Bro, I was just googling this topic to try and summarize the beliefs to explain to someone, and I had a difficult time finding a comprehensive and definitive answer. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COVERING THIS!
#MeToo I have a very hard time knowing the differences. Basically if your Church is Christ centered that believes in Yeshua ie Jesus, YHWH ie God of Israel and Rauch HaKodesh ie Holy Spirit I AM WITH U. If you only believe in YHWH I AM 4 U but not with U. #ChristiansUNITE vs EVIL amen.
This may not have been your intention (or maybe it was 🧐) but I love how you basically just presented the gospel in this video while also giving a good basis for explaining what Protestants believe. So what’s interesting about this video, as opposed to most of what you make, is that it’s likely that someone may watch it and be saved. So thank you!
@@asherstribe5695ah yes because listening to a regular sinful man, calling him father and asking him for forgiveness instead of Jesus Christ himself is a much better idea 😁
I'm Baptist and have attended 3 different Baptist churches in 3 different geographical regions and I'm pretty sure each has been comfortable with the label "Protestant", although it's not something that came up very often. We just look at the Bible and believe what it says and nothing else. If our Catholic friends want to call us "Protestant" because of this, so be it
Some Baptists believe there have been Baptists since the first century, therefor they're not Protestants (just stupid, but they'd disagree with that as well).
Excellent!! Two take aways for me. 1. I have never, not once, ever referred to myself as Protestant. I had no clue as to what “Protestant’s believed”. I still don’t think I will make a habit of it but I do feel better about it now. 2. In my personal opinion this helps to refute the Catholic claim that Protestants” are all over the board with their beliefs. Two in a row to help quell complaints about the “so called” number of denominations and what we believe. Liberalism has hit all Christian religions, not just Protestant religions, as was prophesied. We are to remain awake and diligent to seek Jesus. Thank you Pastor Joshua.
Joshua - You kinda missed the point of this video this is a "generalization" of Protestants and there are many variations of each of the topics mentioned and many other areas not covered depending on the individual preacher or the many divisions of Protestantism. So the term "all over the board" is correct. Ready to Harvest Thanks for making the video its a good clear rapid fire generalization.
@@openminds8765 And yet I feel like you are missing that this is a generalization, meaning that they aren't "all over the board" but there truly are observable areas of the board they centralize around and other areas they avoid such that a generalization can indeed be made. If their believes were truly "all over the board", how can it be generalized with any more specificity?
@@openminds8765 no, the video completely missed the point. All varying protestant denominations recognised the catholic papacy as the antichrist. This has been diluted over the centuries following, and today, few mke any mention of it. Roman catholicism is antichrist, and so is anyone aligned with it. Foxes book of martyrs was once staple reading fare so no one would forget catholic history against christians.
@@oracleoftroy What this says is that there is a nucleus to unite around but we are still a long, long way from doing so and the many divisions are still real and still very sinful. In a time when "liberalization" is a clear and present danger across the board, these divisions constitute dereliction of duty in the face of the enemy. To quote Ben Franklin, Boys, if we don't hang togethe,r we will surely hang separately.
For the purposes of clarity when explaining the Protestant landscape to people I prefer to group Protestants into 6 groups according to who you're most likely to actually encounter in your day to day life: Lutherans Presbyterians and other reformed Anglican/Episcopalian Methodists Baptists Pentecostals, Charismatics, and all other groups originating in the Great Awakenings and revival movements, including the so-called "non-denominational" churches It may not be academically precise, especially when it comes to that last group, but in terms of looking at the intersection between religion and cultural blocs rather than strict academic distinctions, I think it's a useful system.
That's a good way of dividing it up. I also like to think of it in the sense of theological traditions: the Lutheran tradition, the Episcopalian tradition, the Reformed tradition, the Wesleyan tradition, Baptist and Anabaptist tradition, and Pentacostal-Charismatic traditions. Many of them are related (Baptists split off of the Anglican church, and are influenced by both Ananaptist and Reformed traditions, though they are often quite distinct from both; Wesleyans came from Episcopalianism, and Charismatic/Pentecostal traditions I understand to likewise descend from Wesleyan-Methodists), but they are kind of the distinct streams of theological thinking and practice that dominate the English speaking Protestant world.
@@jameswhitley4101 You could also then further subdivide them into basic sub-traditions. Lutherans originally could be divided into those who accepted the Formula of Concord and those who did not, although the latter are mostly gone today. Reformed I would divide into the three basic camps of Presbyterian, Continental, and Arminian, although you are most likely to run into one who is called Presbyterian regardless of theology if you live in the English-speaking world. Anglicans can be sort of divided into Anglo-Catholics and Reformed Anglican, although those camps are more fuzzy as they tend not to break fellowship over such distinctions. Methodists can be grouped into mainline Methodists and those who put greater emphasis on Weslyan Holiness, such as the Church of the Nazarene. Baptists have Missionary Baptists and Primitive Baptists, although it's arguable that only the former are actually Christians and you are likely to only ever meet the former. All groups broadly defined as Anabaptist, including Amish/Mennonites, could also be included as a third sub-tradition. And revivalists I just divide into Pentecostals, vanilla Charismatics, and all others including Adventists.
this exposition was a good one...like most people I'm aware of my disagreements but they bare nuts and bolts of it all was exacting enough ..thank You!
I have been very impressed by your research, understanding, and unbiased presentation in your videos! Especially for as young as you are. Thank you for helping your viewers understand aspects of the various Christian churches around them. May God bless you and keep you for your amazing work!
I would be very interested in a video about what Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witness, and Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) believe and how those beliefs differ from the accepted Christian beliefs like what you discuss in this video.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 yes, accepted Christian beliefs was a generic term. Those would be the truths from the Bible that Christians do or should believe.
Latter Day Saints believe in continual revelation through their church leadership. Thus what they believes changes from generation to generation. What is acceptable to LDS now may be offensive to teach in the future. This includes the name "Mormon" which LDS now find offensive despite being commonly used by them in the past. As part of their continual revelation, LDS frequently use the same words and verses as Christians but ascribe brand new definitions. They have a low view of the Bible, teaching just enough to support whatever their current points on doctrine happen to be. They're great people but don't get expect anything from them approaching historic Christianity (Orthodox/Catholic) or strictly Biblical (most Protestants) from their teachings.
I’m a Latter-Day Saint, and most of what you said isn’t entirely accurate. First, while we do believe in continuing revelation, this doesn’t mean our doctrine changes (we believe God’s word is eternal and unchanging) rather it means doctrine is clarified, or more commonly, revelation shows how to apply biblical doctrines to the modern day, so really the only thing that changes is church policy. Our theology is just about identical to what Joseph Smith first taught almost 200 years ago. The two biggest changes people always bring up are polygamy and the African priesthood ban. However both of these were meant to be temporary practices, and the priesthood ban in particular is a policy that was born out of a misunderstanding and is no where to be found in the original teachings of Joseph Smith. As for the name Mormon, it is true that some people find it offensive, but on the internet people look for any reason to be offended. For context, church leadership has recently advised to members to emphasize the full name of the church: “The Church of *Jesus Christ* of Latter-Day Saints” and avoid nicknames like Mormon. This is because we believe we are the only true church led and founded by Jesus Christ himself, and because of the pervasiveness of the term Mormon, people aren’t aware that Mormons and Latter-Day Saints are the same group. It’s also important to note that the “Church of *Jesus Christ* of Latter-Day Saints” has always been the official name of the church, and in fact God himself gave the church that name in one of our books of scripture. Mormon meanwhile has its origins as a derogatory term, and is related with historical persecution such as the “Mormon extermination order.” However, because that’s what everyone calls us, we eventually decided to own the name and at least get some good PR out of it. Really it’s not unlike the term “Indian.” In recent years a lot of Native Americans have come to find the term offensive for historical reasons despite calling themselves Indians for the past 500 years with no problem. As for ascribing new definitions to terms, this is also untrue. The Church of Jesus Christ is actually pretty lax on what Latter-Day Saints are allowed to believe and how they use certain terms. The only hard theological standard is the 13 articles of faith really. We tend to emphasize orthopraxy (right practice) over orthodoxy (right theory). However it is true that we do tend to use certain terms slightly differently than other Christians. However this is because of a difference of connotation not denotation. We use the same words, just in the context of different theologies. Other differences in common usage can just be attributed to the regular drift and divergence of language over time that you would see between any two regional dialects of English, which should be unsurprising considering that Latter-Day Saints have largely lived in insular Latter-Day Saint dominated communities like Utah for almost 200 years now, and American Protestantism has likewise been heavily concentrated in its own sphere in the south for a similar length of time. And finally, the point about the low view of the Bible is I think exaggerated. We don’t believe in Sola Scriptura or closed canon, however we do believe that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and is on par with the Book of Mormon, and is no more fallible than any of our other scriptures or prophets. The Bible is simply more difficult to understand than more recent revelation because it’s written for an ancient audience that’s foreign to us, and is translated from ancient languages, but then again, so is the Book of Mormon. Now we do believe that certain truths have been taken out of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, however the things still in the Bible are for the most part reliable.
“With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother. Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?” (CCC 2215)
I would too, but that is tricky because it is impossible to describe the life of a Catholic Christian outside of the experience of being one. The gifts that God gave to us include the Sacraments, (e.g., reception of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) and an active communion of saints that spans all of space and time (praying for the souls in Purgatory and asking saints and angels in Heaven to pray for us). These Christian experiences are so hard to describe even while experiencing them. Our language is just too weak to communicate the realities of living a Sacramental life. Trust me - I went through RCIA for a year to learn as much of the "head knowledge" as we could in that time, but once I was confirmed, my life was turned upside down by this indescribable connectionto Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit, the angels, the saints... No amount of head knowledge can describe the Catholic Christian life. I came to Joshua's wonderful channel to learn about Protestant Christians Churches. May I suggest that, if you would like to learn about what Catholics believe, that you look up the theologian Bishop Robert Barron on UA-cam. His 15-minute homilies are both deep and accessible, which is a tricky balance to strike. That said, I think Joshua's videos on the comparison and contrast between the Catholic Church and individual denominations are really well-done, and I look forward to more of them.
Videos like this are important because the average non-Christian American today knows about as much about Christianity as Americans did about Islam before 9/11. We're talking about at least two generations now that saw The Da Vinci Code and thought it was history. Joshua is doing the Lord's work by helping to even make it possible to talk to such people.
I'm not American, but many non-christians over here seem to not know what Christians believe and stand for. They seem to think of Christians as simply theists with conservative opinions, who can't think for themselves because they do what the bible says. People my age have a lot of prejudices about Christians, because their knowledge of them only comes form the internet and not from actual Christians. So I hope this video will be influential to at least one of them. :)
Thank you for sharing the good news of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. I love your content. It is precise, concise, and cited consistently. Keep it up!
No, he presented a description of one denomination, in relation to others. He's not proselytising, unless of course, you think him talking about prayers for intercession or Mary going into heaven bodily is part of 'being saved'.
Your videos, and this one in particular has shown me how much more we Christians have in common compared to how much we disagree on. While I hold to my set of doctrine concerning the particulars of those things, I'd gladly call anyone who holds to these simple beliefs you laid out as my brother in Christ.
Can you ever do a video on the Concordant believers? I imagine it would be hard because I can only find them on random parts of the internet, but here are the basic things I can find about them: 1. Believe in scriptural inerrancy (many use the CLV Bible, but apparently not CLV-onlyist) and non-creedal 2. Deny the divinity of Christ and the trinity 3. Believe in soul sleep during death 4. Deny free will of human beings 5. Hyper Dispensational, believing God works during dispensations and only following the Pauline epistles for guidance on doctrine 6. Universal reconciliation, or all will be saved through the cross of Christ. All of this I found on the Concordant Gospel website, which I am not linking to avoid my comment being taken off of UA-cam.
Thank you for you answer. I am a oneness apostolic minister of 53 years. When I was young we had fellowship with the fundamental Baptists. I preached and sang in their churches as well as they did ours. We grew up with them and knew them. I even attended some classes at Tenn. Temple. As far as the Godhead I don't think anyone fully understands it completely. I don't agree with all oneness doctrine. I say we are both non-creedal. They went without the Holy Spirit in the Godhead from 325 to 381. I just wanted to say within myself I know what God has done in my life and I know his power.
I would like to see a video on what you believe the ancient Church at the time of Christ or shortly after would look like in its original doctrine. Thank you again!
Generalizing for the sake of overall clarity can be an extremely useful teaching tool, as long as that generalization is for the sole purpose of better understanding, and not used to marginalize or to distort other beliefs in elevation of your own. IE: One of the core definitions of bias is misrepresenting the position of the opposing view in order to amplify your own. It's one of the repulsive shortcuts (straw man arguments) that I find many people taking in our hyper connected world (even among conservatives) and I have been guilty of this myself. It's as if discourse itself in our fast paced world beckons us to engage in this polarizing, ungodly, behavior. Anyhow, you are able to pack more information into a 5 minute video than anyone I know. It's very useful for subjects that need to be looked at with a very broad lens for understanding history, trends, and human nature overall. I grew up in AOG, but distanced myself from that doctrinal leaning about 10 years ago, as I believe it was truth mixed with error (though that's irrelevant to my point here). I take on the label of Christian, or follower/disciple of Christ. The bare minimum to explain my allegiance to Christ. But take no other identifier, because I personally believe that leads to the endless splintering of sects and idolatry, in which Paul warned about, starting in 1 Corinthians 3:4. It promotes disunity and confusion, especially among unbelievers when they look at proposed Christianity as a whole. And no, I'm not Catholic. Until I found your channel, I didn't even know that was a popular, pro catholic talking point. This is also why I don't identify as non-denominational. Should a dog identify as a non-cat? I think it's playing into the reaction game when we identify by what we're not. I believe all the core doctrines of Protestantism in their most zoomed out view as you presented here, though I do not consider myself protestant. It's where identifiers get quirky too. Many people do not realize that the historical meaning of a Protestant was someone who was protesting the Catholic church (It's literally in the name). So they are identifying by what they are not. Being stripped from it's historical context. We technically now have some non-protestant, protestants. This is the absurdity of titles for the sake of distancing ourselves from others. They lose/change meaning over time, and don't truly identify what we are, but what we are not. My advice is to put the focus back on Christ alone, and not endless identifiers. Though I'm just a guy in the comments, you should read the Word of God to see if what I say has any validity, and not just take my word for it. :) I find many conservatives are just as guilty for what they call out liberals out on. Where one may find pride in their identity as a black, minority, female, bisexual, and be endlessly ridiculed for their focus on race, social status an sexual identity. Another may find pride in their identity as a straight, protestant, evangelical, Christian, conservative. I wonder what God sees when he looks down at all of our collective nonsense? How can we be an example to the world for righteous living if we're following traditions for the sake of tradition?
"Many people do not realize that the historical meaning of a Protestant was someone who was protesting the Catholic church (It's literally in the name). So they are identifying by what they are not." You are so, so very wrong in this statement. In the 16th Century, the word "protest" did not have the negative connotation it has today; rather, it was strictly positive. You can still see it today in a sentence like "He protested his love for the girl." The original meaning of "Protestant" was someone who positively asserted their salvation by faith alone by grace alone. It had nothing to do with opposition to Catholic teaching (although that is indeed inherent in the positive protest that Protestants make).
@@bigscarysteve Though I am certainly open to working on my terminology where I may err, the point remains intact. The reformers were battling against the catholic church in the development of their sect on issues they see as non-negotiables. And that today, some protestants consider catholics as in completely unity with themselves (not all). So there are some non-protestant, protestants, who affirm that multiple roads lead to heaven. Even if the root word has a different meaning, my argument is unchanged. It's not based on the understanding of a single word.
Why not follow what the first Christians taught? Who cares about whether Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or "mere Christianity" teaches, unless it has some continuity with what the apostles actually passed on to future generations? FTR, it is for that reason I'm a Catholic, but don't take my word for it. I'm only saying that, if Jesus wanted us to believe something, surely the people closest to him in time and culture would understand it best. No?
The first paragraph of your theological graffiti identifies you as a liberal. There is plenty of things out there that should be marginalized. The kind of double speak along with people like you who mouth it, is the reason that the membership of the so called main line churches has declined so precipitously. 🏳🌈 = child molestation, whether it was already embedded or as it is now, becoming formalized.
Sorry, I may be wrong on your site.But I am looking for details about a sect whose members believe i.a.: When they say certain magical words to wine , this wine will turn into the blood of their god, and when they do the same with cookies, these will turn into the real living body of their god and then they swallow it all, it goes through their stomach and the intestines and turns into faeces which they will then deposit in a restroom facility. Do you have any detailed knowledge about this sect and how do they call themselves?
Great summary! I’m sure some others have said already, but it’s also important to say _why_ these are basic Protestant beliefs: they are clearly what the Scriptures teach. Sola scriptura. The beliefs that separate Catholics and others (Mormon’s, JWs etc) from Protestants are those that aren’t derived from scripture, but from adding other teachings and traditions.
Does the SDA Church not fit then with "basic protestant Christian beliefs" because of their nihilism for those who died in their sins? Anything else? (I'm not SDA but have familial connections to the denomination.)
Thanks!! There are a lot of people whom are unchurched who just don't know these things. I am really torn over the literal hell. I think he'll as just "godlessness" living in torment without hope and then eventually destruction.
I'm not in agreement with annihilationism but I think it's an understandable position that doesn't undo the gospel. Outright denial of any eternal death is where I would draw the line.
Do you plan to cover the Methodist split now that it's official? I'm very interested in it even though I am not a Methodist myself. I was made aware of it from a movie titled "Enemies within the Church"
@@jmdsservantofgod8405 good luck with that. A lot of UMC members Ive talked to are reluctant to join the GMC because of where they've attended for so long, but are so tired of what the UMC has become.
I’m a little confused on why Seventh-day Adventist wasn’t included in agreeing with these basic Protestant beliefs. As a SDA myself, I would practically agree with practically everything listed aside from the day of worship and meeting. Mind elaborating more on it?
Hi first let me say that I enjoy the videos. Secondly I want to say that the continuing Anglican churches are a curious cross between what the Roman Catholic churches are and what the Protestant churches are. I was part of the Anglican Church in America. Whereas in some of the things they need believed and did her more Roman Catholic than the Roman Catholics today but that was a great deal of protestant ISM there as well
Joshua, great work as always. I will differ with you on one point however, that being that we pray to God the Father and not to Christ the Son. Jesus Himself teaches us to pray to the Father in Matt 6 and Luke 11. Jesus intercedes on our behalf, but we pray to the Father
I had to watch the video again to catch where he said that. I agree with you that "praying to Jesus" does not accurately reflect the beliefs of all Protestants and should be something like "Protestants pray to God only" or even "Protestants pray to the Triune God (or Godhead)" to reflect the fact that not all Protestants would believe the nuanced position you hold (praying to the Father only), yet still disagree with denominations that would pray to figures outside the Trinity. If I had to guess, it was probably a mistake on his part. Easy to do in a video with so much information in it! I can't believe the quality that is put into these videos!
I agree. I grew up confused always praying to Jesus. But when I learned we pray to the Father, in the name of the Son, by the Spirit. Everything is scripture made so much more sense.
@Меѳодїи you are correct that Reformers are Trinitarian, but the Bible makes it clear that each Person has different roles. The Father elects, the Son saves, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies. Jesus makes it very clear how we are to pray, so why would we do differently? In fact, when you look at their respective roles, they all point back to the Father. Jesus says that the Holy Spirit came to teach all that Jesus had done and commanded. Second, Jesus tells us that He came to save those that the Father has chosen. I believe that it is important to respect those roles as they appear in the Bible.
@@KevnReid I regularly hear Christians pray to Jesus, so it’s no surprise to hear this remark. But I have yet to find any Scripture that says we should pray to Christ, though it could be considered a form of worship and adoration.
Great summary. I do think the divide between Protestants and Catholics is overblown. For example Catholics and Anglicans are much closer in belief and practice than Anglicans and Pentecostals. So why so much emphasis on the Catholic/Protestant divide? I feel the word “Protestant” needs to purged from our vocabulary, just identify with your tradition rather than against the Catholic Church.
Well, i feel like is more important as to why we have the title. "Protestantism" that being who protests. Doesnt actually rejected catholicism explicitly. However what it does rejected is Papel authority. I love the (Roman) Catholics to death, my lady is one of those, but utterly reject the entirety of the Magisterium. As such, am my self a "Protestant" because i protest against magisterial authority.
Again that is a generalisation The Anglican churches that I have been part of or had connections with have all been much more closely aligned with Pentecostal theology than anything close to Catholicism
"Just identify with your tradition rather than against the Catholic Church." Actually, you've ignorantly stumbled into the actual meaning of the word "Protestant." Almost everybody in the English-speaking world today thinks that Protestants protest against the Catholic church. This is not what the word "protest" meant in the 16th Century. Back then, it had solely a positive meaning. We still have this meaning for the word today sometimes, when it's used in a sort of poetic way, i. e. in a sentence such as "He protested his love for the girl." When Protestants first acquired the name, it had nothing to do with opposition against Catholic teaching; rather, it was a positive protestation that they were saved by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone, informed by the scriptures alone and to the glory of God alone.
Overblown is certainly an opinion I disagree with. To me, being a professing cannibal is a serious offense. I don't eat Jesus, and won't try to eat Jesus. If that was the only difference, it's enough for me to separate from people who make such claims. The idea alone is grotesque. Also, the concept of a doctrinally infallible pope nullifies God's authority, and is of the spirit of anti-christ.
Though you mention exceptions and variations, in reality what you have given us is the basic "conservative" or "Evangelical" Protestant Christian beliefs. The mainline denominations vary from your list a bit more than you indicate.
I've always considered myself a 'reformed" Christian. Much of the differences are no longer (since the early 20th century) really important. I've noticed an interesting similarity with the gun argument and the eucharist. Most gun defenders ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment. Most evangelicals ignore the command that this is my blood and this is my body and only focus on "do this in remembrance of me".
"Slippery?" Martin Luther would have taken issue. His bold statements have been around for 498 years as to the essence of the "protest" against the Roman Catholics (and some Anabaptists as well). Desiderius Erasmus was the Dutch humanist scholar hired by the Vatican in hopes of intellectually assassinating the monk Martin Luther. Erasmus wrote his "Diatribe" to destroy the Protestants. Luther responded with his magnum opus Bondage of the Will which stands as the lighthouse of the Reformation. Listen carefully. "Now, my good Erasmus, I entreat you for Christ's sake to keep your promise at last. You promised that you would yield to him who taught better than yourself. Lay aside respect of persons! I acknowledge that you are a great man, adorned with many of God's noblest gifts--wit, learning and an almost miraculous eloquence, to say nothing of the rest; whereas I have and am nothing, save that I would glory in being a Christian. Moreover, I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account--that you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the REAL THING, that is, the ESSENTIAL ISSUE. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like--TRIFLES, rather than issues--in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the HINGE ON WHICH ALL TURNS, and aimed for the VITAL SPOT." Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will (CAPS mine)
I would have definitely added the "exception" that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence [sacramental union] in a manner much more akin to Catholicism than all other Protestants except some Anglicans.
Just one simple question…. How did the Church get it’s doctrine wrong for 1500 years and then magically find the answers in 10000 plus protesting denominations?
Mostly because the 'normal' people didn't have access to the Bible and just did what the church said, I guess. But when they had access they could form their own opinions and make their own groups of like-minded people. It's not like we found the answers, we just formed more opinions.
@@evi4127 Not true. Latin was the vernacular for eight centuries, and until the sixteenth century, most literate Europeans could read Latin. All the while, Protestant doctrines never occurred to anyone. And in the Greek world, people could read the Greek Bible, and again, Protestant doctrines didn’t ever occur to anyone.
This is a common misconception. Historical Protestantism at least, affirms the holiness of the Catholic Church - that God has upheld his church from beginning to end. Martin Luther, despite all of his criticisms, affirmed that despite the corruption, scandal, and apparent doctrinal errors within the Catholic Church, the gospel was still preached. Christ was still alive within its body. Protestants will typically consider that errors can and have come into the church, and some have stayed. The Reformation was essentially a massive overhaul by cutting what were considered major accretions and a return to a purer form of Christianity. By nature, Protestantism is constantly reforming, and perhaps unfortunately, especially as time goes on, there has been many splintering of denominations.
I was reared on this story, embraced it as a teen, thought my way out of it as an adult. At this point in my life I am amazed such a fantastic construct ever gained enough traction that it became the cultural force that it did.
Being a Christian isn't about reading the doctrine and accepting it as one would a scientific theory. Rather, it is about believing in a higher purpose by choosing to follow Christ. That is what kept so many Christians (at least the intrinsic ones) strong in their faith throughout history, the need to live their lives with meaning.
@@alexzech7866 "That is what kept so many Christians (at least the intrinsic ones) strong in their faith throughout history, the need to live their lives with meaning". I question this generalization. I think if one where to look at the lives of people (primarily peasants) in different centuries spanning back over the last two thousand years you would find that they don't share the same understanding of the world, Gods place in it our their place in it. These views and beliefs change as time goes on. Hence, for example, you probably do not loose sleep over witch's.
@@JeremyMacDonald1973 It is true that specific views have varied a lot throughout Christian history, depending on the location, time period, and denomination. However the belief in a higher purpose given by God has always been central to every Christian group. Keep in mind, I am talking about people who honestly believed in Christ, which excludes those who simply participated in religious practices not because of their personal faith but for societal or cultural reasons. Most peasants throughout the centuries probably fall into this category of "cultural Christians", but there were always people who were serious in their beliefs, most notably the clergy itself. Now of course, that isn't to say that every single priest or pastor was a truly honest Christian, but a vast majority were. And yes, there were various beliefs at different times about supernatural occurrences and magic, like witches as you mentioned, and most people at the time looked at those through the lenses of Christianity. But that doesn't change the fact that what was essential to Christian faith throughout history, including the present day, was the need for a higher meaning found through Christ, not the need to have every single question about the world answered.
@@alexzech7866 OK, I don't really disagree with this, though I would point out that, assuming you are European, not in a Muslim controlled area, and after, say the 600's and before the renaissance (call it 1700's), then I think for the most part your not going to question the world. Christianity explains it all. How that gets attributed might vary between time and place but there is no world view in which God and the Devil are not the explanation for everything. For a 10th Century Peasant the Devil was everywhere and was the explanation for every bad thing that happened. In other places and times things might be viewed differently. There is a story about a volcano rumbling or going off on the Franco-Spanish Border and all the nobles giving up their mistresses ... 'cause God is mad and this is his warning (so here bad things are being attributed more to Gods anger versus the Devil being behind it). On the other hand sometimes the peasants where misled. At some point around the 14th century there was a decree, in Spain, not to tell the peasants that fornication was a mortal sin (apparently it had come to be believed to be a venal sin - maybe because, at this time in this place, everyone was doing it) and it was determined to be too difficult and unpopular if they tried to correct the peasants. Come to think of it this last is still popular some places. My first girlfriend was Irish Catholic, and she was a lot of fun 6 days a week. On Sunday I could not touch her and she said a LOT of hail Mary's.
@Geordie Wishart Founder? Joseph Bates? James White? Oh, you're talking about that woman evangelist and author who explained Joseph Bates and James White's views while adding a little of her perspective.
Catholics and Orthodox ask why there are so many Protestant sects if Sola Scriptura is such a good way to derive dogma. The answer is that a different thing is meant by Sola Scriptura in each camp. I would say only Lutherans have true Sola Scriptura. The Lutheran view is that each text is to be read according to is plain meaning, WITHIN both its historical context and the greater context of Scripture and with the early church fathers and councils as a helpful but not infallible guide. In contrast, the Cavlinist/Reformed version of Sola Scriptura is to interpret each verse according to what made the most immediate sense to John Calvin's brain in his day, using extra-biblical Greek reasoning. That's why Calvinists deny the Real Presence for example. Baptists approach Sola Scriptura similarly but with a heavy dose of sophistry added. It's basically a game of proof-texting for them in which each verse is read in a vacuum according to its English meaning devoid of both historical and greater scriptural context. The Methodist error is that their view is deceptively close to the Lutheran view, but with an important distinction. Lutherans believe the Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture for believers so that it can be understood by them. But Lutherans believe the Spirit operates only by the written and preached word in this way. Methodists on the other hand believe the Spirit gives them new understandings of Scripture independent of the text itself. That's why they espouse unbiblical doctrines such as a born again conversion experience and ordaining women despite claiming to follow Sola Scriptura. It makes them feel good even though it's not Biblical and they think it's from the Spirit for that reason. And as for Pentecostals, I would argue they don't use Sola Scriptura in any way even in a corrupted form because they believe in ongoing personal revelation and prophecy.
@Меѳодїи And yet he didn't, because the pressure worked. You've proved nothing as Lutherans don't claim Luther never made any mistakes or that he was infallible.
@Меѳодїи If being wrong about anything, even major things, is the standard for whether we impeach all the teachings of someone by default, then we can just throw out many of the major early church fathers including Augustine of Hippo as they contradicted each other and themselves. But just as we don't base doctrine on the writings of one fallible Apostolic Father alone, but rather consider the full counsel and witness of them together in light of Scripture, the Lutheran reformation is not the writings of Luther alone but all of the fallible Lutheran arch-reformers considered together in light of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. As it happens, you are citing an example from early Luther, when he had just begun to espouse Sola Fide and made more than minor mistakes. That's why Lutherans don't include the 95 Theses in our Confessions for example. It's quite possible that Luther himself was not actually a Christian during his time as an Augustinian monk until he was converted by the gospel, and when that happened he was overwhelmed by the contrast between the gospel and what he had been taught in the monastery, such that he attempted an overcorrective rebellion against tradition that was misguided. But thankfully he had other reformers to put him back on the right path, because as it turns out, he was not the first reformer. See unlike the Orthodox church which reads the apostolic fathers indiscriminately and then attempts to force a synthasis to resolve their manifest contradictions, we actually regard our theologians with discernment. What else did Luther get wrong? What did his fellow reformers get wrong? Read the Formula of Concord.
@Меѳодїи No it literally wasn't, but 80% of what he said about the Jews was correct. He went too far. But he was far from the only Jew-basher at the time. I doubt the Popes and Cardinals at the time would have much disagreed with him.
_"In contrast, the Cavlinist/Reformed version of Sola Scriptura is to interpret each verse according to what made the most immediate sense to John Calvin's brain in his day, using extra-biblical Greek reasoning. That's why Calvinists deny the Real Presence for example."_ Why are Lutherans so willing to lie about their Reformed brothers when you ought to understand the nature of a confessional faith? Do they really not love Jesus that they would disobey his commandments so readily? I know you guys teach the threefold use of the law, yet so many internet Lutherans don't seem to live like it. What you label as the Lutheran view is the Reformed view. If you are such a partisan hack that you can't allow Lutherans to agree with non-Lutherans on some things, then you might as well leave Lutheranism, because Reformed Christians aren't giving up Sola Scriptura any time soon. Let's break down some of your claims. You say we: _"interpret each verse according to what made the most immediate sense to John Calvin's brain in his day, using extra-biblical Greek reasoning"_ We confess: (WCF 1.10) The *Supreme Judge,* by which *all* controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, *doctrines of men,* and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. This shows your lie for what it is; Calvin's doctrines must submit to scripture, as Scripture is the supreme judge of our theology. Calvin is not our authority. In fact, I don't know of any Reformed denominations that make any work of Calvin a rule of faith. Most use the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity. This is in contrast to the Book of Concord where Luther's writings feature prominently. Your accusation would word better (but be just as false) were it directed back on yourself. You say: _"That's why Calvinists deny the Real Presence for example."_ We confess: (WCF 29.7) Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, *really and indeed,* yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, *receive and feed upon Christ crucified,* and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as *really,* but spiritually, *present* to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. Yes, Reformed Christians affirm the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. I think Lutherans might disagree with some details, but that is a very different claim than the lie that we outright reject the real presence. Lutherans disagree with the Roman version of real presence as well, that doesn't mean you (or they) reject real presence. Lutherans would do well to actually study some Reformed teachings. We are far more similar than modern Lutherans realize, though we do have important distinctives. It wasn't always this way, older Lutheran writers recognize that Calvin and most Reformed Christians rejected Zwingli, yet the modern Lutheran thinks every Calvinist is a Zwinglist.
No. For example, consider the phrase "good Christian." Classical Reformational Protestantism teaches that there is no such thing as a "good Christian." Christians continue to be sinners in this earthly life, but they are justified because they are imputed with the perfect righteousness of Christ. American Evangelicals often proclaim that we can be a sinner or a Christian, but not both. If we are still committing sins, then we should question our salvation.
I do urge you to reconsider the Continuing Anglican groups who may be historically Protestant but doctrinally very much non-Protestant, rejecting Sola Ride and affirming forms of the Real Presence and invocation of the saints.
Hi Joshua -- awesome video, as usual. I'm curious to know if you've watched Trent Horn's recent video, where he discusses the question, "Can Protestants agree on essential doctrine, and on what basis?" with two Protestant ministers? Your video seems to have come out around the same time
I saw it but I have not yet watched it. Trent mentioned that he was going to make it in a now-deleted twitter thread where he noted his picture in my video on "Are Mormons, Muslims and Catholics Christian?"
If you haven’t already, please consider asking how many people A: consider themselves protestant defined as subscribing to the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the pharmacy of scripture and the priesthood of believers B: consider themselves protestant defined as belonging to a denomination that broke away from the papacy in the sixteenth century C: consider themselves protestant defined as being a Christian who isn’t “Catholic” (OR) D: could be considered protestant by one or more of the above definitions but do not consider or refer to THEMSELVES as protestant. This next question might be considered silly if there are as few people as I think there are who consider themselves protestant but... How many of the people who think of themselves as protestant would consider someone protestant who thinks of hell as an event rather than as a place. Your description of the finally impenitent as ultimately being destroyed in a lake of fire seems to allow for that perception of hell as falling within the definition of protestant beliefs.
I'm SDA. I consider myself protestant. The SDA church officially does as well. Sola scriptura is our foundation stone. His placards would allow annihilationism to be valid. His spoken words don't. Sunday keeping us the only area of contention on the list. Howevee as protestants are protesting Rome. I'd argue Sabbath keeping is protestant I'm nature. Especially when we (SDA) got it from the anabaptists..
@Leo Mate I guess that depends, who you ask. Personally over all I think conservatism. But that is because the global church and newer members are growing more in that side. (Walter Veith's Total Onslaught is been helpful in the west for this. Worth a watch.) However some of our larger institutions, (Our hospitals and schools) and a few of our Western church groups (sections of Europe and North America) are leaning very liberal (at least from traditional Adventism.) A split like what happened to the Methodist might be on the horizon but so far hasn't happened. If so I expect the church to hold the conservative branch, shedding our liberal institutions. But only God knows how it will play out.
@@philipwheeler7317 It's true that only God knows the future but I'm willing to make an observation. If the trend toward the Executive Committee of the General Conference of SdA "voting" statements on political issues and the trend of clergy speaking about political issues during sabbath services continues, the split will occur sooner rather than later.
@@charless.muhigirwa4063 Twice in a while my spell checker replaces one of my words with an altogether different word but with spelling so similar that I don't notice it. Thanks for the correction.
@Ready To Harvest (Joshua) - When you say “Continental Remormed,” what exactly does that mean? I belong to a church that is part of the Reformed Church of America. Is that included in your definition? Thank you so much and keep on posting these informational videos!!!
In one of the greatest historical ironies, a majority of religious non-Roman Catholics today would likely agree with the humanistic tenets (philosophical) of Catholicism, even the most anti-Catholic sects.
Sorry, I may be wrong on your site.But I am looking for details about a sect whose members believe i.a.: When they say certain magical words to wine , this wine will turn into the blood of their god, and when they do the same with cookies, these will turn into the real living body of their god and then they swallow it all, it goes through their stomach and the intestines and turns into faeces which they will then deposit in a restroom facility. Do you have any detailed knowledge about this sect and how do they call themselves?
HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PRESERVED ITS COMPILED BOOK CALLED "BIBLE"? . . The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church in the 4th century and approved for general Christian use by the local councils at Rome (382AD), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397AD). Catholic bishops had convened to decide on which books would became part of the New Testament canon, considering that there were hundreds of letters/epistles, and gospels that exist in the first 300 years of Christianity. Finally, the Church officially decided that only 27 books were to be part of the New Testament, and added it to 46 books of the Septuagint Old Testament scriptures used by the early Christians, making a one single 73-books volume called the Bible. . The term "Bible" is not even written in the Bible. It was coined by Pope Siricius. The chapters and verses were made by Catholic Cardinals named Stephen Langton & Hugo de Caro, and Sanctes Pagnino, respectively. The purpose of "chapters and vereses" is to let the readers easily memorize certain passage in the Bible. The very first printed Bible was produced by a Catholic inventor named Johannes Guttenberg. He had produced several printed bibles coming from the Latina Vulgata. Prior to that, all Bibles were written by hand through Catholic monks inside the "Scriptorium". It took for them about 10 years to finish a single complete bible. . . The Bible is used for Church Liturgy . Non-catholics had accused that the Catholic Church had discouraged its members to read the Bible. This is not true. In fact, at every Catholic Mass throughout the world two readings from the general body of the Bible, and one from the Gospels are being read everyday. Almost all Catholic homes have a Bible (as Bible is a pre-requisite during Sacrament of Marriage) and the Bible is taught in Catholic schools (as it is a perennial tradition). . . The Bible was chained in the Middle Ages in order to preserve it from deterioration and prevent from being stolen. . Non-Catholics also accused that the Catholic Church chained the Bible in the Middle Ages to deprive its members from reading the Bible. This myth has come about because Bibles were often locked away in Churches in the past, but that was not to prevent people from having access. It was only made to prevent them from breing stolen. Remember that those few Bibles were hand-written and were incredibly valuable due to scarcity. Just like a phone directory, owners should attached it to a chord/string in order that users will not misplace it or bring it anywhere. . Furthermore, non-Catholics think that the Church forbade people from reading the Bible by putting it on the Index of Forbidden Books, but the Bibles placed on the Index were protestant versions (lacking 7 books or badly translated versions). The most famous of which is the King James Version (KJV) which Catholics are not supposed to use. . Historically, it was recorded that protestants also chained their Bible for atleast 300 years. Yet, we did not accused them for depriving their members in accessing the Bible . . Catholics Burned Erroneous Bibles to Preserve the Authentic Bible . Non-Catholics frequently accused the Catholic Church for burning bibles so that nobody can read it. Again, that is an inaccurate history. If the Catholic Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, then the Church had ample opportunity to do so for 1,500 years. But why we still have bibles now? . The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations, but only to those heretical and distorted Bible versions (e.g. Wycliffe and Tyndale Bible). It is necessary to destroy those erroneous translations in order to preserve the integrity of the Holy Scripture. If people would have different interpretations to a single and the same bible, how much more to a distorted bible translations? . . Protestant Vs. Protestant . Even to this modern day, the best practical way to preserve an authentic or original product is to burned those fake or fictitous imitations which were captured by the authority. This is actually what the King of England did to those translations made by Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles. It was the protestant King Henry VIII who ordered the killing of Tyndale, because the Anglican Church considered Tyndale as heretic. In addition, King Richard II of England also ordered to burned the Bible translations made by Wycliffe, after the Catholic Church declared him as heretic. John Calvin ordered the killing and burning of Michael Servetus writings and his Bible translations. . Historically, protestants reformers also destroyed many books of their fellow protestant reformers, that contradict to their teachings. . . To non-Catholics: If the Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles were good translations, why no protestant uses them today? 🤔 . . CONCLUSION: . There is no escaping to this fact, that the Bible is a Catholic book, and without the Catholic Church, non-Catholics have no Bible to use in their religious business. The father of protestantism named Martin Luther even admitted it honestly, when he said : . 🚩"We are compelled to concede that without the Catholic Church, we knew nothing about the Word of God (Bible)" - Martin Luther . Another famous non-Catholic Bible scholar from Biblical Archeology Society named Dr. Peter Flint - the first man to translate the Dead Sea Scrolls also supported it, when he said: . 🚩" Without the Catholic Church, you have no Bible" - Dr. Peter Flint, Ph.D
I really can't see how protestants believe in the Holy Spirit sent to teach us everything there is still to learn and at the same time believe in the Sola Scriptura doctrine. I can’t see how that can work together.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.-John 14:36 Jesus promised that the Spirit would teach us all things AND bring His words to our remembrance. The Protestant position is that Christ's words are exclusively in the Scriptures of the Apostles and prophets (based on Ephesians 2:20 et al). The Catholic/Orthodox position is much more liberal: a mass of nebulous material of uncertain provenance,called "tradition of the Church" is also assumed to contain Christ's words, and to be authoritative and essential. The Protestant position is the conservative one, although that does not, of course, prove that it's correct.
Who said that there were only 66 Books in the Bible? So He commanded Baptism, does that mean that anyone that refuses Baptism is condemned to Hell for disobeying Him? Churches meet together on the First Day of the week, and not on the Sabbath Saturday - who changed the Day of Worship? Will a person go to Hell for worshipping on a Sunday instead of Saturday or vice-versa? Oh my! Is there just one single Protestant that can provide the Biblical support for any of the distinctly Protestant doctrines listed in this video? Things like: Elements of Communion ARE NOT transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ? Mary WAS NOT assumed bodily into Heaven? Mary WAS conceived in Original Sin? Salvation is by Grace through "faith alone"???? Which Protestant doctrines not shared with Catholics can be found in the Scriptures? I invite any and all Protestants to provide just one single example. If you are successful then I will leave the Catholic Church immediately and then start my own church like any good Protestant.
Calvinism believes Jesus died for limited atonement which means only the people selected (regardless of sin actions) will go to heaven. So in this case, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for certain people’s sins but not everybody’s. Hope that is a good example.
This is a clear and concise survey on mainstream Protestantism, which also punctuates why in good conscience it should be avoided... Among the most troublesome views are where Grace and Faith are falsely set at variance with Works -- 3:41. But this dichotomy exists nowhere in Scripture or Classical Christianity; on the contrary, Saint Paul wrote: _"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus _*_UNTO GOOD WORKS,_*_ which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."_
That sounds like Non-denominationalism, which is Anabaptism Lite sprinkled with fideistic antinomianism. Reading any classical Protestant confession of faith or catechism clearly communicates that works of obedience are a necessary outworking, fruit, or result of regeneration and saving faith, which is the means by which we receive the grace that justifies before the Law of God, but not the basis on which we are justified (which is Christ and his work). If a man possesses saving faith (the gift the Spirit. In the giving of the Word of God), obedience and fruitful good works (ordained, redeemed, accepted, lauded, and used of God for Christ’s sake), follow in time. "We are ‘saved’ by faith alone, said Luther, "but not by a faith that is alone."
@UCyu32w4USj7b4CSheqcFD3g Good morning, Every single one of the _Five Solas_ is heretical; the abolition of the Melchizedekian priesthood is destructive; demoting the Holy Eucharist to a mere symbol is blasphemous; the self-appointed bishopric is pure arrogance: none of those novelties existed prior to Luther... The idea that Christianity is science or technology where new discoveries are made and methodologies are improved upon are what discredit every Protestant denomination. So since Luther did not discover, he invented. Following Luther's innovations in ignorance is one thing, but to refuse to seek out the early Christian Church is just irresponsible.
"but Protestantism adds "alone"" False. This translational interpretation exists in Catholic Bible translations that predate Luther and Protestantism. Modern-day Italian Catholic translations from as recently as 2008 also make use of such wording. This is a translational matter, not an 'additions' matter - all translations make use of vocabulary to communicate sentiments of the original languages.
@@Mic1904 Please show us proof then let the Roman Catholics answer for themselves... But if you are purporting that the _Five Solas_ are Biblically verifiable texts prior to Luther, then why does every Catholic apologetics on the subject condemn them as heresy? Did Luther the self-appointed bishop have access to special copies that no one else had? "Sentiments" is treading into dangerous territory, friend.
got a book our religion and our neighbors page 145 states "yet, in terms of its beliefs and practices , Mormonism shares most of the elements of Protestantism."
I am a Seventh Day Adventist and I consider myself to be a Protestant. But I can understand why potentially other Christians would us not as protestant regarding certain views.
3 - 17 - 23 Two days from now will be SUNDAY PHYSICAL RESURRECTION WORSHIP day ! "" I AM the RESURRECTION ! "" John 11 : 25 #1. INCREDIBLE NOT ONCE have YOU or ANY other Seventh day Adventist on ANY of these threads / comments hasn't even bothered to mention ANYTHING about SPREADING or PREACHING the GRACE of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ( NOT ONE ) ( NOT ONCE ) Why not ? Too busy bestowing accolades to the Investigative Judgement ? #2 Isn't Adventism SUPPOSED to be the ONLY ONE TRUE REMNANT religion DENOMINATION church which is SUPPOSED to SPREAD/ PREACH the GRACE of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ? What are you waiting for ? #3 This is what you are SUPPOSED to do as a PASTOR if indeed you claim to be a Christian Protestant As you claim you are #4 You sure have a funny way of showing it Just a TYPICAL SDA who claims to keep the Saturday Sabbath Holy while simultaneously WORKING your technology ALL day on Saturday's being BORED and LOCKED in your BEDROOM HIDING from your family LOCKED in your technology and posting more on Saturday's than ANY other day of the week on AS many SDA channels AS possible dealing with Adventism ANSWER 1st Corinthians 15 : 1 - 4 ( EUANGELION ) in the GREEK for the GRACE of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ( The CROSS ) His BURIAL ( NOT RESTED ) His PHYSICAL RESURRECTION on a beautiful SUNDAY !
3 - 17 - 23 #5 So Adventism are the Completers of the Protestant Reformation movement ? #6 Really........? #7 Of the two schools of THOUGHT of the Protestant Reformation movement ; which of the two would BEST describe SDA Closing of the Heavenly Sanctuary MASONIC Probation eternal life of the Investigative Judgement as having the father of LIES as the SDA HERO SCAPEGOAT of Adventism while simultaneously ENCOURAGING your OWN wife , family and friends to take Baptismal vows to Ellen G White on Saturday's ? ANSWER 2 Timothy 1 : 8 - 9 ( EUANGELION ) in the GREEK for the GRACE of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ( The CROSS ) His BURIAL ( NOT RESTED ) His PHYSICAL RESURRECTION on a beautiful SUNDAY !
3 - 17 - 23 Two days ago SUNDAY PHYSICAL RESURRECTION WORSHIP day was GREAT ! "" I AM the RESURRECTION ! "" John 11 : 25 #8 Of the 95 theses that Martin Luther who believed in an eternal HELL FIRE nailed to the Wittenberg castle church in Germany on October 31 , 1517 , which one PROTESTS or talks about keeping the Saturday Sabbath Holy or going to church on Saturday's ? Much less an SDA church ? #9 Are your sins BLOTTED out? SIMPLE Yes.....or.....No #10 Did Jesus FINISH his atonement on the CROSS at Calvery FINISHED paid in FULL sins BLOTTED out FINAL payment paid in FULL NOTHING ADDED NO SECOND phase of atonement NECESSARY ? SIMPLE Yes.....or.....No #11 Does one NEED TO be OBEDIENT to the LAW in order to receive GRACE ? SIMPLE Yes.....or.....No #12 LDS : Joseph Smith said Angels have GOLDEN PLATES SAME AS....... SDA : Ellen G White said Angels have GOLDEN CARDS ( Early writings 39 : 2 ) #13 Using the Bible ONLY Using the Bible FIRST As Adventists claim to do WHERE in the KJV Bible 1611 , or in the Hebrew , Aramaic or GREEK of the text do Angels have GOLDEN PLATES GOLDEN CARDS just because Ellen G White and her contemporary Joseph Smith said so ( Chapter and verse please ) If you don't mind Thank you in advance ANSWER GRACE G - Gods R - Riches A - At C - Christs E - Expense Try it , Jesus = GOD = YESHUA in the flesh loves you and so do I ! AGAPE !
Please Help me I Believe Jesus Is The Son of God and God The Son of The Holy Trinity I Believe Jesus Shed His Blood and Died in my place to Pay for All my Sins He was Buried Then 3 Days Later Jesus Arose From The Dead!!! But I am struggling with some Sins that I honestly don’t know how to quit I hate my Sins But I genuinely don’t know how to stop them Am I still Saved because because of my Faith In Jesus or am I Not Saved because of my Sins? Thank you for All your Help and Time God Bless you
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 John 1:8-2:1
I refuse to listen to anyone who believes I should kiss his ring, kneel before him, teaches the leader of their church is Jesus or God on earth, leader of the church believes the preacher can change the Bible to their views
I would say most of them are but there are probably a few scattered among them who are not, but only because they have not fully understood and clung to the Oneness heresy.
"No requesting intercession" not true. As you will find many protestants asking other Christians to pray for them or others they know. Which is what us Catholics are doing when we ask for a saints intercession. Most Christians believe in the power of group prayer, Catholics only expand that group to those in heaven.
I have made a couple, will probably make an update later this year. First video: ua-cam.com/video/JNshvA_k3nc/v-deo.html Second video: ua-cam.com/video/G6fOEmQEfuc/v-deo.html
They are not going to identify as Protestant, because they don't believe in labels. However, most of their beliefs tend to be variations on Protestantism. This is not weird as the early founders of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement were Protestants. You can even see that non-denominationals are most numerous in two kinds of places: 1- Where they have been able to effectively start preaching Christianity first such in Southeast Asia. 2- In majority Protestant countries like the USA or UK. You will rarely encounter these congregations in majority Catholic or Orthodox regions.
Bro, I was just googling this topic to try and summarize the beliefs to explain to someone, and I had a difficult time finding a comprehensive and definitive answer. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COVERING THIS!
#MeToo I have a very hard time knowing the differences. Basically if your Church is Christ centered that believes in Yeshua ie Jesus, YHWH ie God of Israel and Rauch HaKodesh ie Holy Spirit I AM WITH U. If you only believe in YHWH I AM 4 U but not with U. #ChristiansUNITE vs EVIL amen.
This may not have been your intention (or maybe it was 🧐) but I love how you basically just presented the gospel in this video while also giving a good basis for explaining what Protestants believe. So what’s interesting about this video, as opposed to most of what you make, is that it’s likely that someone may watch it and be saved. So thank you!
🙄
Yes, thank you
Lol
Hopefully they will go to a Catholic Church to do so.
@@asherstribe5695ah yes because listening to a regular sinful man, calling him father and asking him for forgiveness instead of Jesus Christ himself is a much better idea 😁
I'm Baptist and have attended 3 different Baptist churches in 3 different geographical regions and I'm pretty sure each has been comfortable with the label "Protestant", although it's not something that came up very often. We just look at the Bible and believe what it says and nothing else. If our Catholic friends want to call us "Protestant" because of this, so be it
Some Baptists believe there have been Baptists since the first century, therefor they're not Protestants (just stupid, but they'd disagree with that as well).
True, I'm more comfortable with the label protestant than evangelical
It’s basically a correct term, cause many would label them as “Christian” but not include Catholics or Orthodox (which can offend them)
You protest Catholicism and therefore the church that Christ formed. Hence the term Protestant.
Happy birthday of the Church - Happy Pentecost!
Excellent!! Two take aways for me.
1. I have never, not once, ever referred to myself as Protestant. I had no clue as to what “Protestant’s believed”. I still don’t think I will make a habit of it but I do feel better about it now.
2. In my personal opinion this helps to refute the Catholic claim that Protestants” are all over the board with their beliefs.
Two in a row to help quell complaints about the “so called” number of denominations and what we believe.
Liberalism has hit all Christian religions, not just Protestant religions, as was prophesied. We are to remain awake and diligent to seek Jesus.
Thank you Pastor Joshua.
Joshua - You kinda missed the point of this video this is a "generalization" of Protestants and there are many variations of each of the topics mentioned and many other areas not covered depending on the individual preacher or the many divisions of Protestantism. So the term "all over the board" is correct. Ready to Harvest Thanks for making the video its a good clear rapid fire generalization.
@@openminds8765 And yet I feel like you are missing that this is a generalization, meaning that they aren't "all over the board" but there truly are observable areas of the board they centralize around and other areas they avoid such that a generalization can indeed be made. If their believes were truly "all over the board", how can it be generalized with any more specificity?
@@openminds8765 no, the video completely missed the point.
All varying protestant denominations recognised the catholic papacy as the antichrist.
This has been diluted over the centuries following, and today, few mke any mention of it.
Roman catholicism is antichrist, and so is anyone aligned with it.
Foxes book of martyrs was once staple reading fare so no one would forget catholic history against christians.
@@oracleoftroy What this says is that there is a nucleus to unite around but we are still a long, long way from doing so and the many divisions are still real and still very sinful. In a time when "liberalization" is a clear and present danger across the board, these divisions constitute dereliction of duty in the face of the enemy. To quote Ben Franklin, Boys, if we don't hang togethe,r we will surely hang separately.
Who prophesied "Liberalism"?
For the purposes of clarity when explaining the Protestant landscape to people I prefer to group Protestants into 6 groups according to who you're most likely to actually encounter in your day to day life:
Lutherans
Presbyterians and other reformed
Anglican/Episcopalian
Methodists
Baptists
Pentecostals, Charismatics, and all other groups originating in the Great Awakenings and revival movements, including the so-called "non-denominational" churches
It may not be academically precise, especially when it comes to that last group, but in terms of looking at the intersection between religion and cultural blocs rather than strict academic distinctions, I think it's a useful system.
That's a good way of dividing it up. I also like to think of it in the sense of theological traditions: the Lutheran tradition, the Episcopalian tradition, the Reformed tradition, the Wesleyan tradition, Baptist and Anabaptist tradition, and Pentacostal-Charismatic traditions. Many of them are related (Baptists split off of the Anglican church, and are influenced by both Ananaptist and Reformed traditions, though they are often quite distinct from both; Wesleyans came from Episcopalianism, and Charismatic/Pentecostal traditions I understand to likewise descend from Wesleyan-Methodists), but they are kind of the distinct streams of theological thinking and practice that dominate the English speaking Protestant world.
@@jameswhitley4101 You could also then further subdivide them into basic sub-traditions.
Lutherans originally could be divided into those who accepted the Formula of Concord and those who did not, although the latter are mostly gone today.
Reformed I would divide into the three basic camps of Presbyterian, Continental, and Arminian, although you are most likely to run into one who is called Presbyterian regardless of theology if you live in the English-speaking world.
Anglicans can be sort of divided into Anglo-Catholics and Reformed Anglican, although those camps are more fuzzy as they tend not to break fellowship over such distinctions.
Methodists can be grouped into mainline Methodists and those who put greater emphasis on Weslyan Holiness, such as the Church of the Nazarene.
Baptists have Missionary Baptists and Primitive Baptists, although it's arguable that only the former are actually Christians and you are likely to only ever meet the former. All groups broadly defined as Anabaptist, including Amish/Mennonites, could also be included as a third sub-tradition.
And revivalists I just divide into Pentecostals, vanilla Charismatics, and all others including Adventists.
very good dinstinction
Fairly good, though not all non-denominational churches are Pentecostal or charismatic. Willow Creek -- one of the most well-known -- is an example.
this exposition was a good one...like most people I'm aware of my disagreements but they bare nuts and bolts of it all was exacting enough ..thank You!
I have been very impressed by your research, understanding, and unbiased presentation in your videos! Especially for as young as you are. Thank you for helping your viewers understand aspects of the various Christian churches around them.
May God bless you and keep you for your amazing work!
I would be very interested in a video about what Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witness, and Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) believe and how those beliefs differ from the accepted Christian beliefs like what you discuss in this video.
He has already done a few videos on Jehovah' s Witnesses. He also has one on the Church of God, General Conference, which is a Unitarian denomination.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 yes, accepted Christian beliefs was a generic term. Those would be the truths from the Bible that Christians do or should believe.
He covers those questions, I'm pretty certain of it. Enjoy, he has great content 👍
Latter Day Saints believe in continual revelation through their church leadership. Thus what they believes changes from generation to generation.
What is acceptable to LDS now may be offensive to teach in the future. This includes the name "Mormon" which LDS now find offensive despite being commonly used by them in the past.
As part of their continual revelation, LDS frequently use the same words and verses as Christians but ascribe brand new definitions. They have a low view of the Bible, teaching just enough to support whatever their current points on doctrine happen to be.
They're great people but don't get expect anything from them approaching historic Christianity (Orthodox/Catholic) or strictly Biblical (most Protestants) from their teachings.
I’m a Latter-Day Saint, and most of what you said isn’t entirely accurate.
First, while we do believe in continuing revelation, this doesn’t mean our doctrine changes (we believe God’s word is eternal and unchanging) rather it means doctrine is clarified, or more commonly, revelation shows how to apply biblical doctrines to the modern day, so really the only thing that changes is church policy. Our theology is just about identical to what Joseph Smith first taught almost 200 years ago.
The two biggest changes people always bring up are polygamy and the African priesthood ban. However both of these were meant to be temporary practices, and the priesthood ban in particular is a policy that was born out of a misunderstanding and is no where to be found in the original teachings of Joseph Smith.
As for the name Mormon, it is true that some people find it offensive, but on the internet people look for any reason to be offended. For context, church leadership has recently advised to members to emphasize the full name of the church: “The Church of *Jesus Christ* of Latter-Day Saints” and avoid nicknames like Mormon. This is because we believe we are the only true church led and founded by Jesus Christ himself, and because of the pervasiveness of the term Mormon, people aren’t aware that Mormons and Latter-Day Saints are the same group. It’s also important to note that the “Church of *Jesus Christ* of Latter-Day Saints” has always been the official name of the church, and in fact God himself gave the church that name in one of our books of scripture. Mormon meanwhile has its origins as a derogatory term, and is related with historical persecution such as the “Mormon extermination order.” However, because that’s what everyone calls us, we eventually decided to own the name and at least get some good PR out of it.
Really it’s not unlike the term “Indian.” In recent years a lot of Native Americans have come to find the term offensive for historical reasons despite calling themselves Indians for the past 500 years with no problem.
As for ascribing new definitions to terms, this is also untrue. The Church of Jesus Christ is actually pretty lax on what Latter-Day Saints are allowed to believe and how they use certain terms. The only hard theological standard is the 13 articles of faith really. We tend to emphasize orthopraxy (right practice) over orthodoxy (right theory). However it is true that we do tend to use certain terms slightly differently than other Christians. However this is because of a difference of connotation not denotation. We use the same words, just in the context of different theologies. Other differences in common usage can just be attributed to the regular drift and divergence of language over time that you would see between any two regional dialects of English, which should be unsurprising considering that Latter-Day Saints have largely lived in insular Latter-Day Saint dominated communities like Utah for almost 200 years now, and American Protestantism has likewise been heavily concentrated in its own sphere in the south for a similar length of time.
And finally, the point about the low view of the Bible is I think exaggerated. We don’t believe in Sola Scriptura or closed canon, however we do believe that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and is on par with the Book of Mormon, and is no more fallible than any of our other scriptures or prophets. The Bible is simply more difficult to understand than more recent revelation because it’s written for an ancient audience that’s foreign to us, and is translated from ancient languages, but then again, so is the Book of Mormon.
Now we do believe that certain truths have been taken out of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, however the things still in the Bible are for the most part reliable.
Your videos are outstanding, so informative and no judgement.
Your listing of the basic Protestant beliefs followed the Nicene Creed for some time and I found myself saying it along with the video.
Wouldn't it be cool if Joshua did a video on Creeds invoked by the different denominations?
This is perfect! Thank you! God Bless✝️
Love these, so informative. Thanks so much!😎
This is very helpful, and I'm protestant.
I'm born again christian, just now I know that protestant belief is same to what we believed also..👍♥️
✝️🌹Unity in Christ Jesus ☦️🕊️
Video Idea: Would love to see a video on AME and AME- Zion.
“With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother. Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?” (CCC 2215)
I'm not sure whether you've done a video on Catholicism and Orthodoxy on this format but it'd be interesting to see it some day :D
I would too, but that is tricky because it is impossible to describe the life of a Catholic Christian outside of the experience of being one. The gifts that God gave to us include the Sacraments, (e.g., reception of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) and an active communion of saints that spans all of space and time (praying for the souls in Purgatory and asking saints and angels in Heaven to pray for us). These Christian experiences are so hard to describe even while experiencing them. Our language is just too weak to communicate the realities of living a Sacramental life. Trust me - I went through RCIA for a year to learn as much of the "head knowledge" as we could in that time, but once I was confirmed, my life was turned upside down by this indescribable connectionto Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit, the angels, the saints... No amount of head knowledge can describe the Catholic Christian life.
I came to Joshua's wonderful channel to learn about Protestant Christians Churches. May I suggest that, if you would like to learn about what Catholics believe, that you look up the theologian Bishop Robert Barron on UA-cam. His 15-minute homilies are both deep and accessible, which is a tricky balance to strike.
That said, I think Joshua's videos on the comparison and contrast between the Catholic Church and individual denominations are really well-done, and I look forward to more of them.
On UA-cam there are several videos with much information on what you just requested
May god bless you ☦️
Videos like this are important because the average non-Christian American today knows about as much about Christianity as Americans did about Islam before 9/11.
We're talking about at least two generations now that saw The Da Vinci Code and thought it was history.
Joshua is doing the Lord's work by helping to even make it possible to talk to such people.
Except he completely missed one vital point. All protestants recognised the catholic papacy as the antichrist.
Most Americans don’t know all that much about Islam still.
@@baneofbanes In fairness most Moslems don't either.
I'm not American, but many non-christians over here seem to not know what Christians believe and stand for. They seem to think of Christians as simply theists with conservative opinions, who can't think for themselves because they do what the bible says. People my age have a lot of prejudices about Christians, because their knowledge of them only comes form the internet and not from actual Christians. So I hope this video will be influential to at least one of them. :)
Thank you for sharing the good news of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God.
I love your content. It is precise, concise, and cited consistently. Keep it up!
No, he presented a description of one denomination, in relation to others. He's not proselytising, unless of course, you think him talking about prayers for intercession or Mary going into heaven bodily is part of 'being saved'.
Your videos, and this one in particular has shown me how much more we Christians have in common compared to how much we disagree on. While I hold to my set of doctrine concerning the particulars of those things, I'd gladly call anyone who holds to these simple beliefs you laid out as my brother in Christ.
Well this does a good job of showing where many denominations agree but there can be some sizable differences. Do you believe in Predestination?
Can you ever do a video on the Concordant believers? I imagine it would be hard because I can only find them on random parts of the internet, but here are the basic things I can find about them:
1. Believe in scriptural inerrancy (many use the CLV Bible, but apparently not CLV-onlyist) and non-creedal
2. Deny the divinity of Christ and the trinity
3. Believe in soul sleep during death
4. Deny free will of human beings
5. Hyper Dispensational, believing God works during dispensations and only following the Pauline epistles for guidance on doctrine
6. Universal reconciliation, or all will be saved through the cross of Christ.
All of this I found on the Concordant Gospel website, which I am not linking to avoid my comment being taken off of UA-cam.
Thank you for you answer. I am a oneness apostolic minister of 53 years. When I was young we had fellowship with the fundamental Baptists. I preached and sang in their churches as well as they did ours. We grew up with them and knew them. I even attended some classes at Tenn. Temple. As far as the Godhead I don't think anyone fully understands it completely. I don't agree with all oneness doctrine. I say we are both non-creedal. They went without the Holy Spirit in the Godhead from 325 to 381.
I just wanted to say within myself I know what God has done in my life and I know his power.
I am curious to know who or what is the Holy Spirit in your view.
It's an absurdity that many trinitarians think oneness groups are cults because a minor detail in their view of the divinity of Christ.
I would like to see a video on what you believe the ancient Church at the time of Christ or shortly after would look like in its original doctrine.
Thank you again!
Justification by faith alone is what we're about.
Generalizing for the sake of overall clarity can be an extremely useful teaching tool, as long as that generalization is for the sole purpose of better understanding, and not used to marginalize or to distort other beliefs in elevation of your own. IE: One of the core definitions of bias is misrepresenting the position of the opposing view in order to amplify your own. It's one of the repulsive shortcuts (straw man arguments) that I find many people taking in our hyper connected world (even among conservatives) and I have been guilty of this myself. It's as if discourse itself in our fast paced world beckons us to engage in this polarizing, ungodly, behavior. Anyhow, you are able to pack more information into a 5 minute video than anyone I know. It's very useful for subjects that need to be looked at with a very broad lens for understanding history, trends, and human nature overall.
I grew up in AOG, but distanced myself from that doctrinal leaning about 10 years ago, as I believe it was truth mixed with error (though that's irrelevant to my point here). I take on the label of Christian, or follower/disciple of Christ. The bare minimum to explain my allegiance to Christ. But take no other identifier, because I personally believe that leads to the endless splintering of sects and idolatry, in which Paul warned about, starting in 1 Corinthians 3:4. It promotes disunity and confusion, especially among unbelievers when they look at proposed Christianity as a whole. And no, I'm not Catholic. Until I found your channel, I didn't even know that was a popular, pro catholic talking point.
This is also why I don't identify as non-denominational. Should a dog identify as a non-cat? I think it's playing into the reaction game when we identify by what we're not. I believe all the core doctrines of Protestantism in their most zoomed out view as you presented here, though I do not consider myself protestant. It's where identifiers get quirky too. Many people do not realize that the historical meaning of a Protestant was someone who was protesting the Catholic church (It's literally in the name). So they are identifying by what they are not. Being stripped from it's historical context. We technically now have some non-protestant, protestants. This is the absurdity of titles for the sake of distancing ourselves from others. They lose/change meaning over time, and don't truly identify what we are, but what we are not.
My advice is to put the focus back on Christ alone, and not endless identifiers. Though I'm just a guy in the comments, you should read the Word of God to see if what I say has any validity, and not just take my word for it. :)
I find many conservatives are just as guilty for what they call out liberals out on. Where one may find pride in their identity as a black, minority, female, bisexual, and be endlessly ridiculed for their focus on race, social status an sexual identity. Another may find pride in their identity as a straight, protestant, evangelical, Christian, conservative. I wonder what God sees when he looks down at all of our collective nonsense? How can we be an example to the world for righteous living if we're following traditions for the sake of tradition?
"Many people do not realize that the historical meaning of a Protestant was someone who was protesting the Catholic church (It's literally in the name). So they are identifying by what they are not."
You are so, so very wrong in this statement. In the 16th Century, the word "protest" did not have the negative connotation it has today; rather, it was strictly positive. You can still see it today in a sentence like "He protested his love for the girl." The original meaning of "Protestant" was someone who positively asserted their salvation by faith alone by grace alone. It had nothing to do with opposition to Catholic teaching (although that is indeed inherent in the positive protest that Protestants make).
@@bigscarysteve Though I am certainly open to working on my terminology where I may err, the point remains intact. The reformers were battling against the catholic church in the development of their sect on issues they see as non-negotiables. And that today, some protestants consider catholics as in completely unity with themselves (not all). So there are some non-protestant, protestants, who affirm that multiple roads lead to heaven. Even if the root word has a different meaning, my argument is unchanged. It's not based on the understanding of a single word.
Why not follow what the first Christians taught? Who cares about whether Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or "mere Christianity" teaches, unless it has some continuity with what the apostles actually passed on to future generations?
FTR, it is for that reason I'm a Catholic, but don't take my word for it. I'm only saying that, if Jesus wanted us to believe something, surely the people closest to him in time and culture would understand it best. No?
The first paragraph of your theological graffiti identifies you as a liberal. There is plenty of things out there that should be marginalized. The kind of double speak along with people like you who mouth it, is the reason that the membership of the so called main line churches has declined so precipitously. 🏳🌈 = child molestation, whether it was already embedded or as it is now, becoming formalized.
Loving the comments, very interesting
Sorry, I may be wrong on your site.But I am looking for details about a sect whose members believe i.a.: When they say certain magical words to wine , this wine will turn into the blood of their god, and when they do the same with cookies, these will turn into the real living body of their god and then they swallow it all, it goes through their stomach and the intestines and turns into faeces which they will then deposit in a restroom facility. Do you have any detailed knowledge about this sect and how do they call themselves?
Bro, you do an excellent job with what you do.
Great summary! I’m sure some others have said already, but it’s also important to say _why_ these are basic Protestant beliefs: they are clearly what the Scriptures teach. Sola scriptura. The beliefs that separate Catholics and others (Mormon’s, JWs etc) from Protestants are those that aren’t derived from scripture, but from adding other teachings and traditions.
please make a video comparing Anglican and Catholic, I don’t believe you did it already
Does the SDA Church not fit then with "basic protestant Christian beliefs" because of their nihilism for those who died in their sins? Anything else? (I'm not SDA but have familial connections to the denomination.)
Thanks!! There are a lot of people whom are unchurched who just don't know these things. I am really torn over the literal hell. I think he'll as just "godlessness" living in torment without hope and then eventually destruction.
Great synopsis! Much appreciated. I regret that the existence of Hell is being denied by some "liberal" churches. At their peril. /s
I'm not in agreement with annihilationism but I think it's an understandable position that doesn't undo the gospel. Outright denial of any eternal death is where I would draw the line.
Thank you for objective information. I appreciate that very much.
Do you plan to cover the Methodist split now that it's official? I'm very interested in it even though I am not a Methodist myself. I was made aware of it from a movie titled "Enemies within the Church"
I am Methodist so half of me will go to Global MC and the other half will go to UMC….😂🤣🤪
@@jmdsservantofgod8405 good luck with that. A lot of UMC members Ive talked to are reluctant to join the GMC because of where they've attended for so long, but are so tired of what the UMC has become.
The Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creed cover the tenets of basic Christianity.
I’m a little confused on why Seventh-day Adventist wasn’t included in agreeing with these basic Protestant beliefs.
As a SDA myself, I would practically agree with practically everything listed aside from the day of worship and meeting.
Mind elaborating more on it?
Hi first let me say that I enjoy the videos. Secondly I want to say that the continuing Anglican churches are a curious cross between what the Roman Catholic churches are and what the Protestant churches are. I was part of the Anglican Church in America. Whereas in some of the things they need believed and did her more Roman Catholic than the Roman Catholics today but that was a great deal of protestant ISM there as well
Joshua, great work as always. I will differ with you on one point however, that being that we pray to God the Father and not to Christ the Son. Jesus Himself teaches us to pray to the Father in Matt 6 and Luke 11. Jesus intercedes on our behalf, but we pray to the Father
I had to watch the video again to catch where he said that. I agree with you that "praying to Jesus" does not accurately reflect the beliefs of all Protestants and should be something like "Protestants pray to God only" or even "Protestants pray to the Triune God (or Godhead)" to reflect the fact that not all Protestants would believe the nuanced position you hold (praying to the Father only), yet still disagree with denominations that would pray to figures outside the Trinity.
If I had to guess, it was probably a mistake on his part. Easy to do in a video with so much information in it! I can't believe the quality that is put into these videos!
@Меѳодїи Reformed
I agree. I grew up confused always praying to Jesus. But when I learned we pray to the Father, in the name of the Son, by the Spirit. Everything is scripture made so much more sense.
@Меѳодїи you are correct that Reformers are Trinitarian, but the Bible makes it clear that each Person has different roles. The Father elects, the Son saves, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies. Jesus makes it very clear how we are to pray, so why would we do differently? In fact, when you look at their respective roles, they all point back to the Father. Jesus says that the Holy Spirit came to teach all that Jesus had done and commanded. Second, Jesus tells us that He came to save those that the Father has chosen. I believe that it is important to respect those roles as they appear in the Bible.
@@KevnReid I regularly hear Christians pray to Jesus, so it’s no surprise to hear this remark. But I have yet to find any Scripture that says we should pray to Christ, though it could be considered a form of worship and adoration.
Great summary. I do think the divide between Protestants and Catholics is overblown. For example Catholics and Anglicans are much closer in belief and practice than Anglicans and Pentecostals. So why so much emphasis on the Catholic/Protestant divide? I feel the word “Protestant” needs to purged from our vocabulary, just identify with your tradition rather than against the Catholic Church.
Well, i feel like is more important as to why we have the title. "Protestantism" that being who protests. Doesnt actually rejected catholicism explicitly. However what it does rejected is Papel authority. I love the (Roman) Catholics to death, my lady is one of those, but utterly reject the entirety of the Magisterium. As such, am my self a "Protestant" because i protest against magisterial authority.
Again that is a generalisation
The Anglican churches that I have been part of or had connections with have all been much more closely aligned with Pentecostal theology than anything close to Catholicism
"Just identify with your tradition rather than against the Catholic Church." Actually, you've ignorantly stumbled into the actual meaning of the word "Protestant." Almost everybody in the English-speaking world today thinks that Protestants protest against the Catholic church. This is not what the word "protest" meant in the 16th Century. Back then, it had solely a positive meaning. We still have this meaning for the word today sometimes, when it's used in a sort of poetic way, i. e. in a sentence such as "He protested his love for the girl." When Protestants first acquired the name, it had nothing to do with opposition against Catholic teaching; rather, it was a positive protestation that they were saved by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone, informed by the scriptures alone and to the glory of God alone.
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 You totally misunderstand the correct meaning of the word "protest." See my comment above.
Overblown is certainly an opinion I disagree with. To me, being a professing cannibal is a serious offense. I don't eat Jesus, and won't try to eat Jesus. If that was the only difference, it's enough for me to separate from people who make such claims. The idea alone is grotesque. Also, the concept of a doctrinally infallible pope nullifies God's authority, and is of the spirit of anti-christ.
I am not a part of Protestant church ( or any church ) and I agree with all the things you said .
Though you mention exceptions and variations, in reality what you have given us is the basic "conservative" or "Evangelical" Protestant Christian beliefs. The mainline denominations vary from your list a bit more than you indicate.
Thank you for the video. I do prefer these smaller bite size videos (
I've always considered myself a 'reformed" Christian. Much of the differences are no longer (since the early 20th century) really important. I've noticed an interesting similarity with the gun argument and the eucharist. Most gun defenders ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment. Most evangelicals ignore the command that this is my blood and this is my body and only focus on "do this in remembrance of me".
It’s metaphorical.
@@xaviercopeland2789 You might as well take everything in the Bible as "Metaphorical" to fit your naratives.
@@xaviercopeland2789 yeah yeah go ahead and say theres such thing as “just war” or that Jesus wasnt actually God while youre at it
God bless you so much
"Slippery?" Martin Luther would have taken issue. His bold statements have been around for 498 years as to the essence of the "protest" against the Roman Catholics (and some Anabaptists as well). Desiderius Erasmus was the Dutch humanist scholar hired by the Vatican in hopes of intellectually assassinating the monk Martin Luther. Erasmus wrote his "Diatribe" to destroy the Protestants. Luther responded with his magnum opus Bondage of the Will which stands as the lighthouse of the Reformation. Listen carefully.
"Now, my good Erasmus, I entreat you for Christ's sake to keep your promise at last. You promised that you would yield to him who taught better than yourself. Lay aside respect of persons! I acknowledge that you are a great man, adorned with many of God's noblest gifts--wit, learning and an almost miraculous eloquence, to say nothing of the rest; whereas I have and am nothing, save that I would glory in being a Christian. Moreover, I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account--that you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the REAL THING, that is, the ESSENTIAL ISSUE. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like--TRIFLES, rather than issues--in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the HINGE ON WHICH ALL TURNS, and aimed for the VITAL SPOT." Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will (CAPS mine)
I would have definitely added the "exception" that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence [sacramental union] in a manner much more akin to Catholicism than all other Protestants except some Anglicans.
Whatever u want • because no one has the authority to tell u otherwise
Just one simple question…. How did the Church get it’s doctrine wrong for 1500 years and then magically find the answers in 10000 plus protesting denominations?
Mostly because the 'normal' people didn't have access to the Bible and just did what the church said, I guess. But when they had access they could form their own opinions and make their own groups of like-minded people. It's not like we found the answers, we just formed more opinions.
Jerome,
You may wish to watch this video regarding your Protestant denomination numbers.
ua-cam.com/video/7Vw1KFwETbo/v-deo.html
@@evi4127 how enlightened
@@evi4127 Not true. Latin was the vernacular for eight centuries, and until the sixteenth century, most literate Europeans could read Latin. All the while, Protestant doctrines never occurred to anyone. And in the Greek world, people could read the Greek Bible, and again, Protestant doctrines didn’t ever occur to anyone.
This is a common misconception. Historical Protestantism at least, affirms the holiness of the Catholic Church - that God has upheld his church from beginning to end. Martin Luther, despite all of his criticisms, affirmed that despite the corruption, scandal, and apparent doctrinal errors within the Catholic Church, the gospel was still preached. Christ was still alive within its body.
Protestants will typically consider that errors can and have come into the church, and some have stayed. The Reformation was essentially a massive overhaul by cutting what were considered major accretions and a return to a purer form of Christianity. By nature, Protestantism is constantly reforming, and perhaps unfortunately, especially as time goes on, there has been many splintering of denominations.
1:40 Are there no Protestants, say High Church/Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, who accept that the Virgin Mary was sinless?
Maybe some Episcopalians? Just a guess.
Revelation 14:12
King James Version
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Well done 👏👏
Nice.
Is it an essential part of Protestant ecclesiology that the Church is invisible and is comprised of numerous denominations with diverse doctrines?
I was reared on this story, embraced it as a teen, thought my way out of it as an adult. At this point in my life I am amazed such a fantastic construct ever gained enough traction that it became the cultural force that it did.
I realized how crazy Christain theology sounds when summarized
Being a Christian isn't about reading the doctrine and accepting it as one would a scientific theory. Rather, it is about believing in a higher purpose by choosing to follow Christ. That is what kept so many Christians (at least the intrinsic ones) strong in their faith throughout history, the need to live their lives with meaning.
@@alexzech7866 "That is what kept so many Christians (at least the intrinsic ones) strong in their faith throughout history, the need to live their lives with meaning".
I question this generalization. I think if one where to look at the lives of people (primarily peasants) in different centuries spanning back over the last two thousand years you would find that they don't share the same understanding of the world, Gods place in it our their place in it. These views and beliefs change as time goes on. Hence, for example, you probably do not loose sleep over witch's.
@@JeremyMacDonald1973
It is true that specific views have varied a lot throughout Christian history, depending on the location, time period, and denomination. However the belief in a higher purpose given by God has always been central to every Christian group.
Keep in mind, I am talking about people who honestly believed in Christ, which excludes those who simply participated in religious practices not because of their personal faith but for societal or cultural reasons. Most peasants throughout the centuries probably fall into this category of "cultural Christians", but there were always people who were serious in their beliefs, most notably the clergy itself. Now of course, that isn't to say that every single priest or pastor was a truly honest Christian, but a vast majority were.
And yes, there were various beliefs at different times about supernatural occurrences and magic, like witches as you mentioned, and most people at the time looked at those through the lenses of Christianity. But that doesn't change the fact that what was essential to Christian faith throughout history, including the present day, was the need for a higher meaning found through Christ, not the need to have every single question about the world answered.
@@alexzech7866 OK, I don't really disagree with this, though I would point out that, assuming you are European, not in a Muslim controlled area, and after, say the 600's and before the renaissance (call it 1700's), then I think for the most part your not going to question the world. Christianity explains it all. How that gets attributed might vary between time and place but there is no world view in which God and the Devil are not the explanation for everything. For a 10th Century Peasant the Devil was everywhere and was the explanation for every bad thing that happened.
In other places and times things might be viewed differently. There is a story about a volcano rumbling or going off on the Franco-Spanish Border and all the nobles giving up their mistresses ... 'cause God is mad and this is his warning (so here bad things are being attributed more to Gods anger versus the Devil being behind it).
On the other hand sometimes the peasants where misled. At some point around the 14th century there was a decree, in Spain, not to tell the peasants that fornication was a mortal sin (apparently it had come to be believed to be a venal sin - maybe because, at this time in this place, everyone was doing it) and it was determined to be too difficult and unpopular if they tried to correct the peasants.
Come to think of it this last is still popular some places. My first girlfriend was Irish Catholic, and she was a lot of fun 6 days a week. On Sunday I could not touch her and she said a LOT of hail Mary's.
thank you
Adventist absolutely agree with everything up to 2:55 for sure.
I would consider SDA to be Protestant, even if I have concerns about their founder
@Geordie Wishart
Founder?
Joseph Bates?
James White?
Oh, you're talking about that woman evangelist and author who explained Joseph Bates and James White's views while adding a little of her perspective.
Catholics and Orthodox ask why there are so many Protestant sects if Sola Scriptura is such a good way to derive dogma.
The answer is that a different thing is meant by Sola Scriptura in each camp.
I would say only Lutherans have true Sola Scriptura. The Lutheran view is that each text is to be read according to is plain meaning, WITHIN both its historical context and the greater context of Scripture and with the early church fathers and councils as a helpful but not infallible guide.
In contrast, the Cavlinist/Reformed version of Sola Scriptura is to interpret each verse according to what made the most immediate sense to John Calvin's brain in his day, using extra-biblical Greek reasoning. That's why Calvinists deny the Real Presence for example.
Baptists approach Sola Scriptura similarly but with a heavy dose of sophistry added. It's basically a game of proof-texting for them in which each verse is read in a vacuum according to its English meaning devoid of both historical and greater scriptural context.
The Methodist error is that their view is deceptively close to the Lutheran view, but with an important distinction. Lutherans believe the Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture for believers so that it can be understood by them. But Lutherans believe the Spirit operates only by the written and preached word in this way. Methodists on the other hand believe the Spirit gives them new understandings of Scripture independent of the text itself. That's why they espouse unbiblical doctrines such as a born again conversion experience and ordaining women despite claiming to follow Sola Scriptura. It makes them feel good even though it's not Biblical and they think it's from the Spirit for that reason.
And as for Pentecostals, I would argue they don't use Sola Scriptura in any way even in a corrupted form because they believe in ongoing personal revelation and prophecy.
@Меѳодїи And yet he didn't, because the pressure worked.
You've proved nothing as Lutherans don't claim Luther never made any mistakes or that he was infallible.
@Меѳодїи If being wrong about anything, even major things, is the standard for whether we impeach all the teachings of someone by default, then we can just throw out many of the major early church fathers including Augustine of Hippo as they contradicted each other and themselves.
But just as we don't base doctrine on the writings of one fallible Apostolic Father alone, but rather consider the full counsel and witness of them together in light of Scripture, the Lutheran reformation is not the writings of Luther alone but all of the fallible Lutheran arch-reformers considered together in light of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
As it happens, you are citing an example from early Luther, when he had just begun to espouse Sola Fide and made more than minor mistakes. That's why Lutherans don't include the 95 Theses in our Confessions for example. It's quite possible that Luther himself was not actually a Christian during his time as an Augustinian monk until he was converted by the gospel, and when that happened he was overwhelmed by the contrast between the gospel and what he had been taught in the monastery, such that he attempted an overcorrective rebellion against tradition that was misguided. But thankfully he had other reformers to put him back on the right path, because as it turns out, he was not the first reformer.
See unlike the Orthodox church which reads the apostolic fathers indiscriminately and then attempts to force a synthasis to resolve their manifest contradictions, we actually regard our theologians with discernment.
What else did Luther get wrong? What did his fellow reformers get wrong? Read the Formula of Concord.
@Меѳодїи No it literally wasn't, but 80% of what he said about the Jews was correct.
He went too far. But he was far from the only Jew-basher at the time. I doubt the Popes and Cardinals at the time would have much disagreed with him.
@Меѳодїи So do we, and of them Lutheran doctrine only contradicts some parts of the 7th (according to the Western translation at least)
_"In contrast, the Cavlinist/Reformed version of Sola Scriptura is to interpret each verse according to what made the most immediate sense to John Calvin's brain in his day, using extra-biblical Greek reasoning. That's why Calvinists deny the Real Presence for example."_
Why are Lutherans so willing to lie about their Reformed brothers when you ought to understand the nature of a confessional faith? Do they really not love Jesus that they would disobey his commandments so readily? I know you guys teach the threefold use of the law, yet so many internet Lutherans don't seem to live like it.
What you label as the Lutheran view is the Reformed view. If you are such a partisan hack that you can't allow Lutherans to agree with non-Lutherans on some things, then you might as well leave Lutheranism, because Reformed Christians aren't giving up Sola Scriptura any time soon.
Let's break down some of your claims.
You say we: _"interpret each verse according to what made the most immediate sense to John Calvin's brain in his day, using extra-biblical Greek reasoning"_
We confess: (WCF 1.10) The *Supreme Judge,* by which *all* controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, *doctrines of men,* and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
This shows your lie for what it is; Calvin's doctrines must submit to scripture, as Scripture is the supreme judge of our theology. Calvin is not our authority. In fact, I don't know of any Reformed denominations that make any work of Calvin a rule of faith. Most use the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity. This is in contrast to the Book of Concord where Luther's writings feature prominently. Your accusation would word better (but be just as false) were it directed back on yourself.
You say: _"That's why Calvinists deny the Real Presence for example."_
We confess: (WCF 29.7) Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, *really and indeed,* yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, *receive and feed upon Christ crucified,* and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as *really,* but spiritually, *present* to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Yes, Reformed Christians affirm the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. I think Lutherans might disagree with some details, but that is a very different claim than the lie that we outright reject the real presence. Lutherans disagree with the Roman version of real presence as well, that doesn't mean you (or they) reject real presence.
Lutherans would do well to actually study some Reformed teachings. We are far more similar than modern Lutherans realize, though we do have important distinctives. It wasn't always this way, older Lutheran writers recognize that Calvin and most Reformed Christians rejected Zwingli, yet the modern Lutheran thinks every Calvinist is a Zwinglist.
Excelente!
Thank you for awesome content. What is the chances of doing some on African Initiated/Independent Churches such as ZCC, AmaNazaretha, Kimbanguist etc?
This guy rocks. A real public service.
Thanx, Joshua 🌹🌹🌹
Can protestants agree on what doctrines and practices must be believed to be a good Christian?
No. For example, consider the phrase "good Christian." Classical Reformational Protestantism teaches that there is no such thing as a "good Christian." Christians continue to be sinners in this earthly life, but they are justified because they are imputed with the perfect righteousness of Christ. American Evangelicals often proclaim that we can be a sinner or a Christian, but not both. If we are still committing sins, then we should question our salvation.
The Gospel: Bullet Note Edition
I have no idea what denomination i am. Right now im just Christian as far as i can tell
Would you like to find out?
4:29 I have a friend who has heard Methodists ask for the intercession of John Wesley, and I know Anglicans of various stripes believe in saints.
Which are the one where it is ok to get drunk and laid all day long but will be saved as long as you believe Jesus is your savior ?
I do urge you to reconsider the Continuing Anglican groups who may be historically Protestant but doctrinally very much non-Protestant, rejecting Sola Ride and affirming forms of the Real Presence and invocation of the saints.
Hi Joshua -- awesome video, as usual.
I'm curious to know if you've watched Trent Horn's recent video, where he discusses the question, "Can Protestants agree on essential doctrine, and on what basis?" with two Protestant ministers?
Your video seems to have come out around the same time
I saw it but I have not yet watched it. Trent mentioned that he was going to make it in a now-deleted twitter thread where he noted his picture in my video on "Are Mormons, Muslims and Catholics Christian?"
Are iglesia filipina independiente (aglipayan) protestants?
I am a Protestant I agreed with all of it
Early Christianity was very Catholic/Orthodox, all about the Mass.
@@Kyrana4102 Protestants have invented the notion that they're returning to original Christianity, but that is nonsense.
No it wasn't
@@geordiewishart1683 Protestants who read about early Christianity are astonished at how Catholic/Orthodox it was.
If you haven’t already, please consider asking how many people
A: consider themselves protestant defined as subscribing to the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the pharmacy of scripture and the priesthood of believers
B: consider themselves protestant defined as belonging to a denomination that broke away from the papacy in the sixteenth century
C: consider themselves protestant defined as being a Christian who isn’t “Catholic” (OR)
D: could be considered protestant by one or more of the above definitions but do not consider or refer to THEMSELVES as protestant.
This next question might be considered silly if there are as few people as I think there are who consider themselves protestant but... How many of the people who think of themselves as protestant would consider someone protestant who thinks of hell as an event rather than as a place. Your description of the finally impenitent as ultimately being destroyed in a lake of fire seems to allow for that perception of hell as falling within the definition of protestant beliefs.
Just want to correct the typo..the 'pharmacy' to be the 'primacy'. Thanks.
I'm SDA. I consider myself protestant. The SDA church officially does as well. Sola scriptura is our foundation stone. His placards would allow annihilationism to be valid. His spoken words don't.
Sunday keeping us the only area of contention on the list. Howevee as protestants are protesting Rome. I'd argue Sabbath keeping is protestant I'm nature. Especially when we (SDA) got it from the anabaptists..
@Leo Mate I guess that depends, who you ask. Personally over all I think conservatism. But that is because the global church and newer members are growing more in that side. (Walter Veith's Total Onslaught is been helpful in the west for this. Worth a watch.) However some of our larger institutions, (Our hospitals and schools) and a few of our Western church groups (sections of Europe and North America) are leaning very liberal (at least from traditional Adventism.) A split like what happened to the Methodist might be on the horizon but so far hasn't happened. If so I expect the church to hold the conservative branch, shedding our liberal institutions. But only God knows how it will play out.
@@philipwheeler7317 It's true that only God knows the future but I'm willing to make an observation. If the trend toward the Executive Committee of the General Conference of SdA "voting" statements on political issues and the trend of clergy speaking about political issues during sabbath services continues, the split will occur sooner rather than later.
@@charless.muhigirwa4063 Twice in a while my spell checker replaces one of my words with an altogether different word but with spelling so similar that I don't notice it. Thanks for the correction.
@Ready To Harvest (Joshua) - When you say “Continental Remormed,” what exactly does that mean? I belong to a church that is part of the Reformed Church of America. Is that included in your definition? Thank you so much and keep on posting these informational videos!!!
It refers to Reformed churches like yours, which is Dutch Reformed in origin and also other reformed churches like German Reformed or Swiss Reformed.
@@ReadyToHarvest Thank you, Joshua, for the speedy reply!!! God Bless. ✝️❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️
In one of the greatest historical ironies, a majority of religious non-Roman Catholics today would likely agree with the humanistic tenets (philosophical) of Catholicism, even the most anti-Catholic sects.
Well done.
You know, for a while I was considering converting to Catholicism. Then I did some theology study, and nope, I'm fine as a Baptist.
Sorry, I may be wrong on your site.But I am looking for details about a sect whose members believe i.a.: When they say certain magical words to wine , this wine will turn into the blood of their god, and when they do the same with cookies, these will turn into the real living body of their god and then they swallow it all, it goes through their stomach and the intestines and turns into faeces which they will then deposit in a restroom facility. Do you have any detailed knowledge about this sect and how do they call themselves?
Don't baptists reject baptismal regeneration?
HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PRESERVED ITS COMPILED BOOK CALLED "BIBLE"?
.
.
The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church
in the 4th century and approved for general Christian use by the local councils at Rome (382AD), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397AD). Catholic bishops had convened to decide on which books would became part of the New Testament canon, considering that there were hundreds of letters/epistles, and gospels that exist in the first 300 years of Christianity. Finally, the Church officially decided that only 27 books were to be part of the New Testament, and added it to 46 books of the Septuagint Old Testament scriptures used by the early Christians, making a one single 73-books volume called the Bible.
.
The term "Bible" is not even written in the Bible. It was coined by Pope Siricius. The chapters and verses were made by Catholic Cardinals named Stephen Langton & Hugo de Caro, and Sanctes Pagnino, respectively. The purpose of "chapters and vereses" is to let the readers easily memorize certain passage in the Bible. The very first printed Bible was produced by a Catholic inventor named Johannes Guttenberg. He had produced several printed bibles coming from the Latina Vulgata. Prior to that, all Bibles were written by hand through Catholic monks inside the "Scriptorium". It took for them about 10 years to finish a single complete bible.
.
.
The Bible is used for Church Liturgy
.
Non-catholics had accused that the Catholic Church had discouraged its members to read the Bible. This is not true. In fact, at every Catholic Mass throughout the world two readings from the general body of the Bible, and one from the Gospels are being read everyday. Almost all Catholic homes have a Bible (as Bible is a pre-requisite during Sacrament of Marriage) and the Bible is taught in Catholic schools (as it is a perennial tradition).
.
.
The Bible was chained in the Middle Ages in order to preserve it from deterioration and prevent from being stolen.
.
Non-Catholics also accused that the Catholic Church chained the Bible in the Middle Ages to deprive its members from reading the Bible. This myth has come about because Bibles were often locked away in Churches in the past, but that was not to prevent people from having access. It was only made to prevent them from breing stolen. Remember that those few Bibles were hand-written and were incredibly valuable due to scarcity. Just like a phone directory, owners should attached it to a chord/string in order that users will not misplace it or bring it anywhere.
.
Furthermore, non-Catholics think that the Church forbade people from
reading the Bible by putting it on the Index of Forbidden Books, but the Bibles placed on the Index were
protestant versions (lacking 7 books or badly translated versions). The most famous of which is the King James Version (KJV) which Catholics are not supposed to use.
.
Historically, it was recorded that protestants also chained their Bible for atleast 300 years. Yet, we did not accused them for depriving their members in accessing the Bible
.
.
Catholics Burned Erroneous Bibles to Preserve the Authentic Bible
.
Non-Catholics frequently accused the Catholic Church for burning bibles so that nobody can read it. Again, that is an inaccurate history. If the Catholic Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, then the Church had ample opportunity to do so for 1,500 years. But why we still have bibles now?
.
The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations, but only to those heretical and distorted Bible versions (e.g. Wycliffe and Tyndale Bible). It is necessary to destroy those erroneous translations in order to preserve the integrity of the Holy Scripture. If people would have different interpretations to a single and the same bible, how much more to a distorted bible translations?
.
.
Protestant Vs. Protestant
.
Even to this modern day, the best practical way to preserve an authentic or original product is to burned those fake or fictitous imitations which were captured by the authority. This is actually what the King of England did to those translations made by Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles. It was the protestant King Henry VIII who ordered the killing of Tyndale, because the Anglican Church considered Tyndale as heretic. In addition, King Richard II of England also ordered to burned the Bible translations made by Wycliffe, after the Catholic Church declared him as heretic. John Calvin ordered the killing and burning of Michael Servetus writings and his Bible translations.
.
Historically, protestants reformers also destroyed many books of their fellow protestant reformers, that contradict to their teachings.
.
.
To non-Catholics: If the Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles were good translations, why no protestant uses them today? 🤔
.
.
CONCLUSION:
.
There is no escaping to this fact, that the Bible is a Catholic book, and without the Catholic Church, non-Catholics have no Bible to use in their religious business. The father of protestantism named Martin Luther even admitted it honestly, when he said :
.
🚩"We are compelled to concede that without the Catholic Church, we knew nothing about the Word of God (Bible)" - Martin Luther
.
Another famous non-Catholic Bible scholar from Biblical Archeology Society named Dr. Peter Flint - the first man to translate the Dead Sea Scrolls also supported it, when he said:
.
🚩" Without the Catholic Church, you have no Bible"
- Dr. Peter Flint, Ph.D
Solid.
I really can't see how protestants believe in the Holy Spirit sent to teach us everything there is still to learn and at the same time believe in the Sola Scriptura doctrine. I can’t see how that can work together.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.-John 14:36
Jesus promised that the Spirit would teach us all things AND bring His words to our remembrance.
The Protestant position is that Christ's words are exclusively in the Scriptures of the Apostles and prophets (based on Ephesians 2:20 et al). The Catholic/Orthodox position is much more liberal: a mass of nebulous material of uncertain provenance,called "tradition of the Church" is also assumed to contain Christ's words, and to be authoritative and essential.
The Protestant position is the conservative one, although that does not, of course, prove that it's correct.
@@stephenwright4973 thank you for explanation
Who said that there were only 66 Books in the Bible? So He commanded Baptism, does that mean that anyone that refuses Baptism is condemned to Hell for disobeying Him? Churches meet together on the First Day of the week, and not on the Sabbath Saturday - who changed the Day of Worship? Will a person go to Hell for worshipping on a Sunday instead of Saturday or vice-versa? Oh my! Is there just one single Protestant that can provide the Biblical support for any of the distinctly Protestant doctrines listed in this video? Things like: Elements of Communion ARE NOT transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ? Mary WAS NOT assumed bodily into Heaven? Mary WAS conceived in Original Sin? Salvation is by Grace through "faith alone"???? Which Protestant doctrines not shared with Catholics can be found in the Scriptures? I invite any and all Protestants to provide just one single example. If you are successful then I will leave the Catholic Church immediately and then start my own church like any good Protestant.
much to my surprise got rosary in the mail what????? maybe i swhould send them a gospel tract
Are there Christian beliefs that does not think that Jesus died for our sins?
Calvinism believes Jesus died for limited atonement which means only the people selected (regardless of sin actions) will go to heaven. So in this case, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for certain people’s sins but not everybody’s. Hope that is a good example.
I personally get a lot of hate online from Catholics and Orthodox juat cause im Protestant. Its starting to wear me down 😔
This is a clear and concise survey on mainstream Protestantism, which also punctuates why in good conscience it should be avoided... Among the most troublesome views are where Grace and Faith are falsely set at variance with Works -- 3:41. But this dichotomy exists nowhere in Scripture or Classical Christianity; on the contrary, Saint Paul wrote:
_"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus _*_UNTO GOOD WORKS,_*_ which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."_
That sounds like Non-denominationalism, which is Anabaptism Lite sprinkled with fideistic antinomianism. Reading any classical Protestant confession of faith or catechism clearly communicates that works of obedience are a necessary outworking, fruit, or result of regeneration and saving faith, which is the means by which we receive the grace that justifies before the Law of God, but not the basis on which we are justified (which is Christ and his work). If a man possesses saving faith (the gift the Spirit. In the giving of the Word of God), obedience and fruitful good works (ordained, redeemed, accepted, lauded, and used of God for Christ’s sake), follow in time. "We are ‘saved’ by faith alone, said Luther, "but not by a faith that is alone."
@@ardensvirens Does "any classical Protestant confession of faith or catechism" include Calvinism?
@UCyu32w4USj7b4CSheqcFD3g Good morning, Every single one of the _Five Solas_ is heretical; the abolition of the Melchizedekian priesthood is destructive; demoting the Holy Eucharist to a mere symbol is blasphemous; the self-appointed bishopric is pure arrogance: none of those novelties existed prior to Luther...
The idea that Christianity is science or technology where new discoveries are made and methodologies are improved upon are what discredit every Protestant denomination. So since Luther did not discover, he invented. Following Luther's innovations in ignorance is one thing, but to refuse to seek out the early Christian Church is just irresponsible.
"but Protestantism adds "alone""
False. This translational interpretation exists in Catholic Bible translations that predate Luther and Protestantism. Modern-day Italian Catholic translations from as recently as 2008 also make use of such wording. This is a translational matter, not an 'additions' matter - all translations make use of vocabulary to communicate sentiments of the original languages.
@@Mic1904 Please show us proof then let the Roman Catholics answer for themselves... But if you are purporting that the _Five Solas_ are Biblically verifiable texts prior to Luther, then why does every Catholic apologetics on the subject condemn them as heresy? Did Luther the self-appointed bishop have access to special copies that no one else had? "Sentiments" is treading into dangerous territory, friend.
got a book our religion and our neighbors page 145 states "yet, in terms of its beliefs and practices , Mormonism shares most of the elements of Protestantism."
I am a Seventh Day Adventist and I consider myself to be a Protestant. But I can understand why potentially other Christians would us not as protestant regarding certain views.
3 - 17 - 23
Happy St. Patrick's day !
3 - 17 - 23
Two days from now will be SUNDAY PHYSICAL RESURRECTION WORSHIP day !
"" I AM the RESURRECTION ! ""
John 11 : 25
#1. INCREDIBLE
NOT ONCE have YOU or ANY other Seventh day Adventist on ANY of these threads / comments hasn't even bothered to mention ANYTHING about SPREADING or PREACHING the GRACE of the
Good News of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ
( NOT ONE ) ( NOT ONCE )
Why not ?
Too busy bestowing accolades to the Investigative Judgement ?
#2
Isn't Adventism SUPPOSED to be the ONLY ONE TRUE REMNANT religion DENOMINATION church which is SUPPOSED to SPREAD/ PREACH the GRACE of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ?
What are you waiting for ?
#3
This is what you are SUPPOSED to do as a PASTOR if indeed you claim to be a Christian Protestant
As you claim you are
#4
You sure have a funny way of showing it
Just a TYPICAL SDA who claims to keep the Saturday Sabbath Holy while simultaneously WORKING your technology ALL day on Saturday's being BORED and LOCKED in your BEDROOM HIDING from your family LOCKED in your technology and posting more on Saturday's than ANY other day of the week on AS many SDA channels AS possible dealing with Adventism
ANSWER
1st Corinthians 15 : 1 - 4
( EUANGELION ) in the GREEK for the GRACE of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
( The CROSS )
His BURIAL ( NOT RESTED )
His PHYSICAL RESURRECTION on a beautiful SUNDAY !
3 - 17 - 23
#5
So Adventism are the
Completers of the Protestant Reformation movement ?
#6
Really........?
#7
Of the two schools of THOUGHT of the Protestant Reformation movement ; which of the two would BEST describe SDA Closing of the Heavenly Sanctuary MASONIC Probation eternal life of the Investigative Judgement as having the father of LIES as the SDA HERO SCAPEGOAT of Adventism while simultaneously ENCOURAGING your OWN wife , family and friends to take Baptismal vows to
Ellen G White on Saturday's ?
ANSWER
2 Timothy 1 : 8 - 9
( EUANGELION ) in the GREEK for the GRACE of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
( The CROSS )
His BURIAL ( NOT RESTED )
His PHYSICAL RESURRECTION on a beautiful SUNDAY !
3 - 17 - 23
Two days ago SUNDAY PHYSICAL RESURRECTION WORSHIP day was GREAT !
"" I AM the RESURRECTION ! ""
John 11 : 25
#8
Of the 95 theses that Martin Luther who believed in an eternal HELL FIRE nailed to the Wittenberg castle church in Germany on
October 31 , 1517 , which one
PROTESTS or talks about keeping the Saturday Sabbath Holy or going to church on Saturday's ?
Much less an SDA church ?
#9
Are your sins BLOTTED out?
SIMPLE Yes.....or.....No
#10
Did Jesus FINISH his atonement on the CROSS at Calvery FINISHED paid in FULL sins BLOTTED out FINAL payment paid in FULL
NOTHING ADDED
NO SECOND phase of atonement NECESSARY ?
SIMPLE Yes.....or.....No
#11
Does one NEED TO be OBEDIENT to the LAW in order to receive
GRACE ?
SIMPLE Yes.....or.....No
#12
LDS : Joseph Smith said Angels have GOLDEN PLATES
SAME AS.......
SDA : Ellen G White said Angels have GOLDEN CARDS
( Early writings 39 : 2 )
#13
Using the Bible ONLY
Using the Bible FIRST
As Adventists claim to do
WHERE in the KJV Bible 1611 , or in the Hebrew , Aramaic or GREEK of the text do Angels have
GOLDEN PLATES GOLDEN CARDS just because Ellen G White and her contemporary Joseph Smith said so
( Chapter and verse please )
If you don't mind
Thank you in advance
ANSWER
GRACE
G - Gods
R - Riches
A - At
C - Christs
E - Expense
Try it , Jesus = GOD = YESHUA in the flesh loves you and so do I !
AGAPE !
Where are Quakers in this?
Please Help me I Believe Jesus Is The Son of God and God The Son of The Holy Trinity I Believe Jesus Shed His Blood and Died in my place to Pay for All my Sins He was Buried Then 3 Days Later Jesus Arose From The Dead!!! But I am struggling with some Sins that I honestly don’t know how to quit I hate my Sins But I genuinely don’t know how to stop them Am I still Saved because because of my Faith In Jesus or am I Not Saved because of my Sins? Thank you for All your Help and Time God Bless you
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1 John 1:8-2:1
I refuse to listen to anyone who believes I should kiss his ring, kneel before him, teaches the leader of their church is Jesus or God on earth, leader of the church believes the preacher can change the Bible to their views
5:02 hey! That’s me!
How does those beliefs affect real life?
I enjoy and respect your videos. Do you believe the oneness pentecostals are lost?
I would say most of them are but there are probably a few scattered among them who are not, but only because they have not fully understood and clung to the Oneness heresy.
"No requesting intercession" not true. As you will find many protestants asking other Christians to pray for them or others they know. Which is what us Catholics are doing when we ask for a saints intercession. Most Christians believe in the power of group prayer, Catholics only expand that group to those in heaven.
All believers are saints.
All dead are in the grave, awaiting the resurrection.
No dead saint can hear or respond to prayer.
@@geordiewishart1683 So when someone dies where does their soul go?
Can you do a video on the Methodist Church split
I have made a couple, will probably make an update later this year.
First video: ua-cam.com/video/JNshvA_k3nc/v-deo.html
Second video: ua-cam.com/video/G6fOEmQEfuc/v-deo.html
Thats a lot
So, if non-denominational Christians are Protestants, are independent voters partisan? I call myself an independent Christian, less syllables.
They are not going to identify as Protestant, because they don't believe in labels.
However, most of their beliefs tend to be variations on Protestantism. This is not weird as the early founders of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement were Protestants. You can even see that non-denominationals are most numerous in two kinds of places: 1- Where they have been able to effectively start preaching Christianity first such in Southeast Asia. 2- In majority Protestant countries like the USA or UK. You will rarely encounter these congregations in majority Catholic or Orthodox regions.
Agree 😉