0:00 Intro 2:02 Myth 1-Protestants don’t value tradition 6:25 Myth 2-Protestants don’t believe in the Eucharist 10:17 Myth 3-Protestant churches have all “gone woke” 16:11 Myth 4-Protestantism is all about personal interpretation 19:48 Myth 5-Protestants think there was no church before Luther 23:34 Bonus Round-Protestants don’t care about beautiful churches
I mean even that’s not really true. Zwingli had a much more nuanced view than simple memorialism. He really believed that Christ was present through the Holy Spirit. He obviously doesn’t believe in physical presence because he believed Christ was physically reining in Heaven but he saw it as an act of communion with Christ or as a spiritual meal with Him rather than consuming him.
@@zachsmith8916 well both Martin Luther and John Calvin, who themselves believed in something less than the Catholic understanding of “real presence” didn’t see Zwingli as believing in a “real presence”. At some point an empty claim is an empty claim. It doesn’t really matter what you claim to believe if your actions illustrate that you really believe the opposite.
@@harrygarris6921 I never called it “real” presence but it’s not simply memorialist either. As someone who’s actually read a bit of Zwingli I would point out that Zwingli believed that the Holy Spirit was active but not physically present in communion. My point is that there is actually a difference in a simple memorialist position and a truly Zwinglian one. He doesn’t just say it’s a memorial he literally believes that you’re doing something with Christ just something different than Luther or Calvin who believed they were consuming Christ in some way.
@@zachsmith8916 right but if you’re not consuming Christ, then the eating of Christ’s body and blood is not a sacrifice. Since a sacrifice requires eating. So the Eucharist becomes an entirely different thing if Christ isn’t present in it. It’s great that he believed the Holy Spirit was active in the communion in some way but the Holy Spirit is supposed to be active in everything that the church is doing so what does that even mean? This is why Martin Luther accused Zwingli of having a milquetoast theology when it comes to sacraments and that doesn’t really believe in anything.
@@harrygarris6921 My main point is that it’s inappropriate to say he’s just a memorialist when he wasn’t. I never claimed that he was a sacramentalist either. Not being a memorialist doesn’t make one a sacramental theologian. Given Luther’s disposition towards those who disagreed with him it’s not surprising he thought what he did. For the record I don’t disagree that a Zwinglian view isn’t something different my issue is that most non Zwinglians call us mere memorialist when that really isn’t the main thrust of our theology. You only come out saying we’re just memorialist if you operate within Lutheran paradigms which Zwingli clearly didn’t.
I haven't played minecraft in many years, but aren't you supposed to never mine straight down lest you fall into a lava pit? And also never mine straight up lest you be crushed under falling gravel blocks?
Not all non denominational/evangelical churches are like that either :/ Edit: didn’t mean to start an argument, but I also want to clear up what I said, I too can find them overwhelming or missing the point entirely *but* at least some that I’ve seen are pretty humble in architecture or just use hotels. The bigger the church is, and how much it is or resembles a mega church, the more it usually misses lots of stuff/becomes too cooperate). Otherwise, we do lots of casting out demons, missionary work, and charity stuff, that is what makes us unique (and in my opinion, better).
The number of evangelical/non-denoms that are confessional and sacramental Protestants with serious regard for church history are a tenth of a percent. If there’s an appropriate use of a broad brush, it’s this situation.
@@fighterofthenightman1057 Jesus Forbids Sectarianism (Mark 9:38-41 ) 49 ¶ Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” 50 ¶ But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against is on our side.” Matthew 23 23¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24“You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence John 21 20¶Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 1st Corinthians 1 10¶Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1st Corinthians 12 12¶For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14¶For the body is not one member, but many. 15If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 21And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27¶Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way
@@fighterofthenightman1057How else? Professional activist hijacking by the woke. Why go to a "historic" church when you have better options doctrinally?
As for the "Protestants are woke" thing, I can say positivity that many Protestant churches I've worshipped in were very conservative. I know many students and faculty from the New Orleans Baptist Seminary who were very theologically conservative and socially conservative. So there is hope.
The state churches in Germany and other European countries are very woke. They use church tax money to promote woke ideas. Also many left wing/woke people in the catholic church cite Karl Barth, a Protestant, as an Influence.
It is important to say that Theological Liberalism is an issue in Europe and North America, protestatism don't face these problems in Brazil, Africa and Asia.
@@gilgameschvonuruk4982Germany doesn’t have a state church. Also a good chunk of Catholic left wing nonsense comes from red priests in South America as opposed to being some Protestant import.
As I understand it, the reason why Catholics came to withhold the wine during the Eucharist was as a consequence of the doctrine of transubstantiation: if you believe that the wine has been turned into the physical blood of Christ, then to spill it would be the gravest sacrilege. This is also why there was a practice of the priest consuming the remaining elements after the Eucharist was distributed (which introduces obvious problems when concerning alcoholic beverages).
@@ramennightBecause the doctrine of transubstantiation says it changes substance, not accident. What you experience with all your earthly senses remains.
As a catholic, you are right. It is also worth to mendion that some churches or religious orders give Communion under two kinds (immersion of the Body in the Blood), but they need permission from the bishop (most likely for organizational reasons. As you said, since we believe in transubstantiation, so as not to spill It). Additionally, Communion under two kinds is practiced at weddings
I am a recent convert. I was baptized a month ago. Before that I was raised agnostic. I don’t take communion because I have celiac disease. This definitely kept me from becoming Catholic. There is a lot of focus on the Eucharist in Catholicism… I have been troubled by this. I can’t eat wheat. If I do it harms my body. No one really can give me a solution to this. I have changed my life and no longer sin like I used to. I hope I will be saved regardless.
@@brock232 I have asked and he said he would give me gluten free bread. I’m the only one there who has this request. I wonder if it is valid sometimes. It depends on how someone views the Eucharist. For some churches, wheat must be used. It does weigh on me. I’m so new to Christianity so I still have so many questions. 🤷♀️
First of all, first reply is correct. You should ask your pastor if they can give you gluten free unleavened bread during communion. Second of all, your salvation doesn’t hinge on communion. Many denominations might disagree but we are saved by grace through faith. Communion is a spiritual experience and we are commanded to obey it but ultimately communion is not what saves you. You should still participate in communion but try and see if you can get some gluten free bread. I’m not very familiar with that disease so i don’t know how detrimental a small piece of bread can be
@@ogloc6308 thank you for your answer. It is an autoimmune disease. The smallest amount of wheat causes antibodies to destroy the villi of my intestines. If this happens, I can’t absorb nutrients. So I can develop cancer or other diseases as a result. In the short term, I will vomit if I eat bread and have intense pain in my abdomen.
This diet I have to follow has so many restrictions that I feel like I’m fasting constantly. It really changed my outlook on life. I also feel like it led me closer to God as a result. It was a really difficult journey when I was diagnosed in 2017.
People don’t realize how diverse non denominational churches really are. My church has a Presbytery, dedicates our babies (low church answer to infant baptism), and holds a high view of communion and baptism. Zoomer, you are great and I thank you for all the hard work you do, but we’re not as bad as you think :)
@@redeemedzoomer6053 There is one Methodist church, but honestly I hold more non denominational convictions than you do. I know you don’t like us, I think it’s not fair, but I respect and thank you for your contribution and the education I have earned from watching your videos. Thanks m8. I guess I’ll always be heterodox to you lol
Hi! I just wanted to say, your channel is amazing. I agree with 99% of everything said. I’ve watched through around 5 videos now and they’re all amazing to me. Keep up the good work!
Huh that makes sense... Orthodoxy has survived outside of Constantinople though. I hope by now they have re-calibrated and burn away the chaff. If they truly root themselves in the authenticity of early Christianity, then I am optimistic.
I am studying to become a lutheran priest in sweden. And yes our state-church is sadly very liberal. But i must say that i meet so many priests who fights back against this and i see much hope. I think, among many other swedish theologians that the main issue is the church counsel who is directly connected to the profane political culture(yuck!). But there are also many trying to cut the bond between Swedens secular state and the religious church(they say its cut, but it really isnt). And there is a movement(Called EFS) in the church of sweden who is much more ortodox than the state chuch.
I am catholic from sweden, but I can say it's a real shame seeing svenska kyrkan becoming so liberal and the role of religion being undermined in swedish society.
@@yardbro67133ooovsbsnskkw Yeah, i have great respect for the catholic church for being better at staying with the Bible. Pray for me as i try to be a part of the solution that Svenska kyrkan needs🙏 bless you
@@rohan7224 Well i dont agree with some dogmas, so id be kicked out anyway, or not permitted to recieve Jesus blood and body… I would love a greater equmenical climate between every body of believers. But just throwing thiese slogans out is not going to work.
@@sirwondernut2815 good works are only good works when you have also faith or leads you to have faith, otherwise it’s just altruism, natural empathy sometimes ego. When we said good works we are talking in the biblical way, as described the Epistle of James, and St. Paul, and the sermon of our Lord in the sermon on the mount. Also it’s possible for someone to have faith inspired by God doing good works, we see in the gospel many pagans, samaritans, and non-Jews doing good works and finding the Faith through it.
@@An_dres_art That doesn't answer my question. So good works aren't actually good works? They're only good works when Christians do them? What in the hell kind of gatekeeping is that? Also it's near impossible for someone to come to faith just by seeing someone doing works. As Paul said, faith comes by HEARING, and hearing by the Word of God.
@@sirwondernut2815 seems like you didn’t even read what I said, I make a difference in the biblical concept of good works and altruism that by nature we are disposed too, and I didn’t said you can get faith doing good works the Faith is a gift from God, thats why I clearly said “have faith INSPIRED BY GOD” bc you can’t reach it by yourself, doing or not good works, I thought the answer was implicit, wasn’t that hard to understand, in short, no an atheist can’t do good works bc they don’t have faith or love while doing it, understanding “good works” as a fruit of the faith, if you gonna take it literal as probably you will, then everybody can do good works and not have faith, so an atheist doing “good works” will be in the same spot of a “christian” who doesn’t do good works or doesn’t love the neighbor or doesn’t follows the gospel. Hope it’s more clear for you know, if you can’t still understand what I said I will try it to simplify it more.
Can you make a video about what each Protestant denomination thinks about other denominations/branches being saved or not? For example, Lutherans might say Orthodox are saved, but Orthodox would call Lutherans anathema.
Orthodoxy does view Lutherans as outside of the true church. However, the general Orthodox doctrine is that we know where the Holy Spirit is present (the Orthodox church) but we can't say for certain where it's not present. Matthew 7:21 - it isn't our job to think about who will or won't be saved. We focus on only our own repentence and walk with God.
@@TheJoeschmoe777 Fair enough its just an example of what I might think. That’s why I want him to make a video elaborating on every denominations position of every denomination.
Outside Protestantism, the view of anathema is actually quite different. To Protestants, an anathema is a condemnation to hell and a proclamation that the said person is a heretic who is not saved at all. To modern Catholics and Orthodox, anathema is basically an excommunication from the Church. Which, is I guess another thing to be addressed. To Protestants, all Christians who are saved are part of the Church that Jesus Christ established. To Catholics and Orthodox, only their church is the Church. Some would say Protestants and the other can be saved, but they are strictly not part of the Apostolic Church (and by Apostolic Church, they mean their tradition). So in a nutshell, to Protestants, an anathema is an excommunication from Christ and the Church Universal (or Invisible Church), which means they are a heretic who is not saved. But to Catholics and Orthodox, anathema is an excommunication from the Church, -and by the Church, they mean their branch of Christianity, in which sense a person may still be saved, but not be a part of the Church (or Visible Church, -their view of the Visible Church). So it might sound like an anathema or excommunication is stronger in Protestantism than Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and yes, it is. It is stronger in the same way that racism and sexism is stronger to conservatives than it is to liberals. Because Catholics and Orthodox have to excommunicate everybody and say they're not part of "The Apostolic Church", it waters down the meanings of heresy, anathema, and excommunication, but because the Protestants try to refrain from anathematizing people who disagree with them, these terms have stronger weight to them. P.S. Examples from every Protestant denomination can be found thinking other people are heretics who are going to hell, but most Protestants (particularly of the Evangelical type) would be more relaxed on this. There are also some Catholic/Orthodox tradition that do also condemn everybody else to hell too.
One of these days you are gonna dig straight into lava you can't avoid, you should dig 1x2 mineshafts so you can see what's below or at least carry a water bucket. (sorry to backseat minecraft)
the way i believe we all should view different takes on our faith, is with the knowledge that someone else might have more right than us. therefore we need to operate in grace towards eachother, even when we refuse to give ground on certain church disputes
Jesus Forbids Sectarianism (Mark 9:38-41 ) 49 ¶ Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” 50 ¶ But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against is on our side.” Matthew 23 23¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24“You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence John 21 20¶Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 1st Corinthians 1 10¶Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1st Corinthians 12 12¶For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14¶For the body is not one member, but many. 15If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 21And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27¶Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way
The reason I started watching and listening to redeemed zoomer was because what I see is that he is trying to point out that we as a church have the main thing in common… Christ. We are family. I can worship our God at any of our churches with any of you , no problem..Unification not division. Let’s pray for that.
@@micahrose4562 Pastor Jim is a stereotype Protestant pastor (often non-denominational or of some absurdly specific denomination), akin to Susan from the Parish Council, Fr. Youngtrad, Karen, etc.
I think it worthy to mention that communion under one kind was due to practical reasons. For example, one of the reasons listed in the Council of Trent for communion under one kind in the Latin church was that large quantities of wine might be too expensive or hard to obtain
The specific command to "do this" was given to the Apostles, and in the current age this is carried on by absolutely requiring the priest to consume both species during the Mass. But there is ample evidence of Communion in only one species being administered to the faithful for various reasons going back to at least the third century. In fact, back then it was often the reverse of what RZ complains of. It was an ancient practice to give Communion to infants (which persists in the East today, and as an aside I wish the West would resume it), but back then infants would only be given to drink of the chalice. When, in the same time period, Communion was brought to the sick outside of Mass, they received only in the species of bread.
@@jdotozJesus clearly gave a command as it is stated in all gospels but you appeal to some obscure examples and exceptions to say that you the Church could do it other way. That is just a small example, but my conscience good never go against what is clear in the Bible in order to follow the Church.
Honestly, I believe that we shouldn't place too much care into the looks of a building. If a church as a nice building but doesn't have enough money to reach the world or help what is the point? Also with the economic downturn, I would be surprised is churches ended up down sizing just to survive.
I think there is balance. God loves art and understands it value in life. We and angels other then God seems to only be able to make art that has meaning. So art seems to be a special gift to us. God loves true beauty and how art, music… can give people prospective and different ways to understand God himself. But I think the intention are what make a difference. If people are making beautiful church to give honor to God and allow others to see the craftsmen of his people if financial viable then it’s has its purpose. But to make a beautiful church for ego or to show off to other church’s and denomination isn’t right. Most of the money should go back to helping people but using some of the money to create beautiful church is also right. But a beautiful church isn’t necessary but it’s a product of our natural instinct to make something beautiful that is special to us like God himself.
That’s not really the argument, though. Some of these contemporary churches DO have money and they put that money toward building a modernistic and less sacred church rather than conserving the traditional architecture and style of Protestant churches.
8:47 Most of the individualistic "solo scripta" mentality is just a branch of American exceptionalism. The levelling tactic is "only God can judge me" as a way to dodge criticism, and you'll see it most in the Southern States where Southern Baptist is predominant
This is really true I am quite baffled by of all these Catholic/Orthodox hymns vrs Protestant meme videos where they show songbirds singing traditional tunes then shift to Crows singing extra modern rock gospel songs, I am like B, please. Most historical Protestant churches today sing and worship with traditional hymnals and with reverence, I've attended 3 Catholic Masses recently and throughout all these masses, modern cringy contemporary hill songs, not the upbeat type but the emotional type accompanied by the guitar were the norm and just one traditional chant the Kyrie Elysion. Maybe this has something to do with the Novus Ordo but most Modern Catholic worship is more "modern" than traditional protestant Worship.
Hey, Zoomer, hope you're well! Just wanted to leave a comment regarding non-denominational churches, and your feelings towards them: For context, I'm Reformed Anglican, and I have visited many non-denominational churches where Bible teaching is misused or neglected (ie. female pastors, disorderly prophesying or tongues, worshiptainment, etc.) I feel like their leadership may have some heart for God, but are acting in terrible foolishness neglecting tradition and communion with fellow believers to hold them accountable. These are churches where even the elders feel like they are fed on and feeding spiritual milk not solids, and missing out on the richness of the faith. *However* I have encountered the same in denominational churches - I particularly recall a Methodist pastor referring to God as "heavenly parent" so as not to offend anyone with a bad father (according to him), and nobody within his denomination had called him to account. Furthermore, I have encountered non-denominational churches that exercise a high degree of wisdom and regard for history and tradition (I've seen Polycarp and Chrysostom quoted), including confessions of faith much in line with classic Protestant confessions despite no official membership, affiliation or communion with them. My point is this: denominationalism does not guarantee sound doctrine. There is wisdom in community and historic grounding, but like abuse is possible in denominational and non-denominational alike, so too are wisdom and sound, historical doctrine possible in denominational and non-denominational alike. God bless you, brother! Keep up the good fight!
Thank you for this, Zoomer's ignorance in this area is really quite disappointing, and his attitude is really bad for Christianity. Where I live, most of the nondenominational churches have doctrine nearly identical to Presbyterianism, with the exception of infant baptism. Heck, back in highschool, some ladies from a local nondenominational church taught a class on the Westminster confession.
Really like this content clearing up the craziness that is often pushed on how protestantism appears to be to Catholics. If both sides had this exercise more, perhaps we can see the prayer of Christ be answered; that we be ONE
I think your criticism of the GMC shows a misunderstanding of UMC polity and the situation in the UMC in the USA. There is no viable way to discipline bishops that are going against church teaching, so there has been a lesbian bishop installed and no-one can do anything about it since the progressives have majorities in America. Once these progressive bishops are installed, they replace your conservative pastor with a progressive one compulsorily who teaches heresy and runs your church into the ground, nothing you can do about it, then that property is lost to faithful gospel witness. Much better to disaffiliate now because for a limited time they're letting you take your property with you, so you can have your historical building and maintain biblical teaching.
I don't know what denomination is my church, but we celebrate communion every week after the pastor and praise. I believe it's not literal body and blood of Christ but we do it symbolically. At least I do because I understand it as the only ritual Jesus left us in his ministry.
I really enjoy your content. I do not know of anyone that enjoys minecraft and bible teachings except for me in my circle of friends. To see both makes me smile everytime I see one of your videos.
2:54 Please, do point them out. I've never seen anyone ever claim this thing. EDIT: Please, don't think of this as a hate, but I just think this wasn't a good analogy.
23 years and I’ve never met a single catholic in all the Catholic Churches I’ve been to in the U.S or Vatican. But random Protestants online will assure me that’s all of them 😂
I know almost nothing about this, so please take this with an entire silo of salt: I think I’ve heard that it is less of an issue in the US and more an issue in South America, but I can’t remember where I heard that claim. At the very least, it would be interesting to look into 🤔
For your first point: While I agree that we can't judge an entire tradition by the beliefs of a small handful, the amount of Catholics that worship anyone but the Trinity, or believe the Pope is more divine than any normal man, is just that, a very small handful. The amount of Prods that speak along the lines of your quote "Its just me and my Bible, I don't care what the Church Fathers say." is a large large portion, maybe closer to half of prods here in the US at least. I know Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, diet Baptists (nondenoms), Presbyterians (liberal ones to be fair), and Pentecostals that all speak along those lines. Lutherans (the group I'm the most familiar with) differ very very much depending on the individual church. Their synods sort of just double check every once in a while that they're all on at least mostly the same page. There is not a direct set of doctrine aside from Luther's catechism and honestly those points are heavily debated and believed in varying degrees between Lutherans. For your second point: The Sacraments/Holy Mysteries are all biblical and directly administered to the clergy by Christ Himself. He baptized to cleanse Original Sin, He heard confessions and forgave sins and gave the Apostles the power to do the same, He instituted the priesthood, Communion/Eucharist, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Marriage between one man and one woman. They're all traditions instituted by Christ, and in every single prod denomination, they fail to observe all seven. Lutherans recognize two or three, and they have the most. Apostolic succession is ancient and gives a given Church direct ties to Christ through his apostles. There isn't a single protestant denomination that recognizes the importance of that tradition either. Protestants do not observe all of Church Tradition and in fact reject much of it directly. For your third point: Mainline denominations are definitely overwhelmingly liberal, and as an Eastern Catholic, I'd agree they dance on heresies beyond being out of Communion with The Church. They are overwhelmingly unbiblical, anti Christian, and unfortunately a terrible place for Christians to find themselves. There are some conservative offshoots that have sprung up recently to maintain their correct doctrine, and represent a small minority overall, sadly. While its true that Pope Francis is absolutely the most liberal Pope ever seen before, there is a dramatic uprising in Catholic churches to adhere to tradition. The Traditional Latin Mass, and faithful who change Rites to Eastern Catholicism, like me, are becoming more and more common every year. The conservative movement in the world of Protestantism is shrinking, which makes me very sad. The future for prod denominations looks bleak. For your fourth point: The True Church is the Church founded by Christ through Saint Peter. Leaving communion with that Church (which absolutely still exists) is to definitionally deny His institution for personal beliefs. His instituted Church on Earth follows everything Christ commanded of His Church. To deny that Church is to deny the commands of Christ. We uphold everything He created and maintain it until His return. The pope's seat as the Bishop of Rome is descended from Peter. To deny these fundamentals in any capacity is denying Christ. This isn't a collection of beliefs that are malleable, this is a concrete collection of Christ's and His Apostles' works 2000 years ago. For your fifth point: To leave the original and true Church behind for any reason aside from repairing it from within is exactly analogous to your issues with conservative protestants running away from mainline churches to create their own instead of remaining in place to repair the damage done. We could have a Lutheran Rite, a Presbyterian Rite, etc if those with alternative traditions wished to remain in communion with the original Church. The variation between my Byzantine Church, the Roman Rite Church, and the Maronite Church is astounding. We have very different traditions but remain in communion together for the sake of upholding the True Church that Christ established. The way things are going currently within the Latin Rite, its looking like its possible that the new "mainline" Novus Ordo mass attendees may eventually have their own Rite within the Latin Church. We could have a Latin Rite and a Roman Rite to represent the traditional Latin Mass and the new school Novus Ordo Mass parishioners. Most Churches would remain a part of the Roman Rite, but just as they already exist now, the Latin Mass specific churches would just take on the title of Latin Rite, or Tridentine Rite, or whatever they'd choose. Provided the Pope allows that, of course. Its common for the Catholic Church to just form a new Rite to allow people to remain in Communion and keep their own traditions.
I don't know about most, but I am part of a non-denominational church which holds tradition close. We lean towards evangelical, Lutheran (obviously), and Calvinist views though. We are highly organized, small, and very impactful in our community. Sola scriptura and tota scriptura!
7:00 I am a protestant but I do believe in transubstantiation. That we eat bread and drink wine but that it does quite literally turn into the body and blood of Christ.
16:28 This is another Americanism of Protestantism, primarily Southern Baptist. This mentality is the status quo in the Southern US where SBC predominates
What do you think about the teachings of Ray Comfort? He always talks about how Catholicism is bad and how the teachings are incorrect, worshiping Marry etc. Just wanted to hear your view on it. Thanks for the videos they help a lot.
Practically every single one of these misconceptions about Protestantism is what lead my best friend to converting to Catholicism, and another one of my friends to converting to Orthodoxy. One other misconception that lead my best friend to Catholicism was that Protestants have bad music/art compared to Catholics. It was funny when I went to mass with him, and they played hymns written by Protestants. The old saying, "The lie is half-way around the world by the time the truth is getting out of bed" really is telling on this. He now realizes those are all bad arguments, yet they are the arguments that made him change important views and sever friendships. I believe it was Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi who said the perfect preservation of the Quran was the argument that lead him to Islam. He now recognizes it as an untrue argument, but says Allah used the lie to lead him to the "truth of Islam." Should truth be rationed through lies? Catholics, don't celebrate when Protestants come to Catholicism from these misconceptions and strawmans. Let us all be compelled by the truth and not prey on the ignorance of others.
Whatever song he has playing at 4:17 is my favorite of his songs. I REALLY wish he would release them on a playlist so we could learn the titles and use them in our own vids.
@@AllhailTDLjimpicremenant radio hosts are all from non denominational churches, and have a high view of tradition, they believe in real presence in the sacrament of communion and also resite some of the creeds that every church should believe in. I myself believe that every single church should have an understanding and study of the first 6 ecumenical councils. I think we can all agree. I understand my brothers and sisters in Christ that have a low view of tradition, I understand how it can be distracting from the most important thing, which is God. But should also understand that some tradition is fundamental in worship. That’s why we should take part of communion at every service, and not just once a month like most non denominational churches. It’s sad that there are some denominations that don’t even celebrate the Eucharist, and some only take part of it once a year during Easter.
Meh. I'm a hillbilly from the southern Appalachians. We observe communion. We observe foot washing. We observe, of course, _Baptism_ . We do these things precisely as Jesus commanded. You seem to think otherwise?
He can’t speak for every church, but far too many evangelical churches think communion is just a symbol and don’t even take it every week, baptism is just a symbol of faith, have contempt for the ancient traditions of the church, etc. And this attitude that “real” Christianity was lost for years and only reestablished in modern times has more in common with Mormonism than Protestantism. Frankly I think a good first solution is that churches who don’t respect church tradition and have a high view of the sacraments should not identify as Protestant.
@@fighterofthenightman1057 I don't about other churches. I know communion should be a regular occurrence. I have no qualms with a church that takes communion once a year, as long as it is a consistent / /regular part of their practice of worship. Jesus did not specify how often we should take communion. If it was important that we observe it _weekly_ ( _for example, like observing the Sabbath_ ) then he would have told us so, ( _for example, like observing the Sabbath_ ). This is basic logic. ALL 3 of these rituals commanded by Jesus are indeed symbolic. But they are not .........................................." _just_ " ........................................... symbolic, as you accuse these unnamed " _evangelical churches_ " of claiming. We cannot know exactly how many layers there are to the purposes of these sacred rituals, but I believe symbolism is one, though probably the least, of them. Frankly I think a good first solution is that churches who conflate disagreement with a respective Biblical interpretation of a church tradition, with a failure to " _respect_ " a church tradition. be looked upon as suspect. This, along with any church that utilizes the term " _high view_ " when describing anything other than a gander off a mountain top, or a really tall building, should be held as suspect and an object for prayer, as they have the clothing of Pharisaical uppityness. But us hillbillies, we don't know much.
@@8chohgee135 Thank you. I hope we do. It's as simple as following what He said and what He did, whenever possible, as closely as possible, while maintaining the habit of prayer and obedience of the commandments.
The message of the Bible is that no matter how evil you think you are, no matter how far you feel you are from God, you can get right with God. You can go to heaven. All you have to do is put your full trust in Jesus. The message of the Bible is that Jesus was punished for all the evil things you have done or will ever do. He loved you so much that he was willing to die a horrible, brutal death for what you did. He was punished for your actions. If you believe in him and trust him you will have eternal life with God. You will not go to hell because Jesus already went for you. All you have to do is trust in Jesus. Nothing else. You don't have to go to church. You don't have to give money to people. You don't have to do anything but believe in what Jesus did. That he sacrificed himself for you so that you could go to heaven.
This is the equivalent of saying something like “Presbyterians putting up pride flags instead of reading the Bible” Or “Catholics worshiping Mary instead of God” It paints with too broad a brush and does not help to move conversation forward EDIT: Sorry, I don’t mean this to be aggressive. I just get wearied seeing low-church traditions being shown so much disdain while problems in other traditions seem to be allowed free passes, but maybe that’s just a symptom of the content I am consuming
@@chessplayer6632 Yeah, but those are actual accusations made against those groups, while this is not. Its not pushing the conversation forward since it’s just meant for a laugh.
I've never been under the impression that baptism saves, more just that it is an outward and public manifestation/display of your salvation and commitment to live for Christ. I don't understand the concept of "baptism saves" if a person who is never baptized before their death will still be saved anyway. It doesn't have any logical consistency.
Check out Jordan B. Cooper (Lutheran) or Gavin Ortlund (Baptist) for some really smart Protestant defenders with different interpretations of what “baptism saves” means
Pastor Billy Bob's Soul-Saving Gun Club & Grill - where the 66-book KJV came down from the sky on Pentecost, and wine means grape juice; but "is" does NOT mean is!
I'm so thankful for Pastor Billy bob's Ministry! I think im gonna give him 45% of my paycheck so he can continue guiding his flock by showing them the evils of those satan-worshipping, God-denying, dirty papists!
The Catholic church wasnt called the pornocracy in the middle ages, it is a term coined by protestant historians in the 19th century and the only source backing this is a contemporary kardinal who was personally invested in the power ruling families of Rome held in the city of Rome. To keep it short, it is a huge leap to state it as a fact and to refer to it as in the middle ages is misleading since it covers a period of only 60 years.
I believe non-denominational churches reflect the geographic location and society. I have had the fortune of traveling the world and attending churches in many regions. My home church is non denominational, small, and in an old church building built in the early 1900s. This is in central Pennsylvania and I am sure that the small town has something to do with it's conservative basis. If you want to reference the degrees of conservative that redeemed has discussed, it would be a 2/3 on his scale and is Arminian. We sit on pews and have 2 services, one where you sing hymns, and the other is contemporary(not a full band though), but both services are the same sermon. We have one church in this town that falls into a lot of the stereotypes that it seems most you have seen. Oddly for me, I have witnessed far more traditional non denoms than contemporary. My first experience in a Lutheran church was that it was a slightly more contemporary version of what I am used to. My experiences in big cities have been... unfortunately, far more liberal non denominational churches with the multimedia presentation and such... I think the liberal mentality of the population seeps into the churches in these locations. I am not a person who agrees with being tied to a denomination, however I can absolutely see the need for them, to try and give a consistent representation no matter the location. However, like redeemed said, it seems like the denominational conservatives need to recapture the church, since a lot are veering from the original slate.
I am very Happy that i was wrong about protestants , thair zoomer for showing me that protestans fathers was maybe more catholic that many catholics today
@@redeemedzoomer6053 LMFAO. Not gonna lie, some churches within the ACNA are closet big box Presbyterians. The ACNA is such a diverse mix. Not hating, just pointing out.
@@redknightsr69 being fair, the Episcopal Church and, by extension, the entire Anglican Communion that the ANCA came from was always under a "big tent" framework where anyone was accepted so long as they held to the 39 articles and the liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer. The ACNA seems to want to preserve that diversity in worship styles and the non-essentials of doctrine, just with a greater emphasis on tradition and the essentials of the Christain Faith (In other words, you can have Anglo-Catholics, Charismatics and Reformed in the same denomination, so long as they affirm the biblical teachings on Theology and marriage/gender.)
I totally support your idea of the reconquista but sadly in my home country of Finland the mainline chuch is essentially the only church and they only ordane pastors who follow their liberal theology. So the mainline is pretty much too far gone. I feel like this is the same situation with my Nordic brothers (correct me if I'm wrong) so we shall see what happens in the coming years in this part of the world at least in terms of the churches.
The difference between America and Europe is, at least here in the UK, is that our Churches don't say that not believing in God is okay. Most of our churches still strongly affirm our faith in Christ. American Christianity is insane
Dr. Craig is a Weslyan which continues the remonstant Protestant tradition. So broadly Arminian, and coming out of the Methodist Church, but he is still a traditional Protestant. Just for clarity I am a Presbyterian (EPC) by conviction, but Dr. Craig played a large part in my returning to the faith and I think it's unfair to say he's not a traditional Protestant.
Common Catholic apologists do not merely critique American ND Evangelicals etc, but rather the original reformers: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their followers' confessions. I don't want to be uncharitable, but to claim that most Catholics often or only critique Protestantism on NDE related grounds is hasty and perhaps disingenuous. I would invite you to look at Catholic responses to Calvin and Luther to better see why Protestantism is seen as objectionable. There are fundamental commonalities between practically all Protestant sects (like rejection of Papal authority and the need for a singular Church unified in Doctrine/Dogma and the nature of the Eucharist etc) which Catholics find objectionable in themselves and have good reason for doing so. Nonetheless, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to examine these topics with their due weight, and I appreciate your intellectual honesty about addressing positions as they are rather than what they seem to be according to a narrative.
Certainly but in this video he is talking about misconceptions your average Catholic armchair theologian has. Also i honestly don’t think Zoomer has what it takes to challenge someone like Trent Horn. If you want a more educated defender of traditional Protestantism, check out Dr Jordan B Cooper here on youtube.
@@AllhailTDLjimpic I agree. I just recently watched a discussion between Jimmy Akin and Dr. Cooper on salvation, and it seemed like they agreed about everything, which makes me more and more confused as to why the reformation happened in the first place.
@@TheMacDonald22 The reformation happened because the Church needed to be reformed, it really is that simple. The RCC in the middle ages was a ridiculously corrupt institution. The 95 theses weren’t even about theology, Luther didn’t write in them that purgatory was a false dogma, just that the abuses of some clergy members was detestable and something needed to be done about them. It’s only after the Roman Church tried to kill Luther (like they did with other critics like Jan Hus) he started to critiscise their theology. If Rome had just reasoned with him they could have gotten a more favourable outcome. But alas, they always tried to get rid of people before engaging their positions and taking critiscism.
One of the major issues is that over 70% of Protestants belong to radical non-denominational and Baptist churches. As a result, MOST Protestants do not place a significant emphasis on tradition. Therefore, it is correct for Catholics to assume that most Protestants hold to their own personal interpretations. Most Protestants I met on Twitter/X don't care about Church Tradition at all, some even said Church Father's were false teachers. However, some Lutherans I met online have a higher regard for Tradition, some of them even venerate Catholic Saints.
Ive gotta say I 100% credit you RZ for making me take theology and God seriously and putting me on a very good path. However, I just dont see how Protestantism in all forms is better then Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I understand all the points about traditional protestantism and "evangelical" protestantism being different, and i agree, but it just seems like the only reason traditional protestantism exists is because those in it just dont want to be catholic or orthodox, and would rather follow their own theology, instead of just looking at history and seeing what the early church taught. I think its time to end the protest for the traditional prots seeking the fullness of Christianity and come home.
I can explain it to you, because I had the same questions. Basically, if you look at the history of what the orthodox, catholics, and protestants actually believed through time, you'll see that they all developed their beliefs over a period of centuries. Many times you'll actually see multiple theological strains developing side by side, and they'll influence each other and split apart, while remaining in the same sect or denomination. When you look at the biggest church writers or thinkers through history, you're seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of how these thoughts developed. Here is something I learned though: Catholics and orthodox will tend to hide the fact that their theology developed over time just like the protestants, in fact the Marian doctrines (that Mary was sinless, perpetually a virgin, etc.) were not catholic doctrine until the 19th century, over 3 centuries after the protestant reformation. Remember those "streams" I was talking about earlier? The protestants were originally just one of those streams, but within the catholic church. They largely go back to Saint Augustine and Athanasius, and even earlier church fathers vaguely. It just so happened that this stream was "kicked out" of the catholic church during what we call the reformation period. But it must be remembered that every single early reformer was born and raised catholic, went to catholic mass, celebrated catholic holidays, studied catholic doctrine, etc. It wasn't that they all decided to make up their own theology for no reason all at once, they were actually studying much older doctrine that had fallen out of favor in the religious establishment of the late middle ages. So a small group of religious scholars protested what they saw was a corruption of earlier church teaching that had taken over the institutions of the church through a slow process of centuries. Since by that time the catholic church's leadership were who decided what was true doctrine or not, true teaching is preserved as long as the church itself is preserved. Early protestant leaders were the continuation of a stream of Catholicism that denied the infallibility of the church itself. They believed that the truth cannot be delivered by a man made institution, but rather through the Bible and the Holy Spirit only. Once they were excommunicated from the catholic church, the dam broke; the catholic church was split into two branches, a scripture-focused branch, and a ecclesial-focused branch. With no communion between the two streams, we saw the protestants become more and more protestant, and the catholics become more and more catholic. Unfortunately, this highlighted the human errors in each stream, rather than bring about truth. I believe most of the problems you can have with different denominations came about because we made our own camps into echo chambers with no debate to check the swings of doctrine in either direction. In the beginning of the church, there were many streams that either became church doctrine, or abandoned the faith and became heretical sects like the Gnostics. The biggest common trait between the heretical groups is that they all attempted to change, erase, or add to scripture, or otherwise denied its God-inspired nature. I pray that you have wisdom in your search for a church to call home. It's a long process that takes time, and there is much to learn along the way. Just be careful that you're focusing your heart on God in everything you do. Remember that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin!”.
@@David-bh7hs Thanks for the response and I see where your coming from but I've got a few points coming from a Catholic perspective. First of all, Catholic dogmas such as the Perpetual virginity or assumption into heaven have existed for a very long time and was supported by the church as doctrine long before it became official Dogma in the recent era. I also agree that the reformation was needed due to the corruption in the Catholic Church at that time, however, I disagree that the reformers had to leave the Church they were reforming, and start their own, no matter how suppressed they were. I also don't agree with the idea that God wouldn't give us an organization that, guided by the holy spirit, pronounced Christian doctrine, like the Trinity, The divinity of Christ, and even the bible And i disagree that this authority would change organization every thousand years, when a few disgruntled rebels decide it does. And if you're a Protestant who rejects the infallibility of Christs Church, then you've also got to reject the infallibility of the Bible that was compiled by that church. And if you don't accept the infallibility of the Church, then you get sects of "Christians" like mormons and JWs that say they believe only in the bible, but then get twisted teachings, that go against what the church has taught since the apostles. In my opinion the downfall of Protestantism, is there's no authority besides a book, that can be interpreted in thousands of different ways, that creates thousands of divisions, that's why for 1500 years there was arguably one major church, and then after only 500 years there's 40,000 different interpretations of scripture, tradition, and authority. As for my search for a home in a church, I found Catholicism when I realised the bible wasn't the highest authority and doesn't claim to be, and that God continually works through other means, and I don't have to find him with the help of a church that I deem the most agreeable in the realm of Theology, and instead look objectively at the history of Christianity, prayerfully and with an open mind.
Man I’m just really tired of the division between the body. We are all the body. Though it’d smart for solid spiritual growth, why do we have this mindset that we must follow a church denom to be a Christian. Tho the early church fathers are important nothing will ever come close to “your” relationship with God and the Holy Spirit that teaches everything. I respect every sect of Christianity but why do we continue to break each other apart and look down upon people that aren’t in ours? That is not why Christ died for us, it’s nasty
@@dayhvonturner639 100% agree. And at first I had only a logical relationship with God. And after truly praying and getting closer to him, Catholicism became as clear as day. The people in the Catholic Church have done lots of good and bad things, but remember that Jesus gave us one Church, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it. For 1000 years there was only one church, then two and only 500 years ago the Church split again and lead to many thousands of different denominations. This split didn't come from Catholicism, it came from Protestantism and Sola Scriptura. I encourage you to not only pray, but look into the Catholic Church.
@@TheMacDonald22 sola scriptura simply means there is no authority over the infallibility of scripture, not that other authorities don’t matter. If ur authority contradicts or misconstrueds scripture, scripture stands over that authority cause it is infallible and I see this definition confused all the time. And Jesus did create the Catholic Church “Catholic“ means universal, he did not create the catholic denomination. The splits came from people adding in their interpretations as infallible and this is why the creeds were made, so it isn’t too bad long as u believe nothing heretical. As for the Catholic denomination, respectfully I’ve seen enough to never wanna be near their church.
In some Catholic countries like France, they still only give the bread in the communion. The bishops like to say it's a logistics issue, but it's really because they were more successful in the wars of religion.
"Evangelical" is a meaningless term like "Right wing" or "Left wing". Mostly it's used for "Those people I don't like" and occasionally "My side" but usually if people try to sit down and define it, there's no clear attributes. For instance, people who take the bible as literal where it's meant to be literal will be called by theological liberals as "Evangelical". But people who consider a relationship with God the most important aspect of worship will be called by those who value tradition higher "Evangelical". Basically if they don't like you and you aren't liberal, the slur is "evangelical".
Historically, no. In the modern United States, generally yes. The term goes back to the Reformation (Lutherans in Germany are known as the "Evangelical Church", and all Prots are "evangelical", meaning "spreading the 'evangelion" or "good news" of the Gospel of Christ). In the US, Baptists and "Non-denoms" did the groundwork in the late-19th and 20th centuries, so now it's the cultural "default" if you're not Roman Catholic but still Christian.
4 conditions must be met to be an evangelical: American nationalist, fundamentalist, dispensationalist and Zionist. It needs to be all 4. An evangelical can be from any denomination but they will typically be baptist, Pentecostal or Non-denominational because in these denominations there isn’t a high regard for church history or traditional doctrines. It’s not a slur but it is a terrible term that misappropriates the word evangelical.
@tenko5541 Evangelical is a very broad term but it generally just means 1) broadly conservative, and 2) high view of scripture. I think you've defined it too narrowly (and disdainfully it seems?)
After the soviets tried and failed to completely suppress/subvert the church through a combination of executions and restorationist nonsense (think 20th century marxists being put in charge of the church by the government) stalin brought it back in force for patriotic purposes during WW2, but continued subverting and downplaying it as it suited him. Every hierarch was essentially forced to become a double agent in order to serve the church publically, flee Russia entirely and form synods in resistance (which is how the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, ROCOR was founded) or go underground into the proverbial catacombs risking life and limb to serve their flocks (which happened A LOT, there are dozens if not hundreds of martyr saints venerated for doing it). The subversion continued under khrushchev, carried on more or less until gorbachov and co. lightened up a bit, and then the soviets collapsed entirely "freeing" the church (read: new management, ala putin, who while tyrannical doesn't try to persecute the church out of existence). The current patriarch as of 2023 is a former KGB double agent, who was, if I'm being charitable, forced to inform for the soviet government or not be allowed to serve at all in the above-ground church. I definitely simplified and skipped over things, but that's the general gist of it. ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate reunified in the early 2000s, so that's nice.
While you may be somewhat right about point 1, the issue is, even traditional protestants just hijack some Catholic traditions, while disregarding others
Hey, you mentioned briefly (and you did redact it) that James White isn't representative of the Protestant tradition - I've been listening to a bunch of his lectures and he seems to be one of the most historically rooted ones around, so I'm curious what made you make that comment? Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, but I'm just wondering if there's thinks I don't know about him, or if perhaps you aren't too familiar with him.
The gripe people have had with him is viewing the historic traditions only through a reformed lens. Of course that is his conviction on truth, however issues arise when you start to decipher meaning from ancient history using only one, very particular, means of deriving that meaning. (I am not by definition a Christian, although through study my convictions have changed drastically on the matter. I say this to clear up that I myself do not have the best understanding of Mr. White, and am quite literally on the outside looking in.)
@@bradlygray1974 Hmm interesting. I was referring more to that Christians might see him as unorthodox in the theological sense, but I don't think he is. To be sure he sees the evidence he deals with through a Reformed Christian lens, but he is forthright about this, and I think does a very convincing job of illustrating the evidence that supports his position.
You should do a video of the split in the Anglican church. Fir example, the Anglican church of Nigeria split from the church of England due to the hijacking.
I did enjoy this video and I feel like it is very informational for those who don't understand Protestantism. However, I do think that you need to look at what you're saying about the way Catholics/Orthodox think about the Protestant Church, and apply that to yourself for the Non-Denominational church. It seems like what you do is similar to what Catholics/Orthodox do to Protestants by looking at the worst of the Non-Denominational and painting with a broad brush. I will absolutely agree that there are many within the Non-Denominational congregations that are bad and most of these people are shunned by Non-Denominational Christians. Most of the harshest critics of pastors like Joel Osteen have been my fellow Non-Denominational Christians. I've been in a Non-Denominational church my whole life and most of what I've heard you say about Non-Denominational churches on your channel are things I've never seen in my church, nor in most Non-Denominational churches I've visited. What I have seen at most Non-Denominational churches have been congregations that love Christ and desire to spread His love and word to their local communities, which is often why they don't have "beautiful buildings". What is more important or impactful to spreading the love of Christ, spending tens of thousands of dollars on stained glass windows, or using that money to instead help feed the local poor, or build houses/shelters for homeless people. It goes to Matthew 25: 34-46. Did Jesus tell those to depart from Him because they didn't have a beautiful building? No, it was because they didn't take care of the poor, and didn't visit the prisoner, or didn't welcome the stranger. So while it is valid that many Non-Denominational churches aren't the most visually appealing (there are many that are beautiful however), it really doesn't matter as Christ puts much more emphasis on serving than he does on visual appearances of the building. There are many different criticisms of the Non-Denominational congregations that you have which I could also get into and may sometime, but that was just one of the main ones I hear you talking about. Overall, I just recommend that you take what you encouraged Catholics/Orthodox to do in this video, and apply it to yourself when looking at Non-Denominational.
You’re talking about historical Protestants, but many Protestants of all denominations are like that. I’d argue that more people in the modern day follow these “misconceptions”
you guys have to realize that because of how north america was colonized, most of the more rural areas were very much separate in communication from larger denominations for a good part of their history. so because of this, anabaptists like the the Mennonites and Hutterites (i dont know how common the amish are on the prairies/midwest, i live in Canada where its mainly the first 2 picks of anabaptists) gained a large amount of influence, and many churches were just collections of christians grouping together, forming a council, and leading their church in what they believed is the way they should. there are plenty of churches from denominations that are a lot more loose in small towns as to the specific rules of their denomination, without being theologically liberal. there are also many loose low church organizations that are developing into their own denominations. honestly, when you go looking for a Church, you end up just asking basic questions such as does this church a) believe in the trinity, b) believe in modern day miracles such as faith healings and working in the spirit, and c) how often do they preach from the word, and how often do they partake of the sacraments. you usually dont have a lot of choice, so you need to be careful and willing to travel a bit out of your way. Often you'll find some of the most sound and stable churches are Mennonites, the non retreatist but fully pacifist anabaptist church. sometimes its the Catholic Church, though ive seen some bad ones, sometimes you have a really strong presbyterian, Lutheran, or Protestant. most of the time though, it is non denominational churches that are the most theologically sound and biblically grounded. i myself attend a nondenom, but i hold the spirit is present in communion, and we partake of the spirit. similarly, i believe that baby dedication and the baptism of babies hold the same position, to put a shield of faith around our children and keep them in God's protection, while at the same time charging the Church and family to take care to raise the child in the ways of the Lord. i was baptized when i was 6, and i still remember feeling the peace and fulness of the lord upon me, so i can't rightly say their is a real age limit, because i know while i was raised well my understanding back then was more simple than most churches like for a child when they dont baptize infants. i dont believe you all fully understand how much of an umbrella term non denominational is, when it comes to matters of faith, especially when you come from very high density areas. you'll find out here in the midwest even the more dense areas still have a fairly high percentage of non denoms due to the amount of denoms that have fully strayed from the Bible in their teachings.
Honestly when i Find out that some protestants belive in presence of Jesus in comunion i have Happy surprised smile (i find it few months ago) but its sad that many protestants have more faith in Johns McArther's and ramirez's lies that eucharist
5:05 this is merely practical and many still offer communion in both kinds. But either is the whole and indivisible Christ, and thus the body itself is sufficient. This is not a superstitious practice.
0:00 Intro
2:02 Myth 1-Protestants don’t value tradition
6:25 Myth 2-Protestants don’t believe in the Eucharist
10:17 Myth 3-Protestant churches have all “gone woke”
16:11 Myth 4-Protestantism is all about personal interpretation
19:48 Myth 5-Protestants think there was no church before Luther
23:34 Bonus Round-Protestants don’t care about beautiful churches
Zwingli: *the only major reformer who was a memorialist*
Catholics and Orthobros: Look at what all Protestants believe
I mean even that’s not really true. Zwingli had a much more nuanced view than simple memorialism. He really believed that Christ was present through the Holy Spirit. He obviously doesn’t believe in physical presence because he believed Christ was physically reining in Heaven but he saw it as an act of communion with Christ or as a spiritual meal with Him rather than consuming him.
@@zachsmith8916 well both Martin Luther and John Calvin, who themselves believed in something less than the Catholic understanding of “real presence” didn’t see Zwingli as believing in a “real presence”.
At some point an empty claim is an empty claim. It doesn’t really matter what you claim to believe if your actions illustrate that you really believe the opposite.
@@harrygarris6921 I never called it “real” presence but it’s not simply memorialist either. As someone who’s actually read a bit of Zwingli I would point out that Zwingli believed that the Holy Spirit was active but not physically present in communion. My point is that there is actually a difference in a simple memorialist position and a truly Zwinglian one. He doesn’t just say it’s a memorial he literally believes that you’re doing something with Christ just something different than Luther or Calvin who believed they were consuming Christ in some way.
@@zachsmith8916 right but if you’re not consuming Christ, then the eating of Christ’s body and blood is not a sacrifice. Since a sacrifice requires eating. So the Eucharist becomes an entirely different thing if Christ isn’t present in it. It’s great that he believed the Holy Spirit was active in the communion in some way but the Holy Spirit is supposed to be active in everything that the church is doing so what does that even mean? This is why Martin Luther accused Zwingli of having a milquetoast theology when it comes to sacraments and that doesn’t really believe in anything.
@@harrygarris6921 My main point is that it’s inappropriate to say he’s just a memorialist when he wasn’t. I never claimed that he was a sacramentalist either. Not being a memorialist doesn’t make one a sacramental theologian. Given Luther’s disposition towards those who disagreed with him it’s not surprising he thought what he did. For the record I don’t disagree that a Zwinglian view isn’t something different my issue is that most non Zwinglians call us mere memorialist when that really isn’t the main thrust of our theology. You only come out saying we’re just memorialist if you operate within Lutheran paradigms which Zwingli clearly didn’t.
I haven't played minecraft in many years, but aren't you supposed to never mine straight down lest you fall into a lava pit? And also never mine straight up lest you be crushed under falling gravel blocks?
Yeah he’s living on the edge in this one
his only fear is God
There are some people who have showed that statistically it isn't very likely to be a problem, but generally yes.
Actually, now it's never mine straight down lest you fall into one of those new ungodly massive cave systems to your death.
Yes it bothers me in a lot of his videos lol.
Not all non denominational/evangelical churches are like that either :/
Edit: didn’t mean to start an argument, but I also want to clear up what I said, I too can find them overwhelming or missing the point entirely *but* at least some that I’ve seen are pretty humble in architecture or just use hotels. The bigger the church is, and how much it is or resembles a mega church, the more it usually misses lots of stuff/becomes too cooperate). Otherwise, we do lots of casting out demons, missionary work, and charity stuff, that is what makes us unique (and in my opinion, better).
He's got an issue with this; He can see others paint with a broad brush and considers it a bad thing, but not when he does it.
Which ones don’t act like that?
@@kriegjaegeroh well, let's pray for him, as we should for everybody.
The number of evangelical/non-denoms that are confessional and sacramental Protestants with serious regard for church history are a tenth of a percent. If there’s an appropriate use of a broad brush, it’s this situation.
@@alexlancaster5455Perfectly proving his point.
Non denominationals are really good people, often really charitable and hunger for the knowledge of the Bible.
And that’s why it’s so sad they’re in a fake church rather than a historic one.
@@fighterofthenightman1057sorry but all the “historic” churches near me preach a false gospel
@@fighterofthenightman1057
Jesus Forbids Sectarianism
(Mark 9:38-41 )
49
¶
Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”
50
¶
But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against is on our side.”
Matthew 23
23¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24“You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence
John 21
20¶Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”
22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”
1st Corinthians 1
10¶Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.
12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1st Corinthians 12
12¶For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14¶For the body is not one member, but many.
15If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
21And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
22On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;
23and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,
24whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,
25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
26And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27¶Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.
28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
31But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way
@@oceanview5110 How so?
@@fighterofthenightman1057How else? Professional activist hijacking by the woke. Why go to a "historic" church when you have better options doctrinally?
As for the "Protestants are woke" thing, I can say positivity that many Protestant churches I've worshipped in were very conservative. I know many students and faculty from the New Orleans Baptist Seminary who were very theologically conservative and socially conservative. So there is hope.
The state churches in Germany and other European countries are very woke.
They use church tax money to promote woke ideas.
Also many left wing/woke people in the catholic church cite Karl Barth, a Protestant, as an Influence.
It is important to say that Theological Liberalism is an issue in Europe and North America, protestatism don't face these problems in Brazil, Africa and Asia.
@@gilgameschvonuruk4982Germany doesn’t have a state church. Also a good chunk of Catholic left wing nonsense comes from red priests in South America as opposed to being some Protestant import.
Hell the Pope is more liberal than protestants 😂
@@pedroguimaraes6094 I think it has much more to do with which party is in the minority than which one is inherently more liberal.
Great video. Your fellow traditional Protestant thanks you for this content 🫡
As I understand it, the reason why Catholics came to withhold the wine during the Eucharist was as a consequence of the doctrine of transubstantiation: if you believe that the wine has been turned into the physical blood of Christ, then to spill it would be the gravest sacrilege. This is also why there was a practice of the priest consuming the remaining elements after the Eucharist was distributed (which introduces obvious problems when concerning alcoholic beverages).
But if its blood now why would it make the priest drunk??
@@ramennightBecause the doctrine of transubstantiation says it changes substance, not accident. What you experience with all your earthly senses remains.
I have been to catholic mass and the people drink the wine
As a catholic, you are right. It is also worth to mendion that some churches or religious orders give Communion under two kinds (immersion of the Body in the Blood), but they need permission from the bishop (most likely for organizational reasons. As you said, since we believe in transubstantiation, so as not to spill It). Additionally, Communion under two kinds is practiced at weddings
I am a recent convert. I was baptized a month ago. Before that I was raised agnostic. I don’t take communion because I have celiac disease. This definitely kept me from becoming Catholic. There is a lot of focus on the Eucharist in Catholicism… I have been troubled by this. I can’t eat wheat. If I do it harms my body. No one really can give me a solution to this. I have changed my life and no longer sin like I used to. I hope I will be saved regardless.
Ask your pastor to concentrate gluten free bread?
@@brock232 I have asked and he said he would give me gluten free bread. I’m the only one there who has this request. I wonder if it is valid sometimes. It depends on how someone views the Eucharist. For some churches, wheat must be used. It does weigh on me. I’m so new to Christianity so I still have so many questions. 🤷♀️
First of all, first reply is correct. You should ask your pastor if they can give you gluten free unleavened bread during communion. Second of all, your salvation doesn’t hinge on communion. Many denominations might disagree but we are saved by grace through faith. Communion is a spiritual experience and we are commanded to obey it but ultimately communion is not what saves you. You should still participate in communion but try and see if you can get some gluten free bread. I’m not very familiar with that disease so i don’t know how detrimental a small piece of bread can be
@@ogloc6308 thank you for your answer. It is an autoimmune disease. The smallest amount of wheat causes antibodies to destroy the villi of my intestines. If this happens, I can’t absorb nutrients. So I can develop cancer or other diseases as a result. In the short term, I will vomit if I eat bread and have intense pain in my abdomen.
This diet I have to follow has so many restrictions that I feel like I’m fasting constantly. It really changed my outlook on life. I also feel like it led me closer to God as a result. It was a really difficult journey when I was diagnosed in 2017.
People don’t realize how diverse non denominational churches really are. My church has a Presbytery, dedicates our babies (low church answer to infant baptism), and holds a high view of communion and baptism. Zoomer, you are great and I thank you for all the hard work you do, but we’re not as bad as you think :)
“High view of communion” what is the view specifically?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 not to your standards. However, it may be the highest other than the Catholic church in my town
@@silaswarren8418 is your town a non-denominational island or smth? You SURE there isn’t a Presbyterian, Methodist, or Episcopal church, in town?
@@silaswarren8418 but whats the specific view?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 There is one Methodist church, but honestly I hold more non denominational convictions than you do. I know you don’t like us, I think it’s not fair, but I respect and thank you for your contribution and the education I have earned from watching your videos. Thanks m8. I guess I’ll always be heterodox to you lol
You're pumping out content like a machine! Keep it up, man! :>
Not if you need a break, of course. 😅
Hi! I just wanted to say, your channel is amazing.
I agree with 99% of everything said.
I’ve watched through around 5 videos now and they’re all amazing to me.
Keep up the good work!
13:45 It's also worth remembering that many of the patriarchs of Constantinople were chosen by the Ottoman Turks.
Huh that makes sense...
Orthodoxy has survived outside of Constantinople though.
I hope by now they have re-calibrated and burn away the chaff.
If they truly root themselves in the authenticity of early Christianity, then I am optimistic.
I am studying to become a lutheran priest in sweden. And yes our state-church is sadly very liberal. But i must say that i meet so many priests who fights back against this and i see much hope. I think, among many other swedish theologians that the main issue is the church counsel who is directly connected to the profane political culture(yuck!). But there are also many trying to cut the bond between Swedens secular state and the religious church(they say its cut, but it really isnt). And there is a movement(Called EFS) in the church of sweden who is much more ortodox than the state chuch.
I am catholic from sweden, but I can say it's a real shame seeing svenska kyrkan becoming so liberal and the role of religion being undermined in swedish society.
@@yardbro67133ooovsbsnskkw Yeah, i have great respect for the catholic church for being better at staying with the Bible. Pray for me as i try to be a part of the solution that Svenska kyrkan needs🙏 bless you
Come home to the Catholic Church.
@@rohan7224 Well i dont agree with some dogmas, so id be kicked out anyway, or not permitted to recieve Jesus blood and body…
I would love a greater equmenical climate between every body of believers. But just throwing thiese slogans out is not going to work.
Are you part of the reconquista? Are you in the discord server?
"We are saved by faith alone; but the faith that saves is not alone."
So true.
Faith 🤝 works
We are saved by both bc it’s impossible to do good works without Faith or have Faith and be sterile like the fig tree.
@@An_dres_art So all the atheists who do good works have Faith?
@@sirwondernut2815 good works are only good works when you have also faith or leads you to have faith, otherwise it’s just altruism, natural empathy sometimes ego. When we said good works we are talking in the biblical way, as described the Epistle of James, and St. Paul, and the sermon of our Lord in the sermon on the mount.
Also it’s possible for someone to have faith inspired by God doing good works, we see in the gospel many pagans, samaritans, and non-Jews doing good works and finding the Faith through it.
@@An_dres_art That doesn't answer my question. So good works aren't actually good works? They're only good works when Christians do them? What in the hell kind of gatekeeping is that?
Also it's near impossible for someone to come to faith just by seeing someone doing works. As Paul said, faith comes by HEARING, and hearing by the Word of God.
@@sirwondernut2815 seems like you didn’t even read what I said, I make a difference in the biblical concept of good works and altruism that by nature we are disposed too, and I didn’t said you can get faith doing good works the Faith is a gift from God, thats why I clearly said “have faith INSPIRED BY GOD” bc you can’t reach it by yourself, doing or not good works, I thought the answer was implicit, wasn’t that hard to understand, in short, no an atheist can’t do good works bc they don’t have faith or love while doing it, understanding “good works” as a fruit of the faith, if you gonna take it literal as probably you will, then everybody can do good works and not have faith, so an atheist doing “good works” will be in the same spot of a “christian” who doesn’t do good works or doesn’t love the neighbor or doesn’t follows the gospel.
Hope it’s more clear for you know, if you can’t still understand what I said I will try it to simplify it more.
Can you make a video about what each Protestant denomination thinks about other denominations/branches being saved or not? For example, Lutherans might say Orthodox are saved, but Orthodox would call Lutherans anathema.
Not all Orthodox would confess that, actually. Outside the super trad orthobro community most of them are pretty relaxed.
Orthodoxy does view Lutherans as outside of the true church. However, the general Orthodox doctrine is that we know where the Holy Spirit is present (the Orthodox church) but we can't say for certain where it's not present. Matthew 7:21 - it isn't our job to think about who will or won't be saved. We focus on only our own repentence and walk with God.
@@TheJoeschmoe777 Fair enough its just an example of what I might think. That’s why I want him to make a video elaborating on every denominations position of every denomination.
Outside Protestantism, the view of anathema is actually quite different. To Protestants, an anathema is a condemnation to hell and a proclamation that the said person is a heretic who is not saved at all. To modern Catholics and Orthodox, anathema is basically an excommunication from the Church. Which, is I guess another thing to be addressed.
To Protestants, all Christians who are saved are part of the Church that Jesus Christ established. To Catholics and Orthodox, only their church is the Church. Some would say Protestants and the other can be saved, but they are strictly not part of the Apostolic Church (and by Apostolic Church, they mean their tradition).
So in a nutshell, to Protestants, an anathema is an excommunication from Christ and the Church Universal (or Invisible Church), which means they are a heretic who is not saved. But to Catholics and Orthodox, anathema is an excommunication from the Church, -and by the Church, they mean their branch of Christianity, in which sense a person may still be saved, but not be a part of the Church (or Visible Church, -their view of the Visible Church).
So it might sound like an anathema or excommunication is stronger in Protestantism than Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and yes, it is. It is stronger in the same way that racism and sexism is stronger to conservatives than it is to liberals. Because Catholics and Orthodox have to excommunicate everybody and say they're not part of "The Apostolic Church", it waters down the meanings of heresy, anathema, and excommunication, but because the Protestants try to refrain from anathematizing people who disagree with them, these terms have stronger weight to them.
P.S. Examples from every Protestant denomination can be found thinking other people are heretics who are going to hell, but most Protestants (particularly of the Evangelical type) would be more relaxed on this. There are also some Catholic/Orthodox tradition that do also condemn everybody else to hell too.
One of these days you are gonna dig straight into lava you can't avoid, you should dig 1x2 mineshafts so you can see what's below or at least carry a water bucket. (sorry to backseat minecraft)
Keep inventory is on
2:45 Dang, you must’ve been predestined to get that coal…
Great vid as always! Love you brother!❤
I really enjoy being Dutch reformed, that is all 🗿
3:47 mining straight down, this is faith
In Mexico, there is a "church" that worships coca-cola according to my catholic Brazilian friend
the way i believe we all should view different takes on our faith, is with the knowledge that someone else might have more right than us. therefore we need to operate in grace towards eachother, even when we refuse to give ground on certain church disputes
Jesus Forbids Sectarianism
(Mark 9:38-41 )
49
¶
Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”
50
¶
But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against is on our side.”
Matthew 23
23¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24“You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25¶“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence
John 21
20¶Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”
22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”
1st Corinthians 1
10¶Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.
12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1st Corinthians 12
12¶For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14¶For the body is not one member, but many.
15If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
21And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
22On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;
23and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,
24whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,
25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
26And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27¶Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.
28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
31But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way
The reason I started watching and listening to redeemed zoomer was because what I see is that he is trying to point out that we as a church have the main thing in common… Christ. We are family. I can worship our God at any of our churches with any of you , no problem..Unification not division. Let’s pray for that.
Luckily Pastor Jim managed to preserve the true Christian faith after Constantines Catholic henchmen polluted it for a 1200 years
who is pastor jim?
@@micahrose4562 Pastor Jim is a stereotype Protestant pastor (often non-denominational or of some absurdly specific denomination), akin to Susan from the Parish Council, Fr. Youngtrad, Karen, etc.
If he hadn't buried the last remaining copy of the KJV for his successor Pastor Bob to find, true Christianity would surely have been lost.
@@micahrose4562 Specifically he's a parody of Independent Fundamental Baptists who subscribe to the "Trail of Blood" theory.
@@SolitaireZetawhat’s the “Trail of Blood” theory?
I think it worthy to mention that communion under one kind was due to practical reasons. For example, one of the reasons listed in the Council of Trent for communion under one kind in the Latin church was that large quantities of wine might be too expensive or hard to obtain
The specific command to "do this" was given to the Apostles, and in the current age this is carried on by absolutely requiring the priest to consume both species during the Mass.
But there is ample evidence of Communion in only one species being administered to the faithful for various reasons going back to at least the third century. In fact, back then it was often the reverse of what RZ complains of. It was an ancient practice to give Communion to infants (which persists in the East today, and as an aside I wish the West would resume it), but back then infants would only be given to drink of the chalice.
When, in the same time period, Communion was brought to the sick outside of Mass, they received only in the species of bread.
@@jdotozJesus clearly gave a command as it is stated in all gospels but you appeal to some obscure examples and exceptions to say that you the Church could do it other way. That is just a small example, but my conscience good never go against what is clear in the Bible in order to follow the Church.
You’re video has peaked my 14 year old son’s interest. He was wondering what server you’re on 😂
It's my own Christian server, which will be re-opened to the public this winter!
Honestly, I believe that we shouldn't place too much care into the looks of a building. If a church as a nice building but doesn't have enough money to reach the world or help what is the point? Also with the economic downturn, I would be surprised is churches ended up down sizing just to survive.
I think there is balance. God loves art and understands it value in life. We and angels other then God seems to only be able to make art that has meaning. So art seems to be a special gift to us. God loves true beauty and how art, music… can give people prospective and different ways to understand God himself. But I think the intention are what make a difference. If people are making beautiful church to give honor to God and allow others to see the craftsmen of his people if financial viable then it’s has its purpose. But to make a beautiful church for ego or to show off to other church’s and denomination isn’t right. Most of the money should go back to helping people but using some of the money to create beautiful church is also right.
But a beautiful church isn’t necessary but it’s a product of our natural instinct to make something beautiful that is special to us like God himself.
A Church doesn’t have to be expensive to be beautiful. Just a stone Church with stained glass, a nice altar and a few icons works well.
That’s not really the argument, though. Some of these contemporary churches DO have money and they put that money toward building a modernistic and less sacred church rather than conserving the traditional architecture and style of Protestant churches.
@OkPe-ww5rs Well maybe not if you’re iconoclast but in many Swedish Lutheran Church buildings we do and historically have put up icons.
8:47 Most of the individualistic "solo scripta" mentality is just a branch of American exceptionalism. The levelling tactic is "only God can judge me" as a way to dodge criticism, and you'll see it most in the Southern States where Southern Baptist is predominant
This is really true I am quite baffled by of all these Catholic/Orthodox hymns vrs Protestant meme videos where they show songbirds singing traditional tunes then shift to Crows singing extra modern rock gospel songs, I am like B, please. Most historical Protestant churches today sing and worship with traditional hymnals and with reverence, I've attended 3 Catholic Masses recently and throughout all these masses, modern cringy contemporary hill songs, not the upbeat type but the emotional type accompanied by the guitar were the norm and just one traditional chant the Kyrie Elysion. Maybe this has something to do with the Novus Ordo but most Modern Catholic worship is more "modern" than traditional protestant Worship.
“Read the historic confessions.” Amen.
Every time I see the Catholics and Orthodox criticize "Protestants", Anglicans cruise right under the radar.
Could you make a vid about all the Protestant reformers and their beliefs/denominations?
Hey, Zoomer, hope you're well!
Just wanted to leave a comment regarding non-denominational churches, and your feelings towards them:
For context, I'm Reformed Anglican, and I have visited many non-denominational churches where Bible teaching is misused or neglected (ie. female pastors, disorderly prophesying or tongues, worshiptainment, etc.) I feel like their leadership may have some heart for God, but are acting in terrible foolishness neglecting tradition and communion with fellow believers to hold them accountable. These are churches where even the elders feel like they are fed on and feeding spiritual milk not solids, and missing out on the richness of the faith.
*However* I have encountered the same in denominational churches - I particularly recall a Methodist pastor referring to God as "heavenly parent" so as not to offend anyone with a bad father (according to him), and nobody within his denomination had called him to account.
Furthermore, I have encountered non-denominational churches that exercise a high degree of wisdom and regard for history and tradition (I've seen Polycarp and Chrysostom quoted), including confessions of faith much in line with classic Protestant confessions despite no official membership, affiliation or communion with them.
My point is this: denominationalism does not guarantee sound doctrine. There is wisdom in community and historic grounding, but like abuse is possible in denominational and non-denominational alike, so too are wisdom and sound, historical doctrine possible in denominational and non-denominational alike.
God bless you, brother!
Keep up the good fight!
Thank you for this, Zoomer's ignorance in this area is really quite disappointing, and his attitude is really bad for Christianity. Where I live, most of the nondenominational churches have doctrine nearly identical to Presbyterianism, with the exception of infant baptism. Heck, back in highschool, some ladies from a local nondenominational church taught a class on the Westminster confession.
Really like this content clearing up the craziness that is often pushed on how protestantism appears to be to Catholics. If both sides had this exercise more, perhaps we can see the prayer of Christ be answered; that we be ONE
That was a pretty funny parody of a nondenom church though
I think your criticism of the GMC shows a misunderstanding of UMC polity and the situation in the UMC in the USA. There is no viable way to discipline bishops that are going against church teaching, so there has been a lesbian bishop installed and no-one can do anything about it since the progressives have majorities in America. Once these progressive bishops are installed, they replace your conservative pastor with a progressive one compulsorily who teaches heresy and runs your church into the ground, nothing you can do about it, then that property is lost to faithful gospel witness. Much better to disaffiliate now because for a limited time they're letting you take your property with you, so you can have your historical building and maintain biblical teaching.
Why did basically every protestant denomination abolish confession and holy orders?
Excellent vid!
SDA here, glad we're largely free of wokeness, but it's always creeping around the corner...
3:53 That's one block away from falling down😂
My church says it’s Non-Denominational but in reality it is a very conservative Pentecostal ( I.E all the sacraments, hymns and chants ect)
I don't know what denomination is my church, but we celebrate communion every week after the pastor and praise. I believe it's not literal body and blood of Christ but we do it symbolically. At least I do because I understand it as the only ritual Jesus left us in his ministry.
I really enjoy your content. I do not know of anyone that enjoys minecraft and bible teachings except for me in my circle of friends. To see both makes me smile everytime I see one of your videos.
The amount of coal you've left unmined bugged me 😂 great video though
2:54 Please, do point them out. I've never seen anyone ever claim this thing. EDIT: Please, don't think of this as a hate, but I just think this wasn't a good analogy.
Neither have I
23 years and I’ve never met a single catholic in all the Catholic Churches I’ve been to in the U.S or Vatican. But random Protestants online will assure me that’s all of them 😂
I know almost nothing about this, so please take this with an entire silo of salt:
I think I’ve heard that it is less of an issue in the US and more an issue in South America, but I can’t remember where I heard that claim. At the very least, it would be interesting to look into 🤔
For your first point:
While I agree that we can't judge an entire tradition by the beliefs of a small handful, the amount of Catholics that worship anyone but the Trinity, or believe the Pope is more divine than any normal man, is just that, a very small handful.
The amount of Prods that speak along the lines of your quote "Its just me and my Bible, I don't care what the Church Fathers say." is a large large portion, maybe closer to half of prods here in the US at least. I know Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, diet Baptists (nondenoms), Presbyterians (liberal ones to be fair), and Pentecostals that all speak along those lines.
Lutherans (the group I'm the most familiar with) differ very very much depending on the individual church. Their synods sort of just double check every once in a while that they're all on at least mostly the same page. There is not a direct set of doctrine aside from Luther's catechism and honestly those points are heavily debated and believed in varying degrees between Lutherans.
For your second point:
The Sacraments/Holy Mysteries are all biblical and directly administered to the clergy by Christ Himself. He baptized to cleanse Original Sin, He heard confessions and forgave sins and gave the Apostles the power to do the same, He instituted the priesthood, Communion/Eucharist, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Marriage between one man and one woman.
They're all traditions instituted by Christ, and in every single prod denomination, they fail to observe all seven. Lutherans recognize two or three, and they have the most. Apostolic succession is ancient and gives a given Church direct ties to Christ through his apostles. There isn't a single protestant denomination that recognizes the importance of that tradition either. Protestants do not observe all of Church Tradition and in fact reject much of it directly.
For your third point:
Mainline denominations are definitely overwhelmingly liberal, and as an Eastern Catholic, I'd agree they dance on heresies beyond being out of Communion with The Church. They are overwhelmingly unbiblical, anti Christian, and unfortunately a terrible place for Christians to find themselves. There are some conservative offshoots that have sprung up recently to maintain their correct doctrine, and represent a small minority overall, sadly. While its true that Pope Francis is absolutely the most liberal Pope ever seen before, there is a dramatic uprising in Catholic churches to adhere to tradition. The Traditional Latin Mass, and faithful who change Rites to Eastern Catholicism, like me, are becoming more and more common every year. The conservative movement in the world of Protestantism is shrinking, which makes me very sad. The future for prod denominations looks bleak.
For your fourth point:
The True Church is the Church founded by Christ through Saint Peter. Leaving communion with that Church (which absolutely still exists) is to definitionally deny His institution for personal beliefs. His instituted Church on Earth follows everything Christ commanded of His Church. To deny that Church is to deny the commands of Christ. We uphold everything He created and maintain it until His return. The pope's seat as the Bishop of Rome is descended from Peter. To deny these fundamentals in any capacity is denying Christ. This isn't a collection of beliefs that are malleable, this is a concrete collection of Christ's and His Apostles' works 2000 years ago.
For your fifth point:
To leave the original and true Church behind for any reason aside from repairing it from within is exactly analogous to your issues with conservative protestants running away from mainline churches to create their own instead of remaining in place to repair the damage done. We could have a Lutheran Rite, a Presbyterian Rite, etc if those with alternative traditions wished to remain in communion with the original Church. The variation between my Byzantine Church, the Roman Rite Church, and the Maronite Church is astounding. We have very different traditions but remain in communion together for the sake of upholding the True Church that Christ established. The way things are going currently within the Latin Rite, its looking like its possible that the new "mainline" Novus Ordo mass attendees may eventually have their own Rite within the Latin Church. We could have a Latin Rite and a Roman Rite to represent the traditional Latin Mass and the new school Novus Ordo Mass parishioners. Most Churches would remain a part of the Roman Rite, but just as they already exist now, the Latin Mass specific churches would just take on the title of Latin Rite, or Tridentine Rite, or whatever they'd choose. Provided the Pope allows that, of course. Its common for the Catholic Church to just form a new Rite to allow people to remain in Communion and keep their own traditions.
I don't know about most, but I am part of a non-denominational church which holds tradition close. We lean towards evangelical, Lutheran (obviously), and Calvinist views though. We are highly organized, small, and very impactful in our community. Sola scriptura and tota scriptura!
7:00 I am a protestant but I do believe in transubstantiation.
That we eat bread and drink wine but that it does quite literally turn into the body and blood of Christ.
"Where was The Church before Luther?"
(Catholics)
"Where was your face before you washed it?"
(Doug Wilson, or at least he quotes it often)
Bros digging straight down
16:28 This is another Americanism of Protestantism, primarily Southern Baptist. This mentality is the status quo in the Southern US where SBC predominates
I didnt expect a Minecraft video when i clicked on this
What do you think about the teachings of Ray Comfort? He always talks about how Catholicism is bad and how the teachings are incorrect, worshiping Marry etc. Just wanted to hear your view on it. Thanks for the videos they help a lot.
The Banana Man himself?
@christsavesreadromans1096ypur doctrine is false teaching. Be christian man not “catholic”
Bro is actually on the Christian minecraft server
Practically every single one of these misconceptions about Protestantism is what lead my best friend to converting to Catholicism, and another one of my friends to converting to Orthodoxy. One other misconception that lead my best friend to Catholicism was that Protestants have bad music/art compared to Catholics. It was funny when I went to mass with him, and they played hymns written by Protestants.
The old saying, "The lie is half-way around the world by the time the truth is getting out of bed" really is telling on this. He now realizes those are all bad arguments, yet they are the arguments that made him change important views and sever friendships. I believe it was Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi who said the perfect preservation of the Quran was the argument that lead him to Islam. He now recognizes it as an untrue argument, but says Allah used the lie to lead him to the "truth of Islam."
Should truth be rationed through lies? Catholics, don't celebrate when Protestants come to Catholicism from these misconceptions and strawmans. Let us all be compelled by the truth and not prey on the ignorance of others.
God bless ❤ All glory be to God
Whatever song he has playing at 4:17 is my favorite of his songs. I REALLY wish he would release them on a playlist so we could learn the titles and use them in our own vids.
I'm glad u give transcript because I can't follow with the constantly moving Lego pieces.
"What's this? This is what some presbyterians think all nondenominational churches are like".
Most of them do look like that. If you can point me to a non-denominational Church that has liturgy and properly administers the sacraments, go ahead.
@@AllhailTDLjimpicremenant radio hosts are all from non denominational churches, and have a high view of tradition, they believe in real presence in the sacrament of communion and also resite some of the creeds that every church should believe in. I myself believe that every single church should have an understanding and study of the first 6 ecumenical councils. I think we can all agree. I understand my brothers and sisters in Christ that have a low view of tradition, I understand how it can be distracting from the most important thing, which is God. But should also understand that some tradition is fundamental in worship. That’s why we should take part of communion at every service, and not just once a month like most non denominational churches. It’s sad that there are some denominations that don’t even celebrate the Eucharist, and some only take part of it once a year during Easter.
Meh. I'm a hillbilly from the southern Appalachians. We observe communion. We observe foot washing. We observe, of course, _Baptism_ . We do these things precisely as Jesus commanded. You seem to think otherwise?
He can’t speak for every church, but far too many evangelical churches think communion is just a symbol and don’t even take it every week, baptism is just a symbol of faith, have contempt for the ancient traditions of the church, etc. And this attitude that “real” Christianity was lost for years and only reestablished in modern times has more in common with Mormonism than Protestantism.
Frankly I think a good first solution is that churches who don’t respect church tradition and have a high view of the sacraments should not identify as Protestant.
@@fighterofthenightman1057 I don't about other churches. I know communion should be a regular occurrence. I have no qualms with a church that takes communion once a year, as long as it is a consistent / /regular part of their practice of worship. Jesus did not specify how often we should take communion. If it was important that we observe it _weekly_
( _for example, like observing the Sabbath_ )
then he would have told us so,
( _for example, like observing the Sabbath_ ).
This is basic logic. ALL 3 of these rituals commanded by Jesus are indeed symbolic.
But they are not
.........................................." _just_ " ...........................................
symbolic, as you accuse these unnamed " _evangelical churches_ " of claiming.
We cannot know exactly how many layers there are to the purposes of these sacred rituals, but I believe symbolism is one, though probably the least, of them.
Frankly I think a good first solution is that churches who conflate disagreement with a respective Biblical interpretation of a church tradition, with a failure to " _respect_ " a church tradition. be looked upon as suspect.
This, along with any church that utilizes the term " _high view_ " when describing anything other than a gander off a mountain top, or a really tall building, should be held as suspect and an object for prayer, as they have the clothing of Pharisaical uppityness.
But us hillbillies, we don't know much.
you got it right
@@8chohgee135 Thank you. I hope we do. It's as simple as following what He said and what He did, whenever possible, as closely as possible, while maintaining the habit of prayer and obedience of the commandments.
The message of the Bible is that no matter how evil you think you are, no matter how far you feel you are from God, you can get right with God. You can go to heaven.
All you have to do is put your full trust in Jesus. The message of the Bible is that Jesus was punished for all the evil things you have done or will ever do. He loved you so much that he was willing to die a horrible, brutal death for what you did. He was punished for your actions. If you believe in him and trust him you will have eternal life with God. You will not go to hell because Jesus already went for you.
All you have to do is trust in Jesus. Nothing else. You don't have to go to church. You don't have to give money to people. You don't have to do anything but believe in what Jesus did. That he sacrificed himself for you so that you could go to heaven.
How amusing this video turned out to be, and I'm not just talking about the Minecraft in the background lol
Baptists serving Mountain Dew and Doritos for communion
That’s funny. Kinda like Brave New World.
This is the equivalent of saying something like
“Presbyterians putting up pride flags instead of reading the Bible”
Or
“Catholics worshiping Mary instead of God”
It paints with too broad a brush and does not help to move conversation forward
EDIT: Sorry, I don’t mean this to be aggressive. I just get wearied seeing low-church traditions being shown so much disdain while problems in other traditions seem to be allowed free passes, but maybe that’s just a symptom of the content I am consuming
@@chessplayer6632 Yeah, but those are actual accusations made against those groups, while this is not. Its not pushing the conversation forward since it’s just meant for a laugh.
“We are the only ones who take the Bible literally” (proceeds to drink grape juice instead of wine for communion)
This is pretty offensive, since that doesn't represent the Baptists churches at all
I've never been under the impression that baptism saves, more just that it is an outward and public manifestation/display of your salvation and commitment to live for Christ. I don't understand the concept of "baptism saves" if a person who is never baptized before their death will still be saved anyway. It doesn't have any logical consistency.
Check out Jordan B. Cooper (Lutheran) or Gavin Ortlund (Baptist) for some really smart Protestant defenders with different interpretations of what “baptism saves” means
Pastor Billy Bob's Soul-Saving Gun Club & Grill - where the 66-book KJV came down from the sky on Pentecost, and wine means grape juice; but "is" does NOT mean is!
I'm so thankful for Pastor Billy bob's Ministry! I think im gonna give him 45% of my paycheck so he can continue guiding his flock by showing them the evils of those satan-worshipping, God-denying, dirty papists!
The Catholic church wasnt called the pornocracy in the middle ages, it is a term coined by protestant historians in the 19th century and the only source backing this is a contemporary kardinal who was personally invested in the power ruling families of Rome held in the city of Rome.
To keep it short, it is a huge leap to state it as a fact and to refer to it as in the middle ages is misleading since it covers a period of only 60 years.
I believe non-denominational churches reflect the geographic location and society. I have had the fortune of traveling the world and attending churches in many regions. My home church is non denominational, small, and in an old church building built in the early 1900s. This is in central Pennsylvania and I am sure that the small town has something to do with it's conservative basis. If you want to reference the degrees of conservative that redeemed has discussed, it would be a 2/3 on his scale and is Arminian. We sit on pews and have 2 services, one where you sing hymns, and the other is contemporary(not a full band though), but both services are the same sermon. We have one church in this town that falls into a lot of the stereotypes that it seems most you have seen. Oddly for me, I have witnessed far more traditional non denoms than contemporary. My first experience in a Lutheran church was that it was a slightly more contemporary version of what I am used to. My experiences in big cities have been... unfortunately, far more liberal non denominational churches with the multimedia presentation and such... I think the liberal mentality of the population seeps into the churches in these locations. I am not a person who agrees with being tied to a denomination, however I can absolutely see the need for them, to try and give a consistent representation no matter the location. However, like redeemed said, it seems like the denominational conservatives need to recapture the church, since a lot are veering from the original slate.
I'm in the LCMS and we're not as narrow as the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).
I am very Happy that i was wrong about protestants , thair zoomer for showing me that protestans fathers was maybe more catholic that many catholics today
Most conservative Presbyterian denominations are reformed Baptist. I swear.
Correct. That’s why I’m trying to de-liberalize the PCUSA
@@redeemedzoomer6053 LMFAO.
Not gonna lie, some churches within the ACNA are closet big box Presbyterians. The ACNA is such a diverse mix. Not hating, just pointing out.
@@redknightsr69 being fair, the Episcopal Church and, by extension, the entire Anglican Communion that the ANCA came from was always under a "big tent" framework where anyone was accepted so long as they held to the 39 articles and the liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer. The ACNA seems to want to preserve that diversity in worship styles and the non-essentials of doctrine, just with a greater emphasis on tradition and the essentials of the Christain Faith (In other words, you can have Anglo-Catholics, Charismatics and Reformed in the same denomination, so long as they affirm the biblical teachings on Theology and marriage/gender.)
My Baptist church ironically has Presbyterian members. Since there’s practically no conservative Presbyterian churches where I’m at in Indiana! 😳
@@redeemedzoomer6053 have you ever looked into and commented on the "Politics of American churches & religions in one graph"?
I totally support your idea of the reconquista but sadly in my home country of Finland the mainline chuch is essentially the only church and they only ordane pastors who follow their liberal theology. So the mainline is pretty much too far gone. I feel like this is the same situation with my Nordic brothers (correct me if I'm wrong) so we shall see what happens in the coming years in this part of the world at least in terms of the churches.
Yup, it’s looking bleak for us nordics. What’s important is trusting in God and praying for our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Make a home church brother, be the difference
Join the Orthodox church
Come home to the Catholic Church, the true spiritual heritage of all Protestants in Scandinavia.
The difference between America and Europe is, at least here in the UK, is that our Churches don't say that not believing in God is okay. Most of our churches still strongly affirm our faith in Christ. American Christianity is insane
Dr. Craig is a Weslyan which continues the remonstant Protestant tradition. So broadly Arminian, and coming out of the Methodist Church, but he is still a traditional Protestant. Just for clarity I am a Presbyterian (EPC) by conviction, but Dr. Craig played a large part in my returning to the faith and I think it's unfair to say he's not a traditional Protestant.
Common Catholic apologists do not merely critique American ND Evangelicals etc, but rather the original reformers: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their followers' confessions. I don't want to be uncharitable, but to claim that most Catholics often or only critique Protestantism on NDE related grounds is hasty and perhaps disingenuous. I would invite you to look at Catholic responses to Calvin and Luther to better see why Protestantism is seen as objectionable. There are fundamental commonalities between practically all Protestant sects (like rejection of Papal authority and the need for a singular Church unified in Doctrine/Dogma and the nature of the Eucharist etc) which Catholics find objectionable in themselves and have good reason for doing so. Nonetheless, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to examine these topics with their due weight, and I appreciate your intellectual honesty about addressing positions as they are rather than what they seem to be according to a narrative.
He is probably talking about the average Catholic that i must admit that they do have this approach when they critique protestantism.
Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn seem the best at refuting the original protestant reformers.
Certainly but in this video he is talking about misconceptions your average Catholic armchair theologian has. Also i honestly don’t think Zoomer has what it takes to challenge someone like Trent Horn. If you want a more educated defender of traditional Protestantism, check out Dr Jordan B Cooper here on youtube.
@@AllhailTDLjimpic I agree. I just recently watched a discussion between Jimmy Akin and Dr. Cooper on salvation, and it seemed like they agreed about everything, which makes me more and more confused as to why the reformation happened in the first place.
@@TheMacDonald22 The reformation happened because the Church needed to be reformed, it really is that simple. The RCC in the middle ages was a ridiculously corrupt institution. The 95 theses weren’t even about theology, Luther didn’t write in them that purgatory was a false dogma, just that the abuses of some clergy members was detestable and something needed to be done about them. It’s only after the Roman Church tried to kill Luther (like they did with other critics like Jan Hus) he started to critiscise their theology. If Rome had just reasoned with him they could have gotten a more favourable outcome. But alas, they always tried to get rid of people before engaging their positions and taking critiscism.
Where was the church before the Protestant reformation? Where was your face before you washed it?
I found those who claim non denominations actually start their own denominations
One of the major issues is that over 70% of Protestants belong to radical non-denominational and Baptist churches. As a result, MOST Protestants do not place a significant emphasis on tradition. Therefore, it is correct for Catholics to assume that most Protestants hold to their own personal interpretations. Most Protestants I met on Twitter/X don't care about Church Tradition at all, some even said Church Father's were false teachers. However, some Lutherans I met online have a higher regard for Tradition, some of them even venerate Catholic Saints.
Ive gotta say I 100% credit you RZ for making me take theology and God seriously and putting me on a very good path. However, I just dont see how Protestantism in all forms is better then Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I understand all the points about traditional protestantism and "evangelical" protestantism being different, and i agree, but it just seems like the only reason traditional protestantism exists is because those in it just dont want to be catholic or orthodox, and would rather follow their own theology, instead of just looking at history and seeing what the early church taught. I think its time to end the protest for the traditional prots seeking the fullness of Christianity and come home.
I can explain it to you, because I had the same questions. Basically, if you look at the history of what the orthodox, catholics, and protestants actually believed through time, you'll see that they all developed their beliefs over a period of centuries. Many times you'll actually see multiple theological strains developing side by side, and they'll influence each other and split apart, while remaining in the same sect or denomination. When you look at the biggest church writers or thinkers through history, you're seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of how these thoughts developed.
Here is something I learned though: Catholics and orthodox will tend to hide the fact that their theology developed over time just like the protestants, in fact the Marian doctrines (that Mary was sinless, perpetually a virgin, etc.) were not catholic doctrine until the 19th century, over 3 centuries after the protestant reformation. Remember those "streams" I was talking about earlier? The protestants were originally just one of those streams, but within the catholic church. They largely go back to Saint Augustine and Athanasius, and even earlier church fathers vaguely. It just so happened that this stream was "kicked out" of the catholic church during what we call the reformation period. But it must be remembered that every single early reformer was born and raised catholic, went to catholic mass, celebrated catholic holidays, studied catholic doctrine, etc. It wasn't that they all decided to make up their own theology for no reason all at once, they were actually studying much older doctrine that had fallen out of favor in the religious establishment of the late middle ages.
So a small group of religious scholars protested what they saw was a corruption of earlier church teaching that had taken over the institutions of the church through a slow process of centuries. Since by that time the catholic church's leadership were who decided what was true doctrine or not, true teaching is preserved as long as the church itself is preserved. Early protestant leaders were the continuation of a stream of Catholicism that denied the infallibility of the church itself. They believed that the truth cannot be delivered by a man made institution, but rather through the Bible and the Holy Spirit only. Once they were excommunicated from the catholic church, the dam broke; the catholic church was split into two branches, a scripture-focused branch, and a ecclesial-focused branch. With no communion between the two streams, we saw the protestants become more and more protestant, and the catholics become more and more catholic. Unfortunately, this highlighted the human errors in each stream, rather than bring about truth. I believe most of the problems you can have with different denominations came about because we made our own camps into echo chambers with no debate to check the swings of doctrine in either direction.
In the beginning of the church, there were many streams that either became church doctrine, or abandoned the faith and became heretical sects like the Gnostics. The biggest common trait between the heretical groups is that they all attempted to change, erase, or add to scripture, or otherwise denied its God-inspired nature.
I pray that you have wisdom in your search for a church to call home. It's a long process that takes time, and there is much to learn along the way. Just be careful that you're focusing your heart on God in everything you do. Remember that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin!”.
@@David-bh7hs Thanks for the response and I see where your coming from but I've got a few points coming from a Catholic perspective.
First of all, Catholic dogmas such as the Perpetual virginity or assumption into heaven have existed for a very long time and was supported by the church as doctrine long before it became official Dogma in the recent era. I also agree that the reformation was needed due to the corruption in the Catholic Church at that time, however, I disagree that the reformers had to leave the Church they were reforming, and start their own, no matter how suppressed they were.
I also don't agree with the idea that God wouldn't give us an organization that, guided by the holy spirit, pronounced Christian doctrine, like the Trinity, The divinity of Christ, and even the bible And i disagree that this authority would change organization every thousand years, when a few disgruntled rebels decide it does. And if you're a Protestant who rejects the infallibility of Christs Church, then you've also got to reject the infallibility of the Bible that was compiled by that church. And if you don't accept the infallibility of the Church, then you get sects of "Christians" like mormons and JWs that say they believe only in the bible, but then get twisted teachings, that go against what the church has taught since the apostles. In my opinion the downfall of Protestantism, is there's no authority besides a book, that can be interpreted in thousands of different ways, that creates thousands of divisions, that's why for 1500 years there was arguably one major church, and then after only 500 years there's 40,000 different interpretations of scripture, tradition, and authority.
As for my search for a home in a church, I found Catholicism when I realised the bible wasn't the highest authority and doesn't claim to be, and that God continually works through other means, and I don't have to find him with the help of a church that I deem the most agreeable in the realm of Theology, and instead look objectively at the history of Christianity, prayerfully and with an open mind.
Man I’m just really tired of the division between the body. We are all the body. Though it’d smart for solid spiritual growth, why do we have this mindset that we must follow a church denom to be a Christian. Tho the early church fathers are important nothing will ever come close to “your” relationship with God and the Holy Spirit that teaches everything. I respect every sect of Christianity but why do we continue to break each other apart and look down upon people that aren’t in ours? That is not why Christ died for us, it’s nasty
@@dayhvonturner639 100% agree. And at first I had only a logical relationship with God. And after truly praying and getting closer to him, Catholicism became as clear as day. The people in the Catholic Church have done lots of good and bad things, but remember that Jesus gave us one Church, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it. For 1000 years there was only one church, then two and only 500 years ago the Church split again and lead to many thousands of different denominations. This split didn't come from Catholicism, it came from Protestantism and Sola Scriptura. I encourage you to not only pray, but look into the Catholic Church.
@@TheMacDonald22 sola scriptura simply means there is no authority over the infallibility of scripture, not that other authorities don’t matter. If ur authority contradicts or misconstrueds scripture, scripture stands over that authority cause it is infallible and I see this definition confused all the time. And Jesus did create the Catholic Church “Catholic“ means universal, he did not create the catholic denomination. The splits came from people adding in their interpretations as infallible and this is why the creeds were made, so it isn’t too bad long as u believe nothing heretical. As for the Catholic denomination, respectfully I’ve seen enough to never wanna be near their church.
In some Catholic countries like France, they still only give the bread in the communion. The bishops like to say it's a logistics issue, but it's really because they were more successful in the wars of religion.
as i am from latvian, i didn't get the thing you kinda said.... can you explain pls
Yes. He can explain.
No. He likely won't.
I believe he said that all the European "State" Churches or official Churches are very Liberal. Except the Latvian Church(or the Churches in Latvia.)
@@electrolytics tnx m8
Are Evangelicals always non-denominational/baptist?
"Evangelical" is a meaningless term like "Right wing" or "Left wing". Mostly it's used for "Those people I don't like" and occasionally "My side" but usually if people try to sit down and define it, there's no clear attributes.
For instance, people who take the bible as literal where it's meant to be literal will be called by theological liberals as "Evangelical". But people who consider a relationship with God the most important aspect of worship will be called by those who value tradition higher "Evangelical". Basically if they don't like you and you aren't liberal, the slur is "evangelical".
Historically, no. In the modern United States, generally yes. The term goes back to the Reformation (Lutherans in Germany are known as the "Evangelical Church", and all Prots are "evangelical", meaning "spreading the 'evangelion" or "good news" of the Gospel of Christ). In the US, Baptists and "Non-denoms" did the groundwork in the late-19th and 20th centuries, so now it's the cultural "default" if you're not Roman Catholic but still Christian.
4 conditions must be met to be an evangelical: American nationalist, fundamentalist, dispensationalist and Zionist. It needs to be all 4. An evangelical can be from any denomination but they will typically be baptist, Pentecostal or Non-denominational because in these denominations there isn’t a high regard for church history or traditional doctrines. It’s not a slur but it is a terrible term that misappropriates the word evangelical.
@tenko5541 Evangelical is a very broad term but it generally just means 1) broadly conservative, and 2) high view of scripture. I think you've defined it too narrowly (and disdainfully it seems?)
Where did you hear that the KGB is involved with the Eastern Orthodox Church? I'm very interested in Orthodoxy and I want to read up about that.
I think he’s specifically talking about the russian orthodox church, not the greater eastern orthodox church.
After the soviets tried and failed to completely suppress/subvert the church through a combination of executions and restorationist nonsense (think 20th century marxists being put in charge of the church by the government) stalin brought it back in force for patriotic purposes during WW2, but continued subverting and downplaying it as it suited him. Every hierarch was essentially forced to become a double agent in order to serve the church publically, flee Russia entirely and form synods in resistance (which is how the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, ROCOR was founded) or go underground into the proverbial catacombs risking life and limb to serve their flocks (which happened A LOT, there are dozens if not hundreds of martyr saints venerated for doing it).
The subversion continued under khrushchev, carried on more or less until gorbachov and co. lightened up a bit, and then the soviets collapsed entirely "freeing" the church (read: new management, ala putin, who while tyrannical doesn't try to persecute the church out of existence). The current patriarch as of 2023 is a former KGB double agent, who was, if I'm being charitable, forced to inform for the soviet government or not be allowed to serve at all in the above-ground church.
I definitely simplified and skipped over things, but that's the general gist of it. ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate reunified in the early 2000s, so that's nice.
Unfortunately a lot of the patriarchs of constantinople were chosen by the ottoman sultans
Video idea: apostle tier list.
*digging straight down*
I would like to see a video about infant baptism, pros and cons
Literally a Tradition of men… literally named after the men that started the tradition lol
While you may be somewhat right about point 1, the issue is, even traditional protestants just hijack some Catholic traditions, while disregarding others
Hey, you mentioned briefly (and you did redact it) that James White isn't representative of the Protestant tradition - I've been listening to a bunch of his lectures and he seems to be one of the most historically rooted ones around, so I'm curious what made you make that comment? Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, but I'm just wondering if there's thinks I don't know about him, or if perhaps you aren't too familiar with him.
The gripe people have had with him is viewing the historic traditions only through a reformed lens. Of course that is his conviction on truth, however issues arise when you start to decipher meaning from ancient history using only one, very particular, means of deriving that meaning. (I am not by definition a Christian, although through study my convictions have changed drastically on the matter. I say this to clear up that I myself do not have the best understanding of Mr. White, and am quite literally on the outside looking in.)
@@bradlygray1974 Hmm interesting. I was referring more to that Christians might see him as unorthodox in the theological sense, but I don't think he is. To be sure he sees the evidence he deals with through a Reformed Christian lens, but he is forthright about this, and I think does a very convincing job of illustrating the evidence that supports his position.
Church requires at least a dog and a cat too.
The thumbnail has me resisting the urge to say "And most of all no b-tches" 😂 but respect to my protestant brothers and sisters in christ
Usefulcharts use also the Council of Nicea 1 in history of christianity
Do a video where you try every denomination's Communion!
Thank God here in Latinamerica the most protestant churches are very conservative
Theological liberalism sounds like popular Jesuit thought in the Catholic church. RIP
You should do a video of the split in the Anglican church. Fir example, the Anglican church of Nigeria split from the church of England due to the hijacking.
Wow
I did enjoy this video and I feel like it is very informational for those who don't understand Protestantism. However, I do think that you need to look at what you're saying about the way Catholics/Orthodox think about the Protestant Church, and apply that to yourself for the Non-Denominational church. It seems like what you do is similar to what Catholics/Orthodox do to Protestants by looking at the worst of the Non-Denominational and painting with a broad brush. I will absolutely agree that there are many within the Non-Denominational congregations that are bad and most of these people are shunned by Non-Denominational Christians. Most of the harshest critics of pastors like Joel Osteen have been my fellow Non-Denominational Christians. I've been in a Non-Denominational church my whole life and most of what I've heard you say about Non-Denominational churches on your channel are things I've never seen in my church, nor in most Non-Denominational churches I've visited.
What I have seen at most Non-Denominational churches have been congregations that love Christ and desire to spread His love and word to their local communities, which is often why they don't have "beautiful buildings". What is more important or impactful to spreading the love of Christ, spending tens of thousands of dollars on stained glass windows, or using that money to instead help feed the local poor, or build houses/shelters for homeless people. It goes to Matthew 25: 34-46. Did Jesus tell those to depart from Him because they didn't have a beautiful building? No, it was because they didn't take care of the poor, and didn't visit the prisoner, or didn't welcome the stranger. So while it is valid that many Non-Denominational churches aren't the most visually appealing (there are many that are beautiful however), it really doesn't matter as Christ puts much more emphasis on serving than he does on visual appearances of the building. There are many different criticisms of the Non-Denominational congregations that you have which I could also get into and may sometime, but that was just one of the main ones I hear you talking about. Overall, I just recommend that you take what you encouraged Catholics/Orthodox to do in this video, and apply it to yourself when looking at Non-Denominational.
You’re talking about historical Protestants, but many Protestants of all denominations are like that. I’d argue that more people in the modern day follow these “misconceptions”
Amen❤❤❤🎉🎉😊😊
you guys have to realize that because of how north america was colonized, most of the more rural areas were very much separate in communication from larger denominations for a good part of their history. so because of this, anabaptists like the the Mennonites and Hutterites (i dont know how common the amish are on the prairies/midwest, i live in Canada where its mainly the first 2 picks of anabaptists) gained a large amount of influence, and many churches were just collections of christians grouping together, forming a council, and leading their church in what they believed is the way they should.
there are plenty of churches from denominations that are a lot more loose in small towns as to the specific rules of their denomination, without being theologically liberal. there are also many loose low church organizations that are developing into their own denominations. honestly, when you go looking for a Church, you end up just asking basic questions such as does this church a) believe in the trinity, b) believe in modern day miracles such as faith healings and working in the spirit, and c) how often do they preach from the word, and how often do they partake of the sacraments.
you usually dont have a lot of choice, so you need to be careful and willing to travel a bit out of your way. Often you'll find some of the most sound and stable churches are Mennonites, the non retreatist but fully pacifist anabaptist church. sometimes its the Catholic Church, though ive seen some bad ones, sometimes you have a really strong presbyterian, Lutheran, or Protestant. most of the time though, it is non denominational churches that are the most theologically sound and biblically grounded.
i myself attend a nondenom, but i hold the spirit is present in communion, and we partake of the spirit. similarly, i believe that baby dedication and the baptism of babies hold the same position, to put a shield of faith around our children and keep them in God's protection, while at the same time charging the Church and family to take care to raise the child in the ways of the Lord. i was baptized when i was 6, and i still remember feeling the peace and fulness of the lord upon me, so i can't rightly say their is a real age limit, because i know while i was raised well my understanding back then was more simple than most churches like for a child when they dont baptize infants.
i dont believe you all fully understand how much of an umbrella term non denominational is, when it comes to matters of faith, especially when you come from very high density areas. you'll find out here in the midwest even the more dense areas still have a fairly high percentage of non denoms due to the amount of denoms that have fully strayed from the Bible in their teachings.
Honestly when i Find out that some protestants belive in presence of Jesus in comunion i have Happy surprised smile (i find it few months ago) but its sad that many protestants have more faith in Johns McArther's and ramirez's lies that eucharist
5:05 this is merely practical and many still offer communion in both kinds. But either is the whole and indivisible Christ, and thus the body itself is sufficient. This is not a superstitious practice.