Pope accepting idols as per Vatican news service. Is that really a development? To people who know anything at all of the person of Christ that's a regression.

Physiognomy hasn't failed yet.

Why can’t people just let giants be giant

Did this for a weekend once. It was pretty cool

I'm glad that other Protestants are also interested in Newman and his thought. The subject fascinated me enough to devote my master's thesis in theology to it. I first describe Newman's theory of doctrinal development, then summarize the history of its reception, and finally make a critique of it from a classically Protestant position, exposing seven key problems with it. Within a few years I intend to publish a revised, improved and expanded version of my work in the form of a book.

💯

What we tell ourselves when we don't want to submit to what Jesus established

You need an infallible Magisterium because the world has fallen people, that way even if the people fall something always keeps it together that does not have a manmade name attached to it. Like: Martin Lautner, John Calvin, Church of England...etc

Man as someone REALLY struggling with this, professed my faith in Christ. Originally wanted to be Baptist, then Orthodox, then Catholic, and currently Anglican... Feeling so so so lost. I pray every day, I pray the rosary, I go to church but I find fault in every denomination I look into. Catholicism seems the most true on paper from my extensive research, but I feel like it has so many man-made doctrines added to it. Then I think Jesus gave the church the power to add man-made doctrines; I feel some doctrines just feel so distant from who Christ is and what he would say, like people outside of the Catholic church, potentially not being saved or going to heaven. I feel like the Lord looks at someone's heart, their love and their being, their fate in the Lord. Not following dead rituals like the Pharisees. I feel the Catholic faith has so many technicalities in regards to things. But then Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. I think many of those 'dead rituals' have tremendous power, and actions shape character. I feel lost. Pray for me. Just want to say you are awesome and I feel I relate to your videos so much. I feel like Anglicans is the best of both worlds; less technicalities and man-made traditions with a lot of holy tradition, liturgy, sacraments and beauty.

Satan created a Catholic Church. Through his first beast emperor Constantine a sun god worshiper and a killer. Jesus doesn't kill with the sword. Emperor Constantine didn't want to deal with 12 apostles so he made a pope.

Austin why are you teaching demonic teachings. You're not supposed to be listening to a priest you're supposed to be obeying Jesus. I know why Austin you're not obeying Jesus because you don't have the holy Spirit in you. You don't love Jesus that's the truth. You're obeying man's interpretation of everything. Jesus through the holy spirit will tell you the true history of God's people not the tainted version of the Bible or the book that you're promoting from some priests who is not the living Jesus Christ this priest wrote this book road under his own understanding with the fleshly carnal mind. The flesh cannot anything spiritual..

Austin why would you want to be a Catholic. Hitler was a devoted Catholic. He killed the Jews because they killed their Messiah. The Catholic Church helped the Nazis escape to other countries and gave them passports. Ask yourself Austin why would they do that evil thing. Austin question your Catholic religion or your faith in the Catholic religion. The living Jesus Christ doesn't do those things.

Austin what would you want to go to the Catholic Church a church that lies. They said that apostle Peter was the first pope. That's a lie from hell.. Peter hated gentiles. Emperor Claudius commanded all the Jews to leave room. Apostle Peter would never make divisions in the body of Christ. Since the Catholic priests can't marry. The Catholic priests marry each other. Apostle Peter had a wife so he couldn't be a Catholic priest. See how the Catholic Church lies all the time

Austin what compelled you to be a Protestant. Do you know that the Protestants they killed holy Spirit children. The religion that you were once in. They hung for them in Boston. Holy Spirit children. The Catholics religion they killed holy Spirit children too. Why would you want to be in religions like that

Anyways Austin why would you want to be a Protestant. The Protestant religion. They like to touch little children to the priests do. So when you give money to the Protestant or the Catholic church and they use that money to touch little children while you're just like them. It starts with a p. Austin you need to pray to Jesus in the spirit and ask her for the truth. Austin you're in Bible religion . Where those churches are built on the Bible for the Bible. Jesus's 7 gatherings of Asia were built on the holy Spirit. Not a Bible Bible.

Austin did you ask the Catholic church if they're part of the lbgtq community. Because the priests cannot marry. So they marry each other. Also Jesus doesn't kill with the sword. Did you ask those questions Austin. Toledo's educated people. I would like to know

Austin did you ever ask those educated fools about. Why did the Catholic Church kill the gnostics I'm persecute them because they want to come under the Bible. Because the early gnostics had the holy spirit in them. So if the Catholic Church is of God and the Nazis had gotten them. Why would the Catholic Church persecute them and torture them and kill them. Did you ask those hard questions. I would like to know

Austin but you're not asking the right questions. You're asking educated fools. Did you tell him why do the priests like to touch little children that's not of Jesus Jesus wouldn't do that. Did you ever ask them about that.

Austin. Why would you want to go to a Catholic Church. Were the priests like to touch little children. Jesus doesn't do those evil things.

The Orthodox do not have an infallible magisterium on every little matter because these are not important. They consider only Ecumenicak Synods infallile and those cannot happen in the past 1000 years and those that did happen dealed with basic, fundamental truths and doctrine. In Orthodox Christianity one is entited to their opinion, the Spirit will prevail, and shoving our opinions down other people's throats is not Orthodox. Of course, no human is infallible and all will err from time to time. Whether CS Lewis believed in hell or not is not important, the reality is the Church believes that Hell is the removal from the presence of God and that distancing is the source of eternal torment, a place with no Truth, Light, Living Water, Life or Love, a place of eternal scorching thirst for that which has been lost. Yes, there is an objective Truth and a reasoable person can see it but we each choose to be unreasonable at times on different subjects. One needsa Compass and the Apostolic Church is that.

Trivia: Peter the Apostle of Christ is the First Pope of the Catholic Church, and St. Evodius of Antioch invented the word Christian

I’m orthodox. I really have to say Protestants like you who are so open minded like this will make a better world a new Christendom ❤️ may the Lord give it purpose.

Coming from a Roman Catholic I think many non-Catholic Christians both Orthodox and Protestant find Catholicism intimidating. The authority and structure can seem overbearing, not to mention the Pope. For me it is a sureness in the things that are essential. I think the genius of the west is the Universal nature (Catholic) of its outlook. Orthodox attitudes of “ethnic” churches is a real turn off for a lot of folks. I wonder if it is a residue from the days of the Empire. Another thing to consider is Eastern Catholic Churches. Each of them uses a traditional liturgy but retains a unity with the universal and thus does not become insular in attitude. I know most people in the comments lean Orthodox but I really just want to stay with the Pope. It was Rome that was orthodox in all of its beliefs in the early Church and it’s my firm belief that She still is. With the great debacle that was the Sexual Revolution it’s truly a miracle that not one doctrine of the Church has been altered in the west since it was in the west that the revolution took place. Be it stubbornness or Grace I really think God’s hand is evident.

Thank you for your video!! If you are looking for a good book that will give you insight into the Coptic Church, please read A Silent Patriarch by Daniel Fanous. It’s a beautiful biography of Pope Kyrillos VI that was a huge push for me to convert to Coptic Orthodoxy.

Austin: What in the world is this man talking about? 97 minutes of nothing!

which of the 45,000 Protestant denominations in the USA?

Very interesting to watch as a Latter-day Saint. I need to read the original but I think a critical question is "what are the necessary qualifications for an authorized arbiter of doctrinal development?"

it's impossible for the magisterium to be infallible anyway

I could never become Orthodox or Roman Catholic because they each claim to be the true church and everyone else is essentially lost. Vatican II softened that some, but we'll all still have to go through Purgatory first. Both broader sects and the smaller sects within act as a gateway to Christ, where my Bible says I can come to Christ just as I am and be saved. I do not need to confess to a priest I can confess to THE Priest. I do not need to be a member of a particular sect because when I am in Christ, I am already part of the church and grafted into the vine. I simply attend a congregation that best fits my convictions. No gets saved by being a member of an earthly church, we get saved by being in Christ. So, while we generally agree that everyone is saved by Christ, I cannot actually get to Christ unless I join an Orthodox sect. I find that hugely problematic and contrary to the very idea of the Gospel.

The change between Vatican I and II should basically dissuade anyone from becoming Catholic

Finally! My wife and I have slowly been converting to the Copts for over a year now.

A high protestant church like a lutheran or anglican may suit you. I understand your view point, but I personally could not digest the pope and the view on saints, Mary and not at least the purgery with know theological backing at all is hard to swallow. Traditions, church calendars and costums is present in most high churches if you look for them. Good luck on your journey. And I love C. S Lewis view on God, I recommend his books. Best wishes!

Awesome video, thank you! You should next read DBH's "Tradition and Apocalypse." He addresses Newman and has some critiques.

20:57 I did for my part not ignore another book by Newman, or two. History of the Arians of the IVth Century Apologia pro Vita Sua Indefectibility and institutional visibility are literal hallmarks of the Church Jesus founded as per a literal interpretation of the NT text. These would be mystical interpretations of the OT texts, in the sense that the Catholic Church physically speaking doesn't seem to be identical to Israel, but see this one: *And I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth: and I will establish with thee an everlasting covenant.* [Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 16:60] Fulfilled in Matthew 28:16--20. Jews might find it hard to pretend God already established an everlasting covenant on Sinai, since that is at odds with Ezechiel saying He _will_ do so in what was in Ezechiel's day still upcoming future.

16:30 I would say that Papal or at least Roman infallibility has a very literal early exponent. I think it's St. Irenaeus.

_"without __13:53__ spiritual ex exegesis we can kiss the __13:57__ Trinity and other dog of the faith __14:00__ goodbye now this is a bold claim but it __14:03__ has been somewhat vindicated by more __14:05__ recent scholarship at least with the __14:06__ Trinity specifically Rowan Williams the __14:09__ former Archbishop of Canterbury has a __14:11__ groundbreaking work on Arius and in it he __14:13__ argues that Arius was in fact kind of the __14:15__ more literal reader of scripture whereas __14:17__ people like athanasius and Arius' other __14:19__ opponents were a bit more imaginative in __14:22__ their interpretations"_ In fact, this is taken pretty straight from Newman's own _History of the Arians of the IVth Century._ Now, that work was re-edited with a variation after Newman converted. The work you read is actually not a peace of authorised Catholic theology as such, it was published before Newman converted, and it was written and published from the standpoint of the Anglican converting to Catholicism, not from the standpoint of the Catholic. That these are different can be seen from my own case. The Lutheran who converted to Catholicism decided the case of Caerularius very quickly, like Caerularius was basically a vassal rebelling against his liegelord the Pope. Not much better than the Bohemian King rebelling against the Holy Roman Emperor. That's why, in 2006, and after dissatisfaction with antipopes Wojtyla and Ratzinger I was ready to ask "what if local bishop is the Petrine office, like Palamas thought?" In 2009, I returned to Roman Catholicism, having found Orthodoxy a dead end, and even then at first to the FSSPX on the theory that they have (and I think they do have) an ecclesiology not very different from the Orthodox. Now (as of lately) I am pretty much somewhat more able to trace the papacy through centuries like IV and V, as opposed to "primus inter pares" views of those Popes. So, my view of the matter when I was a Lutheran ready to convert, and my view now as a Catholic, are not the same. This book by John Henry Newman was not by "John Henry Newman the Catholic" (received and instructed by the Church), it was by "John Henry Newman the Anglican who was ready to convert to Catholic" .... This is often forgotten equally by people who want to use "development of doctrine" as a cop-out for Old Earth Creationism and people who want to totally ditch Newman altogether because of this. I'm not totally trusting either the judgement of Rowan Williams nor the initial one of John Henry Newman on Trinity being strictly dependent on going beyond the literal reading.

Parallelism parallels typology,!

13:43 The Reformers did not invent literal reading. What was the hallmark of the Church was not an exclusively mystical reading, it was a mystical also reading. I'm all for "ark of the covenant" having in each OT occurrence a mystical reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary. I'm not for, and Newman wasn't for denying that the genealogy of Genesis 11 adds up to Abraham born in 292 after the Flood in Masoretic and Vulgate, 1070 in a correct LXX, 1170 in an edition of the LXX, 942 in some manuscripts of the LXX, arguably bases for Julius Africanus' manuscript of Vetus Latina. Oh, Julius Africanus and St. Augustine didn't get their love for literal exegesis on this point from the Reformers. Multiple meanings doesn't mean "spiritual meaning only" ... if anything it means the opposite.

12:54 Prooftext for Newman's principle: *And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him* [Luke 24:27] Example of this principle applied: *For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him* [John 19:36] Which is mystical exegesis of: *In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof.* [Exodus 12:46] And of: *They shall not leave any thing thereof until morning, a nor break a bone thereof, they shall observe all the ceremonies of the phase.* [Numbers 9:12] "Thereof" and "of him" differ in English, because English masculines are automatically males, usually human, and a lamb would be "it" in English. Not so in Hebrew.

I’ll just leave this here: David Bentley Hart’s recent book Tradition and Apocalypse. I hope some of you will read it.

How would you structure your day? Would you pic book 1 and read it straight through? Or take a few books on different subjects and work your way through them?

It is written in the new testment. Jude 6 7 1 Peter.3 19-20. They became unclean spirit demons when they fall from heaven. You should read it.

Jude 6 7 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. When the angels fall they become unclean spirts knowin as demons

Newman's point about mystical interpretation being essential to orthodoxy was one of the key stumbling blocks for me in Protestantism. Because it became really obvious that it just simply wasn't the case that, using a standard reading of texts, you could absolutely exclude all the interpretations (or even most of the interpretations) of the Bible the orthodox want to exclude. How much God is Christ? The orthodox think there's basically only one answer here: fully God. But also fully man. But a person off the street, with no commitment to Christianity or any sense of its interpretative tradition, could absolutely come to any number of different conclusions just from reading the text. But those conclusions are excluded. Or at least they are by the Protestants most intent on Sola Scriptura. Lots of protestants in more theologically liberal communities, with less attachment to the reformation principles as such, are perfectly willing to allow more diversity in Christology or Trinitarian theology. And I'd say they're right, if what we're doing is just using ordinary interpretative principles to read a text. But that's not what we're doing. We're reading through the eyes of faith, the lens of history, the tradition of a church.

Man Austin, 😮😮😮. Thanks for sharing this.