Protestantism & Richard Dawkins Have This in Common
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2024
- Support the channel by visiting:
brianholdsworth.locals.com/ or
brianholdsworth.ca/support
Prof. Richard #Dawkins has been getting pilloried on social media ever since an interview was released in which he described himself as a cultural #Christian and that he valued living in a Christian #culture.
But he also insisted that no one should misunderstand that he thinks it’s outrageous that anyone would actually believe the doctrines of #Christianity - like the virgin birth.
Dawkins wants the good effect of a cause without the cause itself. Christian culture is the embodiment of Christian faith. It’s the product of a society of people who genuinely believe and Dawkins wants to enjoy what they produce while denouncing them for the reason they produce it.
And the fact of that incoherence wasn’t lost on most people paying attention, especially Christians - and this includes Christians of all walks of life.
I don’t want to spoil that, but it’s just such a glaring opportunity to point out that a lot of Christians are operating under a theological system that employs this exact same fallacious logic.
#protestantism #solascriptura
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Podcast Version: brianholdsworth.libsyn.com/ - Розваги
Dawkins' problem is that there is no foundation for any of the things he enjoys, including life itself, without the God he rejects.
As the Chruch says, God is necessary; all else is contingent.
Brian: thanks for this episode. I am a non denominational pastor. And was a missionary for 22 years. The two driving forces in my life have been the evangelism of the lost, and the unity of all believers in Christ. I have found many great believers across denominational lines, and met some scandalous pastors. But there are many countries in the world where Believers are such a small minority that you take fellowship through Christ rather than any denominational loyalties. Sadly, the two groups I have known the least about have been Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. The priest in a village I used to live in in Scotland, was a delightful man, and his love for Christ was obvious. Sadly, most of the clergy i'd met were not. He opened my eyes. Then I started watching your videos and Pints with Aquinas. I've said this before, but you have greatly increased my understanding of, and appreciation for Roman Catholicism. Thank you. Sorry to be so wordy! 😁
I would highly recommend checking out Gavin Ortlund's channel, Truth Unites, if you're looking to dive into church history and the beautiful depth of the worship, liturgies, and practice of the faith that countless people across two thousand years have participated in.
Just to clarify also, other people frequently alledge, both here and elsewhere that Gavin misquotes, twists or otherwise miss represents the fathers but he has demonstrated repeatedly that this is not the case. The objections of those who do not like what he (and the church Fathers he reads from) have to say, I highly recommend him.
@@tategarrett3042 thank you, I will check him out!
@@tategarrett3042the minister would be better served reading early Church sources directly and not rely on axe grinding interpretations.
Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr on to Irenaeus.
Dr Ortlund tends to do a lot of redacting of these early texts.
@@tategarrett3042 perhaps you wouldn’t be contrary to preferring the original if you felt the second hand interpretation was true to the original.
@@mikelopez8564 That is confusingly worded. I don't prefer Gavin to the original - in fact it's because of him I've bought some of the early church father's works which he continuously recommends in all his videos. I heartily recommend him though because not many people have the time to go out and read all the early church fathers. His videos do a wonderful job of introducing them to people and highliting important things they said and believed.
Protestant here. Just finished reading Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polykarp of Smyrna. Coming home soon.
Don't go there. Don't forget to add Luther with "Against the Papacy in Rome Founded by the Devil" We protestants are the true Church, even if we forgot!
Or "The Ecclesia" by John Hus!!
Why? There is nothing within those early church authors to make one go to Rome specifically.
@@franciscaedwards6219 It was politics that allowed the spread of Protestantism, not theology. The devil's hands are all over the work of Martin Luther.
@@franciscaedwards6219Protestants can't even agree on who is a Protestant. They can't even agree on the requirements for salvation. In what way do they embody the "pillar of truth" that's described in Scripture?
People think the stories in the Bible are outrageous, with out ever stopping to think how weird it is that we even exist...
@@cherylderue336who is Jeebus?
@@cherylderue336 we believe in them but we know they are demons.
Consequently demons also avoid saying the name of Jesus.
Santa is st. Nicholas.
@@cherylderue336 in the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
Ishtar is created. A fallen angel. All created by and rejected God. They’re all demons.
@@cherylderue336 1. YWNBAW
2. There are thousands of created "gods" but there is only ONE God. No true god is limited in any capacity or is a victim to its own nature. It is so mind numbingly stupid to believe that the one variable that NEEDS to exist in order for creation to exist, does not exist, and that creation exists for existence's sake. Yet that is what Ayfeeists believe.
@@cherylderue336 1. YWNBAW
2. There are thousands of created "gods" but there is only ONE God. No true god is limited in any capacity or is a victim to its own nature.
Auron MacIntyre said it quite well: Richard Dawkins is a child holding wilted flowers that he cut from their roots.
Auron spits nonsense
Powerful my brother…I was Protestant for the first 30 years and was never introduced to church history, unfortunately, on purpose. Be blessed.
Protestantism lives in fear of personal study and research for good reason as you have found out. Well done!
"Sorry if this feels like a cheap shot"
*Proceeds to take said cheap shot*.
Excellent. After watching this, I had to ask myself, "Ok, this is true and important. What are you going to do with it?" I decided that I had to share it on my socials. Gonna lose some friends, but there is an clear truth here that needs to be considered. Thank you, Brian.
I have lost a few friends by sharing Catholic articles with them. They clearly weren't interested in the truth. The truth can and is often offensive.
Thanks for sharing Brian. I'm a new convert. I always enjoy your videos. They've helped me on my research along the way.
Nietzsche, my favorite atheist, rightfully ridiculed the Victorians and others in believing that one could maintain Christian morals and ethics and, at the same time, reject the dogmas and doctrines of the Church i.e. Christ is God, the Resurrection of Christ, Purgatory, Heaven, Hell, sin etc. That is why he wrote, "The transvaluation of values". Once the Catholic religion is jettisoned, the Catholic ethics and morals must be rejected and a whole new morality must be established. And N attempted to do just that. What was the result? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. The hell on earth that was the twentieth century. God bless.
Agree ! One of the side result of Nietzsche, is also that he finished its life in a vegetative state, far away from the surhuman he thought he was…
YOU: Nietzsche, my favorite atheist, rightfully ridiculed the Victorians and others in believing that one could maintain Christian morals and ethics and, at the same time, reject the dogmas and doctrines of the Church i.e. Christ is God, the Resurrection of Christ, Purgatory,
*ME: Purgatory is the blasphemous false doctrine that DENIES the complete work of Redemption* (purification, forgiveness of sins) *BOUGHT/paid for by the blood/body of Jesus Christ* -- just like PETER warned in 2Peter 2:1-3.
*So a true Christian can certainly reject Rome's false doctrine of purgatory because it CONTRADICTS the Apostles/Original Church that wrote the NT for us.*
*According to the APOSTLE in Colossians 1:12-13,20-22 -- Jesus' shed blood 2000 years ago has so completely PURIFIED/cleansed sinful Believers -- that sinful Believers have ALREADY been completely reconciled back to holy GOD -- and has ALREADY placed sinful Believers into God's holy Kingdom* -- also see 1Corinth 6:11 -- THEREFORE there is no need for more purification in purgatory in order to enter God's holy Kingdom.
*Hebrews 10:10,14,17-18 makes it perfectly clear that Jesus' shed blood 2000 years ago made sinful Believer completely HOLY/sanctified and RIGHTEOUS/justified in the eyes of GOD -- and you can NOT ADD anything else to that* -- NOT an unspecified amount of time in purgatory, NOT water baptism, NOT drinking Jesus' blood, NOT confessing every sin, NOT acts of penance, etc
Like Jesus said, you ERR because you do not know God's written Scripture -- Matt 22:29.
He was misguided, but honest.
@@TicketToRide-dj4vk Sadly you err, because you rely solely on YOUR interpretations of scripture, misguided as they are. If you commit a crime, do you engage a lawyer or are you going to represent yourself in court? For me, I would rather put my trust in the lawyer who has studied and has a far vaster wealth of knowledge than I do. The same goes for the Church with 2000 years of collective wisdom and experience.
@@TicketToRide-dj4vkYou quoted Peter's epistle. How do you know it's inspired by the Holy Spirit?
God will confound the wise/learned !!!
Praying for the conversion of poor sinners 🙏🏻
I was surprised when I first read Dawkins admit his preference for Christian culture. I think his position stems from a realization of where our political climate is heading and the absence of Christianity would lead to something a hell of a lot worse. Pun intended.
Seeing him on some stages surrounded by burqa-clad savages - I would have moved in the same direction had I been forced to endure that.
It stems from his abject ignorance, he believes the canon was decided at Nicea
Thank you, Brain! This was really well explained! Keep going!!
Let's pray for Dawkins. Mabybe he is changing. Conversion doesn't always happens in one go.
I hope he doesn't convert
Dawkins is a classic user. He takes from something for which he has no affinity, enjoying the benefits of the object of his acrimony, while trying to destroy it wherever possible. You could liken it to living in a penthouse apartment, but each night chopping away at the very foundations of your own home.
I genuinely enjoy, appreciate, and find encouragement by your videos. God bless you abundantly for all your efforts.
There’s no truth without coherence.
God is truth, God is order, God is good.
Dawkins is just an other incoherent and very confused modern pseudo intellectual.
I think it’s a bit dismissive to compare Protestant disagreements with Catholic theology to not wanting to pay overdue library book fines.
Croydon Mosque pictured at the beginning: used to pass it every week for years. Londonistan is a thing.
As a Protestant, I think you’ve made some great points on which I will ponder. Thanks, Brian. ❤️
Next episode: what Dawkins and Papists have in common: "Scripture is Unclear"
I get so annoyed by the new atheist "critique" of the Virgin birth. The whole point is that Virgin birth is a miracle, and that God's sovereignty over His creation is such that He can alter the ordinary course of nature and produce miracles. But Dawkins can't understand this basic idea.
Like, "Wow, Dawkins, all my life I thought that virgins could get pregnant. Thank you for telling me that it's not possible because I had no idea! You have truly liberated me from my Christian ignorance." 🙄
So annoying, I can't believe that adults could take this guy seriously.
I'm surprised adults can believe in god
@@konyvnyelv. The fact that you are taking the time to comment on Catholic videos to me demonstrates that it's not that you don't believe in God, it's that you're unhappy with Him and with the moral order that he has established. By extension, you are also angry at the people who love and worship Him, so you like to pass your time on this Earth by ridculing them.
An observation: Whether we admit/recognize it or not, all people from every walk of life are on a spiritual journey. This includes those who denounce the existence of metaphysics. For militant atheists - those I have heard - aside from a fundamentalist understanding of religion, another aspect shared with believers of a certain mind st is the question of who has authority. Human beings generally have a hard time accepting the authority of God when we are focused on our own being dominant. This is a human failing, not an accusation towards certain believers and non believers. I see this as due to stressing of the physical over the metaphysical. As opposed to this "either/or" approach, it is actually a "both/and" situation. People in general desire the benefit of the metaphysical in the physical world but deny the existence of it. It is not an easy task to grasp the relationship of the physical to the underpinnings of the metaphysical. Possibly because the metaphysical cannot be measured (or exploited) with tools of the physical so many decide to deny its existence. - As to thinkers like Mr. Dawkins, the conflict with a competing militant world view conquering their lives after campaigning to eliminate another they find reprehensible, had not entered their thoughts. At least Mr. Dawkins has come to the realization he is in peril along with everyone else. He can continue the tactics he has used in his previous campaign, but the major difference is that this combative, competing world view has adherents who will put an end to him in a way Christianity would not, and that worries him. Perhaps he and like minded compatriots will draw closer to God as a result. Only God knows how this all plays out.
Excellent video! Thank you!
Brian, I could not agree with you more!! I pray daily for Christian unity. I believe our lack of unity pierces our Lord's pure heart. If only we knew how He suffers by our tenacity to remain separated. May the Lord forgive us and help us to live the unity for which he prayed. John 17: 11b, 17. Thank you for articulating your point so well.
I love the points you made here in this video. I pray daily for the reunification of the church.
So illuminating. Thank you for this.
This is really not fair to Protestants
Please explain why it's an unfair comparison
The issue with claiming that the Catholic Church has absolute authority because it compiled the Canon is that it seems the Catholic Church did not do so by Revelation but by discernment. If the Catholic church had to research and discern if this book or that was Canon, they determined that upon their own judgement rather than God. If God gave them a divine Revelation of what the Canon was, then that would cement the infallibility and authority of the Church. Since it appears that the Canon was determined through a series of Councils rather than one declaration from God, the Catholic Church's Canon bears no authority. God is the reason we have the Bible. God did not need the Catholic Church to compile the Bible. God gave us enough to prove the validity of His word without an authoratative body.
This is incredibly ad hoc.
The Catholic Church did discern which books should be in the Holy Bible, and also was guided by the Holy Spirit. This is not an either/or. Similar to how the human authors of each particular book of the Holy Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit. The human authors of each book were not merely court stenographers and did not claim to be only copying down God's word they saw written in the sky, and yet should it follow that therefore that disproves that the Holy Bible is the word of God?
Yes just as the old testament was
Excellent commentary!
What is the beautiful music in the background at the end of your video? And may I ask also what your intro music is? Thanks!
Brilliant!!!
If Anthony Flew could come to at least acknowledge the likelihood of God before he died after living a life dismissing him so can Dawkins. Pray for him. He too needs our love
It is indeed a scandal.
Thanks for the video Brian. I’m a protestant and I didn’t really find your criticism of protestantism in this video persuasive.
Firstly, we do believe in the Church and we do believe that the church has authority. We have a different understanding than you do of what the Church actually is, and a different view of the extent of the church’s authority, but our understanding of these things is still compatible with the scriptural passages you quoted.
Also, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the church that compiled scripture must be equally authoritative and infallable as scripture, as it could be the case that the Holy Spirit was particularly active in the activity of compiling scripture, to a greater extant than He is in the Church’s other activities.
It also doesn’t follow that the modern Roman Catholic Church that claims to succeed the very early church is equal in authority to the early church. Protestants will readily acknowledge the authority of the early church due to the proximity to the Apostles, but believe that the Roman Catholic Church changed over the centuries as it was influenced by politics and corruption. And protestants don’t just believe this without evidence - aside from doctrinal arguments the *fruit* produced by the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t lived up to the authority it claims. And Jesus did say that judging someone by their fruit was a legitimate way to determine someone’s authority.
Perfectly stated
Well explained Brian 👌🏻
There’s a massive difference between compiling a list of books and being an author. God is the author of the Scriptures. The church aught to be subordinate to the Word of God. If it’s binding the hearts of men to “infallible” beliefs which are not found anywhere in God’s Word then we should question the authority not the Author.
And stop comparing the reformation to atheists. It’s cheap and shallow.
But how do you know the 27 books of the New Testament are the Word of God? Is that an infallible belief that you bind people to? If so, how do you know there are only 27 inspired books in the New Testament?
How does the Catholic church know? Divine inspiration? Did God tell them? Or did they research, analyze, and debate to determine what the Canon would be? I recall a handful of Councils meeting to discuss what books were Canon. If they were divinely inspired these councils would not be needed. If the Catholic Church determined the Canon by discernment rather then revelation than they have no authority in saying what the Canon is. Every human has the ability to discern.
@@nathankarn5557 We can go through the historical record on this topic, but first, how do you think the Canon was defined? Do you believe either of the two options you described? Because the first option, a divinely revealed Canon, would mean the Catholic Church has been the oracle of God. Do you believe the Catholic Church, after the age of Constantine, was proclaiming infallible truth? Or do you believe the second option, where the current Canon is simply an opinion? Do you believe the Canon can be debated today, with books being added or removed by anyone?
Excellent point
Good video
This really comes down to what the definition of "church" is. Is it the "Roman Catholic Church" or is it believers in all times and places.
This causes an issue though, because if you take the approach of “all believers” we have many voices that contradict, or teach mutually exclusive truths. This leads to each of us ultimately deciding for ourselves who or what to believe.. there is no assurance of truth in that.
But even in the Bible, we see some have greater authority than others. Paul speaks to his authority to build up or tear down, John in his epistles speaks of those who do not acknowledge his authority. Timothy and others like him have been given certain authority through the laying of the hands. We see the members of the body laid out, some over others, all being necessary.
We all make up the Church, as you point to. But yet, there is the authoritative teaching body of the church, the magisterium, as we Catholics would refer to it, present to guide and shepherd the rest.
Idk. Just musing on it, hopefully some food for thought! Cheers mate
It's the Catholic Church
The early reformers defined the church as where the gospel was preached, the sacraments were distributed, and discipline was enforced. So even by the standards of the Protestants most modern day “Protestant” groups are not even a part of the church.
Even if we accept your Protestant definition of "church," why do you accept the beliefs of early Christians on the canon of Scripture, but reject their beliefs on salvation, the Eucharist, baptism, ect? Why are they reliable on some things but in error on others? And how do you know the difference?
Amen 🙏✝️
He got what he wanted in the end. a secular world. now he wants backsies
well said Brian!!!
I don’t think this analogy is analogous.
Party A. Dawkins/ Protestants
Party B. Christian doctrines/ RCC
Party C. Wstrn Culture/ Scripture
Is Dawkins’ big objection to Christianity that its doctrines (which formed Western culture) have mutated & gone into error? To the contrary, he probably prefers progressive Christianity to the original.
Meanwhile Protestant are not protesting against the Church that compiled & preserved the scriptures. They protested from the later, mutated version & strive explicitly to return to original state.
The difference in interpretations is not what divides the church. What divides the church is the belief that all the other interpretations are heresy & that yours is the only right one.
Except most Protestants are evangelicals and openly reject the doctrines of the early church.
There is "partial truth" outside the Catholic Church. The fullness of Truth pertains to the Church founded by Jesus Christ, which has the authority (given by Him) through the apostles, to teach, and protect the faith. They passed that authority on through the priesthood. That is the mission of the Church, in order to save souls. That One Church is the one against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, the one guided by the Holy Spirit. To understand that requires God's grace, the disposition to learn, and a spirit of humility. The holiness of the Catholic Church -through and through- is due to its Founder, not its people. The church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. It has survived every heresy, every schism, every scandal, and all that has been thrown at it and that will continue against it (including certain Protestants). Nothing has, nor will, ever destroy it, even if it is reduced to the bare minimum. That is His promise. And so, we remain and continue, by the power of the Holy Spirit. I hope and pray one day you'll understand...
There is no greater gift on earth than to live Christianity as a Catholic... And receiving the Eucharist. 😌🙏
what church?
No, the Protestants' position to Rome is not as Dawkins's to Christianity.
And the more important question is not what kind of Father has children who don't get along. It's what kind of brother engages in the sorts of abuses that brought about the so-called Reformation and then demands continued recognition of his power, infallibility, and all the good things he supposedly gave those brothers of his (yes, including the Bible). The fact of the matter is, Rome deserved the Reformation, which was sparked by an obscure Augustinian monk who, caring for the souls of his flock, seeing them robbed by the abuse of indulgences, posted a challenge to debate the abuse and inadvertently stumbled across a wicked fund-raising scheme cooked up by a pope and an arch-bishop. Let us recall and give due consideration to the fact that is was Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, not his Ninety-Seven Theses, that made Leo wet himself. There is more of Protestant theology in the former, and none in the latter, something the infallible Church keeps missing even after five centuries. You can't abuse your authority and act like a victim when some of it is rejected.
If only Leo's sin was to insist on the library's rules of decorum.
Everyone should read “How Dawkins Got Pwned”
Great video Brian. You should add a $Thanks button at the bottom of your videos so people can donate easily.
Sorry Brian but I have to say I disagree with you. As a devout Catholic, I understand what you are trying to say but the analogy of the library is not a good one. I can say, I no longer need the librarian because now I have the books. Protestants may claim the librarian may have been needed once but I no longer need one now. i can read the books and interpret them myself. We still need the Church to interpret the Bible in light of new things that occur in culture. We need to know how to live our lives today based on what God gave us nearly 2000 years ago.
1) Logically and sequentially the Church came before the NT, but not before the OT...so I think we have to first acknowledge that part of the Bible existed before the Church as we know it today.
2) Most of the NT were letters written to the Church as a whole but usually to a specific geographical area to deal with an issue at the time.
3) I think the problem is Catholics assume "the Church" to mean led by the undisputed pope. Which requires a little bit of handwaiving the complications of Church history.
As a protestant who has some affections for the old ways (Anglican in my case) I love this channel, but I will say this. The Church as whole, led by its leaders (who are not infallible) made the NT as I know it today, and by God's grace, they made the right decision. The same way we understand David was not perfect, but the Psalms are God's word.
BRILLIANT!!;;;;
You make some good points, but it is a hard sell with the current pope.
I saw the interview; I was gobsmacked at the contradiction
Fun video but it breaks entirely when one puts up the Orthodox, Coptic, and apostolic churches next to Rome. Those three are older than Rome and while Rome was run by Arian barbarians they kept the church’s truth.
I agree about Dawkins but it is not true the Roman Catholic Church produced the Bible. Early Christians prior to the various schisms did so. Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches made the same claims.
It’s interesting watching Dawkins’s evolutionary process (pun intended) inching closer and closer to being completely humbled by the Heavenly Father (ie him implying he’s not a fan of Islam taking over, agreeing that intelligent design is a good argument, and reaping the benefits of Christianity (although still selfish without contributing to its beliefs)) about his militant atheism and contribution to destroying society over the yrs.
You have to categorize things a certain way to validate the Roman Catholic Institution as having an authority over Scripture or equal to it.
What bothers me is that the Church is seen to be the source of infallible revelation. When only God should be seen as infallible. They are 2 distinct things, the head of the church is Christ and the bride is the redeemed people of God who receive every good gift through Christ.
The church received the Holy Scripture from God himself. The church is made up of believers who are all sinners, even the pope, so how could they be infallible?
FYI Papal Infallibility was first declared in 1870...
Also Christ says "blessed rather are those hear my Word and keep it."
Let's be frank: he's a jerk.
It's uncharitable, but... yeah, he is. There's no point in intellectualizing it, he's a mediocre biologist and his constant whining about Christians and God is vapid and transparent. Years before I came home I thought he was a weirdo.
Jesus is a jerk
I'm a non-Roman-Catholic Christian, and I like your videos. I reject this idea you're putting forward here, though, because I (and, I believe, the vast majority of my co-religionists) believe that the Church universal did, indeed, compose the Bible. Just as She can act in unity today if She so chooses.
Then you and other protestants who reject this thesis have cognitive dissonance.
@@neilanadams5173 What do you mean? Are you really saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole representative of Christ on Earth? The Roman Catholic Church wasn't the only church at the Council of Nicaea, for example, was it? What a very bigoted & ignorant thing to say!
@@walesruels Hi, it's not bigoted to speak the truth in charity, and yes the Church is Christ's body on Earth which is the Catholic Church under the Supreme Pontif.
@@neilanadams5173 Ok, Boomer. Just gloss over the whole Council of Nicaea etc 😂
It seems you know nothing about Nicea because it was a Catholic Council, and someone with cognitive dissonance or culpable ignorance would claim otherwise.
The word 'bible' actually comes from the Latin word 'bibliotheca,' which means library. So the bible is a library of sacred books compiled and cataloged by the Church 😁
"All Scripture is breathed out by God" - Paul does not say it's breathed out by the church, but by God. It's not "church caused", but God caused. You call for unity but at the same time compare us to Richard Dawkins? It does not seem like a sincere sentiment
You can say Church caused as the Holy Spirit guides the Church which put those men in position to write those letters inspired by the same Holy Spirit.
Hope that connected a bridge for you.
Dawkins wants his cake and eat it.
Bingo
Richard Dawkins desperately trying not to convert (challenge impossible)
Yes, he and Jordan Peterson.
Dawkins will stay atheist
But where is Dawkins in the Bible?
You say the church comes before Scripture and the church gives the Scripture while the council of Rome says precisely the opposite after giving a canon list and I quote "Scriptures on which by the grace of God the Catholic church is founded".
The Scriptures come from God. But our knowledge of their identity comes from the Catholic Church. Christians debated their identity for centuries. It took the authority of Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, to settle the dispute. Don't believe me? Try to prove that there are only 27 inspired New Testament books.
@BrewMeister27 Not to mention it doesn't follow (to whatever extent you want to say the Catholic church had a part in the process) that recognizing what God has given is the same as determining the Canon for God or having exclusive authority or infallibility etc.
@BrewMeister27 You made a giant leap from knowledge of identity to exclusive authority and infallibility etc. You can read Dr. Kruger work and the reformers (for instance) that engage this. Also regarding the Apocrypha atleast 52 significant theologians denied the apocrypha including Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's inquisitor) and Cardinal Jiminez. A matter that wasn't officially dogmatically settled in the case of Rome until the council of trent. Although technically according to the likes of Michael Lofton the canon is not closed..
More books could hypothetically be added.
@BrewMeister27 Also most of the books were not in dispute...only a few were. Also...whether the Catholic church was Roman in the sense of believing everything they believe today is seriously questionable...i.e Marian dogmas, gay blessings, the supposed inadmissible nature of the death penalty etc.
@BrewMeister27 Gos can use whatever he pleases to whatever extent he wants whatever he wants it does not follow that therefore X has exclusive authority...God even spoke through Balams ass.
I really enjoy Brian's videos, but this is a woeful misunderstanding and in fact a straw man of the Protestant position, and even of the conception of the Word (which clearly precedes the church). Protestants do not necessarily split the communicable word of God via the incarnation (Jesus as the Word), the preaching ministry of Jesus and the disciples, and the Old Testament canonical witness from the eventual inscribing and collecting of the New Testament Canon. In other words, the Word itself precedes the church whether it was spoken through prophets in the Old Testament, or incarnated in Christ, or later spoken by Christ -- it is clearly the Word, spoken or written, that precedes and creates the church. In fact, it creates the Lord's supper. Jesus, the incarnate Word, spoke it into being, and later it was written down, and even later recognized. The word has precedence. Later of course, the church acknowledged that word, but the church itself does not denote upon it special authority that it would not have had otherwise. Instead, again, the church recognizes inherent, pre-existant authority within those texts.
Come on Mr. Holdsworth. I if your objective was toward unifying the church, then your tasteless graphic comparing Luther to Dawkins would not be there. By all means hate Luther if you like, but for heavens sake read the Lutheran confessional documents in the Book of Concord. I'm pretty sure you will find much to dislike, but make a real attempt to understand the principles of the conservative part of the Reformation. Benedict XVI was an admirer of a lot of classic Lutheran theology, while remaining stoutly Roman.
Martin Luther shattered Christian unity with his heresy.
Hi Brian it is Interesting to hear your comments on Richard Dawkins's recent statement. I agree with you pointing out his self-refuting thinking on Christianity. But you then chose to accuse Protestant believers of having done the same thing by recognising that the authority of the Bible as being superior to the authority of the Roman Church. I am of the view that "rock" on which Christ said he would build the Church was not Peter the apostle but Peter's revelation "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God". Therefore it is Jesus who is the ultimate authority not Peter the apostle. Again Jesus predates the Roman Church. Peter the Apostle had an important role to play as long as he continued in that revelation. Secondly, the Roman Church did not produce the Bible. The Old Testament predated the Roman Church and the New Testament documents were accepted by 4th century Roman church councils but the councils did not produce them. They existed as the legacy of Jesus. Lastly, I think that the unity of believers will emerge as Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant believers accept the authority of Jesus found in scriptures rather than attempting to combine denominational interpretations.
Jesus is always the true foundation of the church, but because humanity lives in time it was necessary to appoint human administrators, of which Peter was first in the line continuing to this day. This is the reality of our existence, living in temporality, not an Everything Bagel. Eternity comes later, when the veil is removed from our eyes and we can see the Lord with true sight.
But Christians didn't agree on the canon of Scripture. The 4th century councils didn't merely "accept" an already agreed upon canon, they correctly identified the canon after centuries of disagreement. And you are trusting their judgement. Don't believe me, look up the antilegomena.
Far be it for me to defend Dawkins. From the little I've read of his work -- to me at least -- he suffers from a lack of imagination and, generally, is a provocateur. He's not that serious.
But, to the extent that I understand it, his position is perfectly coherant. To enjoy the apparent benefits of Christian belief is one thing. It's objective. To believe, on the other hand, requires faith and Dawkins can't make that step. He can't isolate himself from the culture he's bought up in but, using his (God given?) free will, he finds many of the beliefs untenable. The provocateur in him emphasises that dicotomy.
How should Christians respond to this? To berate him or to call him a hypocrite is just grist for the mill. I think that faith is not won by clever counter-argument, it's won by example.
"atheist professor"? "devoted the better part of his lifes work to eliminating the christian creed from society"?
are you serious? he is a professor of biology, prominent in his own right for his work in the field of evolution. he has devoted most of his lifes work to evolutionary biology.
It is a scandal that Christians are divided. But what is the Church? Is it the body made up of all those who have accepted Christ as Lord and accept and otherwise believe in the tenets of the Creed of Nicea, or is it the Institution with its seat of authority at the Vatican in Rome?
It's the Church in Rome.
The Catholic Church is the church Jesus started. What sense does a body of believers who don't agree on what they believe make? Why do so many reject the aurhority that Jesus gave to His apostles to build His church, to teach and to bind and loose? It seems to me people just choose to follow their own will and have a problem with obedience and submission to an authority other than themselves. Jesus prayed for the unity of His Church so why would anyone believe He is happy with this division? If you agree with the creed of the Catholic Church, what is it you don't accept? It's disciplines and moral teachings?
Why is the Nicene Creed binding on Christians? Please explain
Who said anything about binding? It's a definition.
@@peterplotts1238 The Nicene Creed is binding. It is what Catholics are required to believe about Jesus. It was formed by the Catholic Council of Nicea in 325 AD, I believe to answer the Arian heresy and to declare what Catholics are to believe. The Catholic Church is the church started by Jesus. The Church that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose. If you belong to one of the 40,000 Protestant denominations, hopefully you believe the same. The four marks of the Church are, One (united), Holy (holy because Christ, its founder, is holy) Catholic (universal), and Apostolic (as in apostolic succession and tradition). One baptism for the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, AMEN. These things must be believed.
As hypocritical as Dawkins' sentiments are, I completely understand where he is coming from, because I used to be in the same boat (I am now a Catholic neophyte, thanks be to God). If an atheist thought leader feels this way, there are surely plenty of other atheists who feel the same but may not make those feelings public.
first (ironically of course)
"You can't have the Bible without the church's authoritative power" needs some fine-tuning.
The Bible you happily read in English is based on the work of William Tyndale, English linguist, who produced the first English translation of the Bible against the wishes of the authoritative powers in the Roman Catholic church, and was executed by the church for doing so, which is why his translation was incomplete.
Thousands of people were executed over a 300+ year period of time, defending that authoritative power. Protestantism was started by those excesses and rigid refusal to consider things like translation from Latin and Greek into local languages, including Germanic languages like English (and German).
Dawkins rejects Christianity; Protestant denominations using the Nicene Creed do not reject the historic role of the Roman Catholic church, and do recognize the holy, catholic, and apostolic church... the "small c catholic", not the "Big C Catholic (Roman Catholic)" church. Your zeal to defend the Roman structure can carry you a bit too far.
Tyndale was executed for heresy, not for translating the bible, don't be a liar. There were many partial translations of the Bible into local languages during the Middle Ages. The reason that wasn't commonplace is because that would be stupid, there was no such thing as unified english in the 800s, pretty much every hamlet has its own dialect. If you were educated enough to read, you knew latin which is why pretty much everyone wrote any theological work in Latin. Most "translations" of the Bible to a local language in it's "entirety" was by heretical groups like the Albingensians so they could twist the scriptures to their heresy.
They literally believe God is helpless but to go through their church. That's crazy
Jesus has final say
as to who counts as
His whosoevers... perhaps
even the same % of Catholics and
Protestants as of Mormons... and even
others who come around as God has
provided... yes AUTHORITY MATTERS
but theres more than your one way
to consider it so we all find out
soon enough whether ready
to change like Saul/Paul
in this life or not til after
This relativist argument is how we came to our society falling today.
Jesus set it up one way.
@@ModernPapist and He decides what that way is... not manmade traditions or innovations
@@bumpercoach "decided," it isn't going to be changed now or during the Reformation.
When you say to "come home," referring to Catholicism rather than to Christ, you're making the Protestants' argument for them.
Well, the Church IS Christ - it's his body. If you try to make a distinction like you can have Christ without being a part of his Church, then whatever you have, it isn't Christ.
@@BrianHoldsworth Then you don't need a pope. Christ is our head. (Col. 1)
@@BriscoJr. Perfectly stated. Brian's argument essentially refutes the existence of the Pope as the "vicar of Christ".
Also it is less than accurate to claim (as Catholic apologists routinely do) that pope Damasus defined the canon. There are explicit canon lists that post-date this supposed decree of Pope Damasus and/or the council. Of the four great uncial codices we have, two were compiled before the time of Damasus and none, including those that post-date his time, exactly match the modern Catholic Bible (or that of any tradition). He didn’t canonize or compile the Bible.
There were lots of different canons in the early Church. Why do you trust the canon with 27 books? Because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
@@BrewMeister27 😆
@@BrewMeister27 That doesn't follow at all...in fact you did not even produce an argument at all just an assertion.
@@Adam-ue2ig Who told you the book of Hebrews is inspired by the Holy Spirit? And why do you believe them?
I disagree here. The early Christian church was a tool God used to put His Word in the Bible for us to read. The church and its traditions do not supersede the Word of God. The church did not “cause” the Word.
Also, you’re talking about the written Word here, even though the Word was something that existed before the Gospels were physically written out. Protestants are claiming that that Word, written or not, is the authority, not the traditions of the church.
We may disagree, but my goal is also to agree. I pray with you and for you, that one day the churches might be reconciled.
Comparing Protestant Christians to the premier atheist in the world is reprehensible! You should be ashamed of yourself. Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Are you not sowing discord among your brethren...your fellow Christians? You certainly are. You should spend your time preaching and supporting your positions and arguments to help all denominations comes together. You are being dissentious and are you not working toward Jesus's desire for unity of his believers. I would submit to you, what is the difference between factions within the Catholic church who disagree on certain issues or Protestant denominations that do the same? We are all the Christian Church. This is what Jesus was talking about. All Protestant denominations came from the disciples. We are all 1 "family" as you put it. Some members of the family live in Texas and some live in Rome. Some observe Mosaic law and some do not. Some believe in transubstantiation and some in consubstantiation. There are centuries of Biblical scholars who could debate til the end of time. None of us know who is right or if any of us are right. We both can't be right, but we can both be wrong. We follow the Holy Spirit's guidance of understanding the Bible. Does it matter if the Catholic church is right or the Lutheran church is right? I don't think it does. They will never agree on their differences, but they CAN agree on their love for Jesus. Division among Christians is a far greater problem and a much greater concern to Jesus (as you stated his final prayers) than a bunch of denominations that can't agree on what happens to the eucharist during communion or female preachers or whatever. As you stated, the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. However, it was the Holy Spirit who inspired those authors. It doesn't matter that Peter's church was the only one around at that time. The Catholic Church did NOT write the bible, but the Holy Spirit is the author. Therefore your argument about Protestants enjoying the fruits of the Bible without the author (the Catholic Church) is not valid. I would suggest that you stop dividing Christians and stop with the condescension. I apologize if I come off strong, because I do not want to draw division with my fellow Christians. I felt compelled to raise awareness of how harmful videos like these are. In an effort to teach, we often get caught up in the snare of divisiveness. I don't hate the player, just the game. I am your brother in Christ and wish you success in your teachings, but I beg you to teach unity. We can all have theological debates amongst ourselves and "sharpen iron with iron" without tearing down the alliance we Christians must strengthen.
bait
Inviting everyone to unite under a single authority that you endorse appears contradictory to the true meaning of unity. It's somewhat ironic, similar to how adherents of certain religions claim theirs is a religion of peace, yet believe they must conquer everyone first. Only when opposition is eliminated, they argue, can true peace, as defined by their religion, be achieved.
But there _is_ a single authority. God is a single authority. So, believing in God is the same as accepting a single authority. Jesus Christ, who is God, is a single authority. He appointed St Peter as a single authority. And his successors. the Popes, are single authorities. Whoever doensn't accept that, is in rebellion. Simple as that. Religion is not democratic and can't be, since God is the ulitmate leader and God has absolute power.
God would be mute without the church. Totes.
Heresy much?
Are you an atheist or a cathloic saying that?
The physical book did not exist before the church but the Word of God did, in the form of the teaching, work, and person of Jesus Christ. Jesus passed that on to the Apostles who in turn built the church(by the power of the Holy Spirit) on the Word. We see this at the very beginning of the Church in Acts 2:42 "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer." The Church did not create the Bible, the hand-picked witnesses of Jesus wrote it as a testament of His teaching and the events of His life. What we have today is the preservation of those writings. The early church recognized that these writings are what they are, teachings of the Apostles, and we continue to recognize that fact today, but that fact is true whether or not an ecclesiastical body decrees it to be or not. Furthermore, protestants do not assign zero value to traditional perspectives of the church, we just interpret them in the infallible light of the Apostles´ teaching. I should note that we see no good reason in the Bible or in church history to believe that the Pope has any share in that apostolic authority.
I say all this to bring to light what protestants have actually believed for centuries, since it is largely absent from the video. I pray that God is given glory by my words.
But it's not simply that the Bible contains the teaching of the Apostles. The Didache, and the epistles of Clement also contain apostolic teaching. You hold 27 books to a higher standard, as being inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant. On what basis do you know the Holy Spirit inspired 27 New Testament books?
Excellent observations. Semi-Christians, take note!
Dawkins has replaced God with himself. He is what original sin lived out looks like to its full.
Wow...as soon as.you put the disclaimer on it "forgive me if this sounds like a cheap shot" then you proceed to take that shot...this was super cringe. Not.only is the comparison cringe but it's also simply begging the question about what the nature and meaning of the church is. Also (to whatever extent "Roman" Catholicism participated in complication humans can only receive what God has given they can not determine Canon for God. Many pushbacks have been around on this for hundreds of years...The work of Dr. Kruger and the self authenticating model of Canon would be helpful for you to atleast get a Protestant perspective (I'm not sure to what extent you stay abreast of different arguments and models outside of your own). The amateur Catholic apologetic argument that bible has no table of contents therefore Rome argument has been refuted by so many people for so long that I wonder if you are even aware of those arguments. I don't have space to enumerate all of them here.
Can you prove that Hebrews is inspired Scripture?
Once again Brian you hit the nail on the head! Both for atheists like Dawkins and Protestants!
It's rather ironic for him and for you that you're celebrating his plea to reduce division in the church... by comparing All Protestant Christians to a God-hating heretic who has devoted his live to opposing Christ.
@@tategarrett3042 Everything Brian said is true. Neither he or I are the source of division but rather Luther, Calvin, Knox, Henry the eighth, etc. Atheists such as Dawkins are the result of heresy of Protestantism. Protestantism has not just sowen division but takes people away from God through its falsehoods.
@@johnroesch2159 I mean that's as clear of an illustration of why the Reformation was necessary as any I could ever come up with. With such arrogant blindness and totally unchristian values on display to this day among Rome's followers how could the churches within Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy ever be joined to the church of Rome? And now with people like you and Brian creating unnecessary division how much harder will real unity be to achieve? God rules over all though and will glorify himself through these trials while drawing the faithful to himself.
Atheist know God exists and they hate him
Absolutely wrong.
Theists know god doesn't exist and they hate him
We can't have the effect without the cause, indeed. But the cause isn't the RCC. It's the unity around the confession that Jesus is the Christ, manifest in a unity around truth.
We agree Christian culture is the product of the Christian religion, brother. We disagree that that religion starts with the institutional RCC- rather, Protestants would say its a unity that's found among all who confess Christ as Lord and submit to the Scriptures, and that we're a medieval reform movement, built off the covenental tree we've inherited through the Roman Catholic Church, that like Hus or older predecessors, sought to properly orient Augustine's doctrine of grace relative to strands that predicted the priority of Scripture as the sole infallible norm for teaching authority in the Church.
"The Principle of Protestantism" by Schaff might be a good read to consider. That and a monograph on "Holy Scripture" by Webster along with "Biblical Authority after Babel" by Vanhoozer, and "Canon Revisited" by Kruger.
5:12- "the Church was flourishing without a written new testament" is just untrue, and an oversimplification- there was an uneven disruption, but definitely evidence of very quick writing of the NT, and very quick disseminations of the importance of recording things, even within the apostles' lifetime. See 2 Peter 1:15. Or see the context around the nobility of the Bereans and the assumption that a noble interpreter is the assessing-by-Scripture interpreter.
A written OT was constantly being appealed to as consistent with and supporting claims for those testing apostolicity and prophetic validity. See Romans or Hebrews. Arguably, the Canon closed pretty quickly as the Apostles died out for the most part, before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
We both have presuppositions on the doctrine of the Church here- but that means we need to figure out where the Bible comes from.
Who is the authority of the Christian faith before there was even a Bible?
@@maxelltonduring Jesus’ lifetime, the OT was the authority- that’s why he appeals to them, and then rightly interprets them as he adds his own prophetic authority in his own Words- which he then preserved by the Spirit carrying his apostles along to inscripturate the deposit he wanted to bind the Church. He even included in John that there were more words and actions he did that he didn’t include- books and books worth. Relative to oral tradition, the issue is that those traditions are only binding insofar as the ontologically unique deposit of Scripture says they are. Otherwise, we already know there are realities that bound the first century, that don’t bind us- like apostolic traditions that weren’t inscripturated for us. We can preserve what we believe historically were those practices- but the Church is meant to mature by conforming to the deposit of the Spirit’s Word, as She has always matured, amidst the reality of a tradition of commentaries and practiced building up around that core.
@@georgeluke6382 So where is this 'Church' now?
@@maxellton hidden like a mustard seed, growing like a worship rock-altar-temple set by God, with living stones throughout the earth, and growing to a great tree to shelter birds from all tribes, tongues and nations, as they’re visibly discipled by God’s Word and submit to and are shaped by churches in their midst, working like leaven throughout humanity, and as baptisms and enduring faith and communion make the new creation visible.
”Biblical Authority after Babel” by Vanhoozer, mentioned above, gets at this. The Church as She is right now, is touching more believers and more nations than She ever has; as Augustine saw, the City of God and the City of Man aren’t the same thing.
What church orthadox
your argument about the origin of the bible is fallacious. the church "invented" the bible in the trivial sense of compiling it and agreeing in the contents, but it did not invent rhe contents. the things compiled were necessarily in existence and in use bu the church before they were compiled. only if you insist on not calling that the bible can you say that the church caused the bible. it is deeply misleading to say the bible is an effect of the church. the church was not flourishing "without a written new testament". there were gospels and epistles. to say it "didnt exist" until the last parts were written or agreed upon is ridiculous and arbitrary. the bible doesnt get any authority from the compilers. the compiling is just the church recognizing and clarifying which books already have authority.
consider your analogy of the library. the collection of books on professional development was not caused by the curator except in the trivial sense of being compiled. the books were all already in circulation, being read by other people. the only input from the curator is in choosing which books he prefers. the curator did not write the content.
this brings us to the problem with the analogy. the church councils didnt just decide which books they liked, as the curator in the analogy. the canon of scripture is compiled on the basis of what books churches throughout the world already treated as authoritative.
Come home to a place where a woman is put on par with the creator of heaven and earth
You can reject the conduct and tenets of an authoritative body that was inspired by God well over a thousand years ago to compile the Bible if the conduct and tenets of said body do not align with God's will. This was Luther's entire contention. Because of him we can read the Bible ourselves and have a personal relationship with Christ the Catholic Church cut the average Christian off from. The Catholic Church is going to have to change if they want unity. Catholicism must revert back to Christ's intent if it is to be the one true church.
"The church of Rome once in times of old was for the great glory of her piety, her heavenly doctrine, her divine service, Christian discipline and constancy in the faith against all heretics, most famous. And as the sun in the firmament shines far brighter than all stars, so she shined far above all churches on earth by example of her exceeding Christian piety, that well and fittingly she deserved to be generally called the mother of all churches. But into what and into how great darkness and blindness did she after sink by God’s just judgment, being as it were cast out of heaven and in the same still lies buried and drowned? He that in such great light of the Gospel sees this not is blinder than a mole. Neither is it any new thing, seeing the same happened first to the church of the Israelites, afterward to the churches in the East and to them in Greece."
-Girolamo Zanchi, Confession of the Christian Religion, Dedicatory Epistle, pg. 2
I already know ima disagree with this lol.
That because you are a heretic who thinks that his picking and choosing what to believe about the Christian faith is valid when it it is not!
Even Jews don't recognize macabee even though they celebrate hanakah so there
You know Maccabees was written by Jews about Jews, right?
They also reject the New Testament. So who cares what they say?
@@BrewMeister27 my point is that it's interesting that the Jews recognize the importance of what recorded in macabee without saying that the account is on par with psalms
@@JonathanRiggall-ff2ym And Catholics recognize the importance of the Didache without regarding it as inspired. What's your point?
Protestant here: 1. We can't be united with the antichrist (the pope of Rome). That's the reformation central escathological point. You can read more about that in Luther, Calvin, and others. 2. We protestants of old school churches (not baptists) agree on the value of Church tradition. The same reformers agree that the Church was pure in doctrine (philosophically plathonic, may we add) for the first thousand years (until Silvester II and then the Gregorian reforms of 1073). 3. Scholasticism and Aquinas are NOT PART OF THE CHURCH TRADITION. The Church Fathers and doctrinal production end in the VII century at most. 4. The problem, in short, is that the popish crew thinks and demand the same obedience that the Church Fathers should get, but they DON'T BELIEVE THE SAME DOCTRINES. 5. The TRUTH will be known and proclaim. Bless you brother and may you be free of the mark soon.
You say the church is infallible but we see scandles all the time within the church. The church hid many of the priests involved in the violation of little children as a an example of a recent controversy and Martin Luther began a movement over things the Catholic church has gone back on which is why Protestantism exists today. If the church ever taught false teachings clearly its fallible. I would love for you to change my mind because i hate the amount of division amongst Christians but this aint it.
I encourage you to study what infallibility means and what the Catholic Church actually is. I'm sorry but your first sentence reveals that you do not know nearly so much about this as you might think.
@@timothy2794 incapable of error in expounding doctrine is the definition many Catholics will want to use but if you teach one thing and do the other you may as well never have taught at all, and many times the church has changed teachings. Once upon a time you weren't allowed to read the Bible now you can and this is the sole reason Protestantism started. (if you don't count Orthodoxy which is arguably the first denomination with Catholicism being the second.)
@@timothy2794 your condescending tone and the stereotype that protestants don't know church history shows you might not know as much as you think.
@@FishWhiskey You can hear my tone?
@@FishWhiskey This is not a game of debate. Shrug off all emotion before responding. In your opinion, do you think St. Irenaeus adhered to "sola scriptura"?
The one true church thing is stupid, and so is the idea that you can work your way to salvation.
The Church has never taught you can work your way to heaven. perhaps stop trolling. Otherwise cite proof from an official act from the Church. Working your way to heaven is a heresy and has been recognized as such for over 1,500 years.
And your argument is with Scripture and God if you say God didn’t establish a Church. The Church is the same Church that stretches back to the 1st Temple in Judaism and Catholicism is the completion of Judaism. And as Jesus stated in his own words he will build HIS Church.
Perhaps read your Bible better without your own biases creeping in.
«One true church» is stupid? That is pretty radical. It’s almost like you’re saying it should not exist.
@catholicguy1073 The church of Christ is compromised of believers of Christ. People who believe and have a relationship with Jesus Christ. I find it insulting that Catholics believe a large subset of people who have come to knowledge of Jesus are doomed because they are not part of the one true church. If that is true, then God has geographical preference over who is saved. Paul preached against legalism and rituals. We are only saved by the grace, through faith of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, the thief on the cross would not have been saved.
@@mortensimonsen1645 I'm not saying church shouldn't exist. I'm just saying it's stupid to believe you are "THE ONE TRUE CHURCH"...
@@timothy209 I hear you, but you misunderstand the Catholic position. But I take it that if it was possible to have one true church - it would be great? Better than two true churches...or?