal human thought about serious matters. Reason is a tool for falsification and therefore discovery. And even today, reason can give us greater certainty about things within its domain than science can give us about things within science's domain. The laws of logic are far more secure than sensory observation or even the laws of physics. Where premises are very certain, conclusions can be very certain.
I don't mean to suggest that human argumentation is infallible. We need to temper our thought with humility, of course. We ought to assume our initial thoughts are always wrong. But that's precisely what reason is. When I say we shouldn't conflate reason with thought, that's what I'm trying to get at. Reason isn't thought, it's a system for disciplining thought. So to be humble, we shouldn't discredit reason or cast doubt on its ability to cultivate certitude. Instead, to be humble, we should _use_ reason.
Of course it's not the only tool at our disposal. Many arguments can be falsified empirically as well. But as I've said, empiricism is a rational system. It depends on reason. So our empirical inquiry can only be as secure as our reason is. If we don't trust reason, then how can we trust our empirical study of the Bible? If we don't trust reason, we can't even know what it asserts, much less apply the principles of empiricism at scale to a study of it. So, we have to temper everything with reason. Our own thoughts through pure logic, but also our interpretation and analysis of the Bible, our physical experiments and discussion thereof, and our discourse with each other.
Reason isn't some kind of alternative approach that competes with scripture. Reason is a set of principles around which we organize our thoughts and arguments, so it's upstream of everything we do, including reading, interpreting, analysing, and arguing about the Bible. It's possible to reason independent of the Bible, and it's possible to read the Bible without reason. But the choice to apply reason or not to is upstream of the actual reading and understanding of the Bible. And reason in analysing the Bible makes all the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.
In brief…Read Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul, a great philosopher
"And whenever this accusation arises, it’s usually at the hands of someone who is clearly aligned with a protestant theological position. And not all protestants would be motivated by this instinct, but for those that are, I would say they come by it honestly as something inherited from a tradition of thought that goes all the way back to Luther."
Maybe it's really from people who can think for themselves, read the Bible for themselves, and come to the conclusion that God told us what we need to know approximately 1400-1500 years before Luther. Catholics in general, and you in particular because of what I just quoted, need to understand that Luther has very little to do with Protestantism. Protestantism come from the desire of people to be free to know the Word of God. It was happening before Luther was even born.
Ok
Reason for what we can see, Faith for what we can't
6:35 Paul made the gospel relevent to the culture he was preaching in, yet he did NOT compromise truth. The number of Protestant churches that go against the LGBT way of life are MANY; and we pay a price for it by being labelled 'old-fashioned'
Just because a handful succumb to LGBT, meanwhile the rest fight against this ideology, invalidates your point about Protestantism.
Soooo insightful! Great learning
A few problems I have with your presentation:
1) The rejection of vestments, choirs, etc. was historically done for doctrinal reasons, such as the Regulative Principle. It wasn't done for relevancy.
2) Rome is massively guilty of relevancy herself. There are all types of sects within the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, including liberal types who want to make homosexuality normal because the culture demands it (well, because the priesthood is gay, really). Not to mention Vatican II, which was at least partly a hippy-led attempt at eschewing the ancient Liturgy _for relevancy_ .
3) Since we live in a fallen world, there are limits to the usefulness of reason (Gen 1v17 Eph 2v1). This is, in my understanding, the heart of the Eastern rejection of Natural Theology. If I'm correct, then it isn't fair to take aim at Protestants and call them schismatics when Rome is actually the odd one out.
The Catholic Church isn't but many members of the Church are guilty of relevancy. The true teaching of Christ is alive and well within the Catholic faithful. For over 2000 years Satan has struggled to destroy the Church and today is no different. Protestants are lost. They have no true north. Any Protestant can interpret Scripture to meet their personal needs and they do which is why there are so many different denominations.
@@flisom God is an idea given to you by others.
@@flisom Hi Fred, what do SSPXers and pro-LGBTers actually have in common? They are more different from each other than Westminsterites (presbys) are from 1689ers (baptists), yet you would call the latter two different denominations. For all intents and purposes, SSPXers and liberals are two _Roman Catholic_ denominations!
Also, any Protestant can't justifiably abuse Scripture like that, at least not if he is claiming to be in line with historic Protestant (apostolic) thought. We must interpret Scripture in light of the history of the Church. The only problem is almost no-one has much of an idea about the history of the Church. I think this is not just a Protestant issue.
Thusko your point valid but only through faith and reason did I come to believe.
Trixie Obbit the teaching of the Catholic Church is unchanging since it was passed to us from Christ through his Apostles. Any Catholic professing beliefs other than what has been passed down for the last 2000 years is not in full communion with the Church. Even if it’s the Pope!
I relate very heavily with the first 30 seconds of this video. I mean...memorizing a particular code (or in this case, a Bible verse) to flash to another in a debate to symbolize a highly particular rand lengthy message rather than using logic and a bit of theological stock knowledge is kind of tedious in my opinion. I'm not saying we shouldn't read the Bible, just that using what I mentioned above is way more effective and efficient when talking to others about religion.
As always, a breath of fresh air. 3 Hail Marys for you.
Mary is a human; don't worship her. The real Mary would be appalled. Glad she is in heaven and doesn't hear this stuff. How do I say that? Jesus told the thief "this day you will be in paradise with me" . When we die we are no longer in the earth's timeline. We are at the end of time at the resurrection.
@BB we don't worship Mary, we use Mary as intercessory to pray for us, no different from a protestant getting a friend to pray for them.
@@Naomi.B. why ask Mary to intercede when we are told to come to the Father through Christ? In fact we may boldly go to the Throne of Grace and find mercy.
I never heard this guy mention one text or cite a text from the Bible one time, that's crazy! The Bible is almost forgotten by this guy.
Why is that crazy?
@@joekeenan6435 If you compare this guy videos with a protestant Christian you'll see why. ua-cam.com/video/YJPUd6BTbKo/v-deo.html
@@olgaweisher9331
Do you believe the Bible is needed for salvation?
If so, you have a lot of explaining to do.
Can illiterates be saved, they can't read the Bible
How were people saved before the Bible was compiled (late 4th century AD)
The Bible is not needed for salvation
The Church is
The reason that you hear little to no scriptures in catholic videos is simply the culture of the faith. Usually if scripture is involved in a catholic circle the speaker will lay out all of it at once. This is different from a protestant church where it is more interwoven into their conversation
Passion of the Christ was not second rate!
It is a wonderful exception to the general rule lol
It was Catholic
@@notbot8830 It was true to the gospel, the way it happened, historically accurate.
NOT BOT It was made by an atheist.
I’m a Protestant and I agree with everything you said here. I won’t be coming Catholic for other reasons, but I am so frustrated that 21 century Protestism is now so shallow except in some Reformed thinking that it might not even consider itself evangelical or mainline. There probably are many of us who are on the periphery who at least feel we are kinda on our own.
What made me join Christianity was having people that told me "observe the world and verify for yourself if the Christian hypothesis is true"
Had I been told "this is true because the Bible says so" I would've never changed my mind
Sincere inquiry: what in your observation convinced you?
@@oambitiousone7100 well, I mainly tried to focus on two things: the fact that Christian morality makes your life more fulfilling, and the fact that God has/wants a relationship with you.
The first thing was easier of course, in fact I became convinced that Christianity works, as in, it actually makes you happy, before being convinced that Christianity is true (Christ walked on this earth, is the Son of God, died and resurrected to save us etc).
It was actually a pretty long and painful process, I started from a hardcore atheist position, in the first few months I was in a bit of a crisis because it meant changing my whole position on pretty much everything and admitting I was wrong before.
Right now I'm still in the process of learning and understanding/verifying things, but I can't deny that at least those two things, that Christianity works and that there is Someone who interacts and wants a relationship with you, are true.
🎩
Isaiah 55:11
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Brian, I'm new to your channel, and while I like that you make thorough and thoughtful content, I think you should be cautious of lumping every denomination besides Catholicism into one label. I'm a Methodist, and my views and practices contrast starkly with, for instance, a very conservative Baptist. There are things I believe which you would presumably disagree with, such as women being able to serve as preachers. You and the Baptist would have common ground on that and other issues. However, there are other things I may have more common ground with you on than the Baptist---for instance, we likely agree that faith without works is dead and we need to be in mission with the poor and helpless, whereas the Baptist would likely place much more emphasis on "getting your soul saved." If you paint the issue as "Catholicism vs. the World," you sweep a metric ton of nuance and differences under the rug.
On the bright side, seeing you stereotype all Protestants makes me reflect and think I shouldn't stereotype all Catholics.
Lily, do you think that Christ's truth is unchanging or can we change it as our lifestyles change? It's not a matter of being a conservative Christian or a liberal Christian if Christ's truth is unchanging.
Man, you always manage to put to words what I've always seen but never could say. Good bless you.
So, I know that commenting on videos is essentially an exercise in futility generally. Nevertheless, I wanted to say that as a Lutheran pastor, I dug your video until, obviously, the 8:40 mark. Now, I don’t think this is intentional on your part, but I think you’ve engaged in a bit of equivocation in switching from reason’s role in explaining the faith to others to reasons use in internal theological debates. Luther’s objection, as best I understand it, had a couple different facets, such as: 1) How reason is sometimes used to silence or mangle Scripture (think of strict predestinarians for example), instead of letting paradoxes remain paradoxes. 2) How reason is sometimes elevated to or beyond Scripture (think here of the idea of transubstantiation, or purgatory, or the spiritual ladder-things believed because they make sense, regardless of the fact that they have not been revealed). Luther, again, as far as I understand him, didn’t object to reason as reason-reason is inescapable and there’d be no point in writing anything at all if you completely disregarded it; but to reason going beyond it’s human limitations.
Scott Smith oh please mr. Scott with all due respect how can you explain to me how the 1500 years of the church was wrong until Luther was born? I mean before Luther, we have so many great thinkers like St Thomas, Duns scotus, st Francis and you get on only look at one man to justify your so call truth? I can not reason with that, maybe because there have been so many influential people that God have work miracles through them, than maybe one person is not enough for me. On top of that haven’t seen no miracles related through him that have made me think that I believe in him.
Mom&son Quete Oh please? That’s a bit rude. 🙂 Nevertheless, Lutherans don’t teach that the church was wrong for 1500 years. We teach that certain errors and misunderstandings over time attached themselves like barnacles onto the faith and were causing significant damage to it. Miracles or no miracles, questions of doctrine should be determined by the truths of Scripture.
Scott Smith I think we should pay attention to miracles, because God works through them. To manifest what is truth as well, I again with all due respect don’t believe that the Bible have the whole answers for things we cannot comprehend. Even one of the apostles said it in the Bible John 21:25. We have the Bible as authority but is not our only way to know about God, Before the Bible we have oral tradition and still have. God bless.
Mom&son Quete God performs miracles, yes. But as concerns the things we can know with certainty are of divine origin, the Scriptures alone are our only recourse.
Scott Smith well I disagree, first because again it is not our only way to know the things regarding to God. How then people before the Bible knew how things were from God? Why do you think they end up martyrs, because of the Bible? Again I not be little the Bible, but I believe that God can and is able to work in many ways. Not only in the way that can make sense to us. Second I would invite you to take a look at Saint Pío of Pietrelcina, a Saint not only because the church said but because of the miracles God worked through him and if you genuinely look through the eyes of those that will let God surprise them, then you probably see something.
Amen, Brian. Thank you for these videos. You hit the nail on the head.
Orthodox here. I hear St. Justin mentioned, I like.
I realize I'm coming into your videos rather late in the game, but I'm very grateful you've chosen to post such thoughtful, insightful and respectful videos in comparing Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Speaking as a Protestant of 27 years, I'd like to offer some additional insights (my hope is with the same respect and consideration you showed):
First; criticism where criticism is due. Far too many Protestant churches are 'going for the feels' instead of allowing themselves to be convicted, lifted and empowered by the Spirit through the reading, understanding and application of His Word. The stage, the lights, the screaming electric guitars should never be the focus (and I'm saying this as a guitar player). If, at the end, the congregants leave thinking, "what an awesome performance," that church needs to close its doors immediately.
Second; just as much as Paul never mentioned stages, guitars, specialty lights or smoke machines, he never mentioned, "choirs, vestments, pews, organs or pulpits," either. There's nothing particularly holy/sacred about any of those things. The LORD that's being glorified, magnified and worshipped is what matters. It's about the heart and focus of worship, not the devices.
Third; one of Martin Luther's biggest complaints was against the selling of indulgences in order to 'pay off' previous sins using money. That didn't sit well with him and led him to read, ironically, Romans; the letter sent to the initial catholic church at Rome. He found a number of glaring differences between what was being taught by the Roman Catholic Church at the time vs. Paul's initial admonishments.
Fourth; I believe we have two, competing philosophies here. It's one thing to make Christianity relatable to a particular group, culture or time in history. It's quite another thing for Christianity to become compromised by a particular group, culture or time in history. Dressing in a way that's relatable to a culture but not compromising God's word is perfectly fine. Using instruments that are native to a people group but doesn't compromise God's word is just fine. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Paul adapted his style of preaching so as to reach as many people as possible while not watering down God's word. Reasonable? Yep. Relatable? Yep. Acts 17:22-23. Paul walked around Athens to learn their culture and spoke to them regarding their own religion. Reason? You bet. An explanation that was Christ-focused but relatable to that group? Also true. It wasn't one or the other.
I use Wheaties as an analogy. For decades, they'd change the face on the box in order to reflect whatever sports star was popular at the time. However, inside, it was always the same bag of wheat flakes. In Christianity, the box can change with the times and culture, but the Spirit, His Word, His Truth should never change.
6:30 I’ll have to disagree with the relevance in regards to how church is conducted doesn’t work. I belong to a non-denominational church that if Paul was around he would call it a Milk church. We exist as a first step for people who have been away from the faith or never really had been a part and we’re seeing exuberant growth in the church to the degree of 100+ baptisms every 4 months. We have vibrant community group scenes and tons of outreach ministries. Is it anecdotal? Yes. But there’s no reason the success can’t be replicated elsewhere throughout the country.
I was raised protestant but I’m someone personally who would attend an Orthodox Church if they were a force in my area.
Kilo it’s ideal for someone to turn to the truth by reason and logic. But that is not always the case. Cultural apologetics plays a big part in Evangelism as well.
I appreciate these videos you are putting out. It is useful in helping to think out doctrine and scripture and applying it.
Luther wasn't against using pagan philosophy to understand the faith (Plato was one of his influences). He was against the Church's overemphasis on pagan philosophy (namely Aristotelian thought) to the point where if it would choose to follow the philosophy over Scripture whenever the two were at odds with each other.
Great talk--thoroughly enjoyed it. I just re-read Anna Karenina by Tolstoy. When Levin discovered God through revelation after years of pursuing reason, this is what he said, "Reason discovered the struggle for existence and the law which demands that everyone who hinders the satisfaction of my desires should be throttled. That is the conclusion of reason. Reason could not discover love for the other, because it's unreasonable."
Thank you for taking on a difficult topic. As a reply to 'not being sufficiently based in scripture", your argument is good and fair. You don't point out Matthew 4:3 and 4:6, where Satan quotes scripture, or the issue of free will and the gift of intelligence and curiosity.. Please allow that 'mainline' Protestant denominations are not as hostile to reason as you indicate, and that the Catholic church has the Confession of faith/Oath of Fidelity where the Catholic person agrees to "adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate" if they will be in any position to teach or act as clergy, which solves some problems but creates others. This is a difficult topic, Peace be to you.
As a Protestant myself, I actually largely agree with your video and the arguments you make. Protestant watering down their doctrine and accepting things within their churches that are of the pagan culture. Also Protestant trying to be relevant in culture and sacrificing liturgy and not having the theological depth to sustain. And allot of protestants use their feelings as guide.
That is my biggest problem with Protestantism. They believe they are CORRECT based on their feelings. That is the sole reason you have 40 000 Protestant denominations since AD 1600 while Catholic church is still one and only since AD 1.
Logstar. Take the next step in agreeing with the logic presented by Brian. Read the Catholic Catechism. Learn the True Faith. Come join us.
caracal82 Allot of protestants have an high view of scripture and base their beliefs on scripture and not feelings.
Marc Crotty I am sorry but I cannot become a Roman Catholic. I am interested to hear what RC have to say. I have read parts of RC catechism and I don’t believe it to be biblical.
@@Logstarau unfortunately your kind of Protestants are minority my friend. A kind interested in learning and exchanging points of view instead of proving others wrong. God bless brother.
I’m Protestant but these insights are spot on. I trust it’s OK to quote.
Did you just show a clip of Steven Furtick while speaking about conservative evangelicalism?
exactly. He has no idea but its ok
The photo is irrelevant to the point he was making. Besides, Furtick is conservative relative to the general population.
The other cool thing to note is that Aristotelian reasoning was the cutting edge of scientific methodology at the time. It's refreshing to see that at one point the Church wasn't fooled by the false divide between science and religion. Furthermore, one can trace the use of these philosophic/scientific terms all the way to the scriptures. St. John opens his book talking about the Logos, which was a pagan term used since the preSocratics that St. John itdentifies with Christ. St. John may have been familiar with this term given the open discussion in Judaism about Hellenisation. Main point: What does modern scientific research teach us about our understanding and relationship to God? For 1st century Christians all the way to St. Aquinas' time (when the faith/reason conversation ramped up) this was not a scary question, it was a matter of course.
Interesting. I've noticed this exact same dynamic playing out in other human endeavors. Namely in politics.
As a Protestant, I can totally agree with what he's saying about churches watering down the message, or simply making it a show with smoke machines and lighting. They are reducing the entire Christian life experience to a momentary, emotional experience. I do believe, however, that not all Protestant churches do this. In my country we have many small town churches that still hold traditional modes of worship and teach a solid Christian message.
I don't have a problem in using logic as defined by Aristotle as a way to reason about faith, either. Logic is not pagan by definition. Logic is simply logic. That would be like saying that math is a pagan concept just because the person who invented was not a believer. Math is just math.
While I'm not an expert in church history, I do believe the Catholic has indeed acquired certain traditions that are not in accord with Scripture, like bowing in front of carved images or praying to saints.
There are instances of Protestantism that I would also argue are not in accord with scripture. Many years ago, for example, a church was selling... er sorry, giving out after a donation... these so called "blessed handkerchiefs". Pieces of cloth that had been prayed over and probably been soaked in holy water, or something similar. And if you just held one over a sick person while you prayed, then they would get better. Completely ridiculous.
Happy Christmas from Ireland
As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I would note, that many of us are very traditional in our service, an outsider would be hard pressed to quickly notice the differences in our services. We also have a strong philosophical background. And Luther was a neo-platonist Augustinian Monk, and yes it is ironic that he used his training to criticize. Luther mostly did not have a really strong argument on Aquinas, nor do I think he really read in depth to deeper logic of Aquinas. He really got hung on the lack of the experiential aspect of belief, that he believed that Aquinas was professing. I understand both points. I do love the Roman Catholic philosophical tradition and am a fan of Aquinas. I do agree that many Protestants do the same thing they accuse Roman Catholics of.
Sorry you're wrong on you're understanding of what the Protestant are in protest about the Catholic Church. It is not studying and gaining wisdom from ancient Western literature, but adding to the historical doctrines of the scripture. Like the worship of Mary, purgatory and righteousness gained through works. By the way the rock concert church isn't a theological topic. It's a fad related to humanism and vanity. The persecuted church doesn't worship that way, which is by far the best example of the church.
CATHOLICS DON'T WORSHIP MARY. *sighs for the 103,423th time*
@@EdwardAtkinson l know you don't believe you worship Mary, but having the whole of the the church pray to her as if she has the omnipotence of the Divine is very circumspect. Next believing she has power to change a "sinners" fate is equally a problem. Also believing that her birth was special and that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, even though Jesus's younger brother James was the head elder of the early Church.
For us on the outside see these clearly non biblical revelations come from another god, and the best explantation would be the so called "Holy Mother of God, Mary" ...
Edward Atkinson
In all of St. Paul’s writings, he didn’t mention Mary’s name once. Compare that to how often you invoke Mary’s intercession and you’ll see why it appears to others to be worship - especially if the language and body posture looks like worship.
I'm a Protestant Christian who loves Thomas Aquinas and all the intellectual traditions of the entire church. I depended on every source I could find when I was challenging the veracity of my Faith during a long period of questing in my youth (mostly through modern popularizers who nevertheless provided detailed sources, which I read. It's how I discovered Aquinas.).
Yet as much as I appreciate all that theological reasoning and logic gave me back then, now,, 45+ years later, it is clearer that ever to me that we reasoners and logicians do inevitably reach an end to our reasoning and logic and arrive at a place where we must admit logic and reason can take us no further. We must make, as Kierkegaard called it, a leap to Faith.
When one has reached the end of logic, of reason, of study and debate, finally, one must either say, "Because God said", or turn and walk away. I've personally seen atheists do both.
So how can we criticize or think less of those believers who, more faith-fully it can be argued, begin at our end and never need to take that detour through Athens? I believe it was C.S. Lewis who argued that his need to "go through Athens" was a defect in his character and nothing to be proud of. Which is why he felt his parish experience of the Faith was essential to him as a professional intellectual. It compelled him by forced proximity to come to understand that he was not worthy to tie the boot of the laborer next to him who simply and joyfully embraced the declared Gospel.
The more I know of Catholicism, the more I'm so happy to be a born again Protestant.
@@josiahrandolphbaldwin8272 -I am to be non denominational apostolic reformed- Protestant _FTFY_
@@josiahrandolphbaldwin8272 I consider myself a finished "product" since accepting Christ as the only Way Truth and Life. There must be some Catholics who feel the same way.
@Smidlee So you are telling me that this present Pope is the Vicar of Christ
having lived in a rural area of a catholic country for 10 yrs now, I can totally understand why people tried to convert to protestantism. The fear, the guilt, the pressure is apparent on many peoples faces. the threat of hellfire to young kids, the gruesome lifesize crucifixes depicting graphic horror by the roadsides - for young toddlers to absorb into their brains, and seer the areas that normally would register fear or horror or empathy...and the past here was brutal: 100 yrs ago, people were starving in this valley - and the priests forbade them from taking fish from the rivers.worse still, in the mid 1600s, a story from a certain valley (there's a book about it), many men who left austria to work in germany came back with news of Luther and the protestant movement - and word spread in this valley, as the oppression of the catholic church was huge (plus they force a yearly subscription -and still do -, which was hard on the peasant farmers).so many converted to protestant. what happened? the catholic church rallied the men, and forced 1500 parents out of the valley - BUT - they stole 800 of their children, to be raised catholic. literally kidnapped them and kept them in the valley, and cast out the heretic protestant mothers and fathers. how can anyone be comfortable in an organisation with foundations such as these? the psychological attack on kids is real too - images of the most grotesque scenes of hell, and tortures of saints, decorate whole walls of churches here - all to enter into the innocent minds of children and lodge themselves forever as a fearful reminder. the one word i'd use to sum up catholics i see here, is fear. it's on their faces. honestly, I think Jesus would be appalled at the catholic way of doing things. my partner even remembers the priest being angry at her as a child when she was in confession (they were forced to), as she couldn't think of anything bad she had done. I've subbed to you, as I am a christian, and you seem a nice guy - but please step back - look down at the foundations - ask yourself if you're happy about it. and of course there's so so much more pain buried in the past...
The hue in your recording is a bit weird, I feel colorblind
Great talk Brian. Probably your best yet! You have a gift for telling small, easily digestible chunks of the faith to a wide audience. Deo Gratias.
Yes thank you! I am wanting to revert back to Catholicism but I'm having a hard time explaining why to my protestant friends without offending them.
jenn porter, sometimes the truth hurts. "To give a man's religion more respect than it deserves is to give that man less respect than he deserves." I can't remember where that quote came from but it has always struck me as, coincidentally enough, logical.
I can see why those WITHOUT logic would have an issue with others using it. You put it well. Not to mention that adding such common sense strengthens arguments in many cases like with the anti abortion side. For example the science ISN'T in the Bible, but it's great to talk about it as well.
But your background music is Scripture!
Justin Ward ok, so? 😂
There is no so. Just pointing it out.
@@EuRevTV He wasn't being critical, he was making a good point to counter protestant narrative about Catholics not using scripture enough.
HGR v. SBG I got a notification that you were asking for the link, but I can’t find the comment. Anyway, here’s the link.
ua-cam.com/video/FQfy1G_PirM/v-deo.html
Here's the way Tertullian put it:
"Whence spring those "fables and endless genealogies," and "unprofitable questions," and "words which spread like a cancer?" From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost." He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart."
Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief."
And again, St Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:
1 When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear and much trembling, 4 and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive [words of] wisdom, but with a demonstration of spirit and power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.
Brian, I am a conservative Evangelical. I do not speak for so called "liberal Protestants" like the ones you depicted in the video. They aren't Christians in my opinion. On your first indictment of my group: There is nowhere in the Bible that states that church or worship services have to have pews and choirs. Please cite the passage of Scripture that states that. We use bands and musical instruments, not just because that's what is relevant to the secular world, but because it is who WE (and you) are and it's what we know. It is relevant to US. We don't spend our days listening to choirs. We listen to people singing and rapping over beats and instruments. Why must we be inauthentic when we are communing with God? The indictment you have levelled at Protestantism is actually an indictment on Catholicism. The mode of church and worship, or liturgy as you put it, employed by the Catholic church is archaic, robotic, and does nothing to help a Christian connect with God and honestly express his/her faith. God wants you as you are. The real you. Not the one who dons clothes he would never wear and a mask that conforms to "liturgical requirements". This is not the same as "selling out to the surrounding culture". I do admit that this happens in many Protestant (and Catholic) churches in an effort to fill them. When a pastor compromises on Scripture or refuses to delve into the less palatable parts of it to appease the world it's wrong and I denounce it. What the Catholic church did, however, was a complete twisting of Christian doctrine to conform to Pagan doctrine. The saints replaced the gods. Catholicism managed to incorporate idol worship into their teachings. This cannot be compared to using a band instead of a choir. The fitness trainer analogy you used is a false equivalency.
On reason: I don't think your assertion that Protestants are anti-reason is fair or even true for that matter. I absolutely believe in reason as an important tool for explaining Scripture, especially to non-believers. However, I do concede that reason is limited in explaining the Bible. Not because the Bible is unreasonable. But because we as human beings do not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend God. He is too big, too holy, too good. At some point, preferably the beginning, a human being must surrender even his reason and simply submit to the Word of God. It's called obedience, and its required of every believer. Just as a child might not understand why their parents forbid them from doing something, we as Christians will not understand everything that God says in His Word. But we must submit to it as holy, true, sovereign and infallible. Reason is not something "added" to Scripture. It is inherent to it. What was "added" by the Catholic church wasn't reason. It was heresy.
The Catholic Church did add to scripture -- You know it as the New testament. You are welcome. And you clearly don't grasp just how incredible and spiritually fulfilling the liturgy/mass is based on your ignorant comments. You submit to scripture -- you mean your own private, fallible interpretation of it.
One of you best videos. Excellent.
Had the Church leadership in Germany and Rome approached Luther et al with a spirit of humility and repentance there may have been no Reformation.
Exactly!!
You mean revolution......(look up definition of reform) Luther called for the destruction of the church not a reformation of it.