5 BAD Arguments for Catholicism (as commonly presented in YouTube comments)

This video is sponsored by Faithful Counseling. For 10% off your first month, use the link, www.faithfulcounseling.com/gos...
Having spent the past two years or so publicly exploring Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the history of the church, I've come across all types of arguments for Catholicism. These range from existential crisis inducing arguments to pure cringe, and everything in between. In this video, I'm covering five bad arguments for Catholicism that I come across frequently on KZbin.
As I note in the introduction, this is not to say that there aren't good arguments for Catholicism. Rather, this video is made in an attempt to elevate the level of dialogue around Protestant-Catholic disagreements so that we all might seek to understand one another better and come closer together.
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: gospelsimplicity.creator-spri...
Austin and Eliza's Wedding Registry:
www.zola.com/registry/elizaan...
We in no way expect you all to get us anything, but the generosity of this community always exceeds my expectations, so if you'd like to support us as we start our life together, you're welcome to look at this list.
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a KZbin channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 23 year old guy who’s passionate about the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel. I believe that the gospel, the good news about Jesus, is really good news, and I’m out to explore, unpack, and share that good news with as many people as possible. I'm a full blown Bible and Church History nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this, learning as much as I can, and then teaching whatever I can. I grew up around Frederick, MD where I eventually ended up working my first job at a church. They made the mistake of letting me try my hand at teaching, and instantly I fell in love. That set me on a path for further education, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL, studying theology. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
01:24 - Sponsored
01:56 - Why Make this Video?
03:16 - Argument 1 - John 6
05:36 - Argument 2 - Who founded your church?
07:45 - Argument 3 - Who gave you the authority to judge the Catholic Church?
11:02 - Argument 4 - "All the Church Fathers..."
13:11 - Argument 5 - "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"
16:21 - Reflections
17:33 - Sponsored
18:46 - Conclusion
6SONAXLJGODS9N6N
YBJJF4W66FC14RQS

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

Congratulations on getting married!!! "Marriage is a duel to the death" -- G.K. Chesterton

[@billschrader5139]

Yes - Married for 56 years, Bad days - few but a huge majority of good, wonderful days.

[@kimberlyrose1170]

As someone enthusiastically investigating church history and the catholic church, I really enjoyed this video! Thanks for taking the time to make this video! Oh and congratulations on your marriage!

[@CartwrightFour]

Same here! Best in your studying for truth and answers

[@danfsteeple]

Look into Orthodoxy ☦️

[@ignacioromerocarranza5711]

I'm Catholic and I've learnt a lot with this video. Congratulations on everything that you've achieved lately, specially on getting married. Don't give up this channel, it really is something else. Greetings from Buenos Aires, Argentina.

[@viviennebaptiste]

You should also try and read the Bible, read Judges 17, you'll learn about a man who thought worshipping God with images was a good idea

[@justokproductions222]

Love Argentina! Hello from a high-church Protestant with family in Buenos Aires

[@io3089]

Judges 17? Have you read all the story or only few verses? That man was not worshiping the Lord but "two "gods" he made": "So he said, “You have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and you have gone away. Now what more do I have? How can you say to me, ‘What ails you?’ ”"(Judges 18:24)

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

@@io3089 35,000 protestant churches which have no authority ,have different views of the bible ,3,200 ministers became catholic , many ex protestants by reading what the catholic church teaches ,also read about the early fathers, no bible until 350 to 390 ,early church went by tradition , there were two bishops that study under john 97 years old , catholic church follows the early church tradition ,also many protestants are taught to hate catholics , read some protestant ministers that became catholic on you tube

[@seanthompson5077]

After flipping denominations, more than once, I found that a healthy debate, full of humility, between a Catholic & Protestant with Christ at the center, led by the Holy Spirit, and not by a spirit of pride, can be very fruitful.

[@justintrefney1083]

If you read John 6 It clearly states that all the Church fathers, Including John Henry Newman, agreed that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and and you should submit to the Church's authority. I kid, I kid. As a Catholic I appreciate your videos, especially this one.

[@jeremiahong248]

Will there be another video for 5 bad arguments for Protestantism ?

[@EricAlHarb]

My man! The majority of Christians Orthodox and Protestants aren’t Catholic

[@GospelSimplicity]

Actually, there will be!

[@jeremiahong248]

@@GospelSimplicity Actually I do appreciate this video as a Catholic to know what the other side think when these arguments are presented. However for arguments 4 and 5, I hope you don't echo Dr Ortlund as his arguments on these 2 points are flawed.

[@TommyGunzzz]

@@jeremiahong248 how so? He's pretty spot on with that critique and I don't agree with him on much

[@hunterw6631]

We Orthodox Christians are catholic, simply not Roman Catholic

[@HighKingTurgon]

To my fellow-Catholics: Mr. Suggs is spot-on. I think that all investigating the claims of the Catholic Church do need to seriously consider the issue of authority. But beyond that issue, there are no slam-dunks in apologetics and evangelization. Hearts of flesh are not DEFEATED in conversion; they are elevated! If you approach evangelism as a battle against your fellow men, you have failed to "love one another." St. Paul himself reminds us precisely who the battle is against. Thanks, Austin, for your charitable appraisal of our flaws. And congrats on your wedding and your new digs!

[@HighKingTurgon]

@Eddard Tyrsson Mr. Child of the One-handed Wolfyboi, I am going to presume that your question is not rhetorical and attempt to engage it in good faith. However, I would appreciate a clarification on what you mean so I don't misapprehend your point: do you suggest that it is commonplace for schismatic groups to dismiss Catholic claims as fallacious appeals to authority, or rather that such a characterization is itself a caricature? If I may clarify my own point, I intended to note that it is important to confront the question of authority: does the Catholic Church have the authority to promulgate a list of divinely inspired texts? To legislate liturgical practice? To impose norms upon the followers of Jesus? I say yes, but that is itself an act of faith based on the credibility of the Church's witness down the ages.

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

@@HighKingTurgon No its authority is not based on faith alone, the authority of the CC is scriptural, historical and rooted in ancient Temple Judaism. From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. 2/ Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government). Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return.

[@HighKingTurgon]

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker My dear, I haven't the faintest notion who this is for. As I have already said, there are historical and spiritual grounds for credibility which inform and bolster my faith in the Church's authority. At no point do I suggest or imply that one just only blindly put credence in the authority of the Church. Although I do claim that the authority of the Scriptures comes de jure and, I would argue, de facto from the authority of the Church-the reasoning quickly becomes tautological if I claim the Church's authority is scriptural. The Holy Books are the Church's books. I can no more demonstrate the Church's rectitude from the Bible than I can the Jehovah's Witnesses from The Watchtower.

[@johnvitelli3862]

He is completely wrong

[@HighKingTurgon]

@@johnvitelli3862 He's right that these are fallacious arguments as usually presented. Aquinas wouldn't follow the logic of far too many of our apologists. It doesn't matter if the faith is true if we can't effectively communicate it to our brethren. We WANT Protestants to tell us how we're doing-that way we can do better!

[@mikeoconnor4590]

All of the arguments that you present as “bad” are presented in a rather simplistic way. The historic argument for example which you say is a “bad” argument - doesn’t really look at what is being said by Catholic apologists. I’ve had the privilege of discussing this issue with several ex Protestant ministers who became Catholic in large part due to the historic argument. One of them - who had his PHD in church history - was of the thought that many of those Protestants who become knowledgeable about church history do not convert - not because of the lack of historical evidence but rather because of psychological impediments (eg they have a psychological aversion ) or social impediments (eg they would lose their livelihood). I think one thing is clear - from the historical perspective that to me is the death blow to the Protestant philosophical approach to understanding Christianity. Namely that by the time the church recognized the New Testament canon - all of the Catholic / Orthodox distinctions were believed. In short “that” church believed in and practiced the seven sacraments, believed in the mass as a sacrifice, the fleshly corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, prayed to the Saints in heaven, prayed for the dead , recognized the hierarchical priesthood, the necessity of bishops and apostolic succession etc. In reading the conversion stories of folks like Hank Hanagraff (to orthodoxy) Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Francis Beckwith, Dave Armstrong, Marcus Grodi and John Henry Newman to name a few - the historical arguments played a major role in shaping their understanding of the faith once delivered. I have often found that Protestants who try to deny the history - seem to look for outliers in patristic thought - thoughts that at the time were not clearly defined - in order to undermine what came to be the consensus belief. Bottom line is why should we trust that the Church recognized the books of the New Testament correctly - if that same Church got everything else so wrong? That for me is the problem with the Protestant approach to understanding Christianity Since we are saved by faith - faith in Christ and His entire message and teachings - it seems that Protestantism essentially is a denial of faith (Eg I don’t believe in the real presence I don’t believe in prayers to the saints etc) thus the Protestant system is in its essence is a lack of faith and a denial of Christs promise to lead the Church in all truth through the Holy Spirit.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Hello Mike, There is a lot there to address, but if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to discuss this: "Bottom line is why should we trust that the Church recognized the books of the New Testament correctly - if that same Church got everything else so wrong?" Couple of considerations: 1.) One can believe that "the Church" did in fact recognize the books of the New Testament correctly, without necessarily concluding that "the Church" is defined in the same way as someone else who uses the term "the Church". 2.) If I may assume that you are using the term "the Church" to identify the Roman Catholic Church, help me understand how we make the jump from "recognized the books of the New Testament correctly" to "got everything else wrong". I don't think you will find many (thoughtful) people who would say that the Roman Catholic Church "got everything else wrong". I do think you may find people who would need to be educated on how the Roman Catholic Church has gotten everything right...in an infallible sense. 3.) Have you considered that it did not take infallible men to write the Scriptures, transcribe the Scriptures, translate the Scriptures, distribute the Scriptures, and every other step in the process of us being so blessed as to have the very Words of God in our hands? Why then, would we conclude that we need infallible men to identify Scripture? I'm willing to explore a discussion on these matters if you would like.

[@mikeoconnor4590]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 At this point in history there was no claim to infallibility - though I do think the church has to be both visible and have the character of infallibility since Christ commands believers to hear the church (Matt 18) and it seems implausible that He would command us to hear an entity that could be wrong and that wasn’t identifiable But that s a whole different discussion. Would love to see a video discussion between knowledgeable Catholics and knowledgeable Protestants on the nature and characteristics of the church - who Saint Paul describes As the “bride of Christ” and “body of Christ” and all that that implies. I am simply saying here that the church - believed all of the Catholic / Orthodox distinctive beliefs by the time that we find full intact lists of the New Testament. If that visible church was a reliable witness to what books were inspired - then if we are to be consistent - we really can’t say they were an unreliable witness to Christian belief and practice. I am not saying by the way that these Catholic/ Orthodox distinctive a cannot be found earlier - they clearly are. Simply saying the the Protestant denies almost all of these distinctive beliefs - which seems inconsistent at best. In other words why accept the NT books as inspired as recognized by the early church but reject their understanding of a hierarchical church, 7 sacraments , practices such as prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead (both found in the etchings in the catacombs) etc. If the church was a reliable witness to which books were inspired then I see no reason to doubt their reliability in regards to the beliefs implied or explicitly found in those inspired books.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@mikeoconnor4590 Thank you for the reply and your time, Again, there is too much there for me to adequality address all your points, but if I may explore one: "we really can’t say they were an unreliable witness to Christian belief and practice" Do you think that Christians who do not belong to the (Roman) Catholic or (Orthodox) Catholic community find the early witnesses (church fathers for example) as unreliable witnesses?

[@mikeoconnor4590]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 I think most Protestants have never really looked at this issue - since they function under a “scripture alone” approach to Christianity. By saying this - I don’t think these fine folks are acting in bad faith - just think they have a truncated view of the gospel since they limit themselves to a non historical construct that I do not think is commanded or required by scripture. I would love to see a discussion on the nature of the church established by Christ between two or three knowledgeable people. I think historically Christ did not establish a Church that should follow a sola scriptura approach as this approach could not have been feasible as a practical matter before “the books “ were recognized as scripture ( not to mention the problem of distributing the books in a pre printing press environment). It also should be quite apparent that Paul’s letters were written to churches - that were already established - thus these churches were not established on a sola scriptura model since scripture (the New Testament I mean here) didn’t exist as until all of the letters were completed. These churches clearly already were a living Christian body before the letters were written. Thus the church must have been established with a different approach. I think the historic record indicates the approach - was based on verbal teaching by the apostles or men chosen by the apostles or their successors (in other words there was an organic connection to Christ).

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@mikeoconnor4590 You make some very solid points there Mike. Well articulated. I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, not necessarily on your part, but in general, that the (properly understood)concept of sola scriptura completely ignores all these valid concerns. One who says that we can ignore history (including your many valid points) because the Scriptures say x,y,or z….in my humble opinion, does not understand “sola scriptura”, and may fall into the “solo scriptura” camp. “Sola Scriptura” assuredly takes historical context into account.

[@chromatticxbl4341]

Love that you have your ring in the thumbnail. Congrats on the wedding!

[@oggiep3915]

On Argument 5, when I first heard it, I just thought it meant that if you went back in time far enough, you would cease to be Protestant because Protestantism didn't exist before Martin Luther. The same can't exactly be said of the Orthodox because they also (like Catholics) believe themselves to be the stem, not the branch. Protestantism is clearly the branch and not the stem however. This is made especially clear by the fact that it continues to branch from itself constantly to this day.

[@xxFairestxx]

Yep. Exactly ^

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

Yeah, agreed. It's not helpful to be smug about it as a Catholic, but Protestantism never shied away from what it was - a reformation of Christ's church.

[@Wilkins325]

“Denominations disprove Protestantism” is not an argument

[@Kevin_Beach]

You analyse ideas much more deeply than most people do. Of course the arguments you've exemplified are bad arguments, but most proper Catholic apologists don't use them anyway. That's why the Catholic Church takes a long time before licensing an individual as a theologian. Just as many Protestants are ignorant about Catholicism and its tenets, many Catholics are ignorant of sincere Protestant thinking.

[@bobaphat3676]

what sincere protestant thinking?

[@Kevin_Beach]

@@bobaphat3676. Oh, many Protestants have some very sincere and well considered views, which they express lovingly and with care. Austin Suggs is an excellent example. We should never demonise them just because we disagree with them.

[@bobaphat3676]

@@Kevin_Beach I agree.

[@bobaphat3676]

@@mr.google2680 no.

[@dz2423]

Which Catholic apologist should I listen to?

[@kip7697]

My dad showed me this channel and I’m going to love delving into more of your videos. I really want to share the purpose of this channel in the way I engage with people of different views as well.

[@delvaassante5699]

Would love to see Trent Horn’s comments on whether they are bad arguments or not.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Trent Horn would present these arguments much better than most, and thus, they probably wouldn't be bad arguments then :)

[@bethmedina9200]

@@GospelSimplicity exactly my thoughts! Trent would have a field day with these lazy assertions!

[@realmless4193]

Okay so here are the nuances I would give to each argument. 1: the Eucharist isn't idolatry because John 6 proves it is truly God. I'm not arguing for Catholicism being true here, simply explaining how Catholic theology in this area comes from the Bible. Lots of denominations have similar Eucharistic theology, so this can't prove Catholicism in itself, but it does shoot down a argument against Catholicism. 2: The Catholic Church was not founded by men, but God, and other Churches, in separating themselves from that authority God established, traded divine foundations for human ones. This is still a bold claim, and I would really only use this as a thesis statement to then argue for in looking through Church history. The argument essentially goes like this: P1: The Catholic Church was Founded by God P2: God never left the Catholic Church P3: Protestants did leave the Catholic Church P4: God only has 1 Church C: Protestants left God's Church. I would then go on to prove each premise in turn to reach that conclusion. History is complicated though and you really have to handle the story piece by piece, but nonetheless, I do think of all the Churches out there, only afew, the largest, have the ability to reasonably claim they were founded by Jesus and are not seperate from his Church, these would be the Catholic Church and the two Orthodox communions. I don't think the idea of the invisible Church holds water when it is used as a justification to start a new Church and forsake an old one, but I do think it has its place when we look at it from the perspective of hoping for a reunification of all Christians into one visible Church so that the world will know that we love one another (John 13:35). The question of the true Church isn't necessarily about what Church do you need to be in to be saved, there could hypothetically be multiple answers since we all walk the same way, but it is about what banner we do need to unite under and what ones we need to leave behind, and what ones we ought to integrate into the one banner as true expressions of the faith God has given us. Basically, as a Catholic, I do have a view of the invisible Church, but not in the sense that there is one spiritual Church and many physical Churches, but in the sense that there is one spiritual Church meant to inhabit one Church as it's body, but God has not wholly forsaken the souls that have been caught up in the division of this one body and has not allowed them to be wholly seperated from the Church for their own salvation and for the future healing of his bride, the Church. To be more offensive, but really to be more informative, this is the way I view the Church as it stands: an extremely sick woman on the point of death. I view the Orthodox as the part of the body that is paralyzed, but still fed by the blood, paralyzed cause they do not make significant gains for the kingdom, fed by the blood cause their Eucharist is still valid; Protestants as infected, dying, and dead portions of the body, dying cause the cutting off of apostolic succession has invalidated their Eucharist and so they are no longer fed by the proper means, and infected because the world has entered into it; and the Catholic Church I view as the last healthy part, but with so much of it's body what is left for it to do? Not only this, but it is infected by it's own diseases, namely certain cancers, heresies, modernism you could say, that take from the life of the body, since they eat a valid Eucharist, but they do no participate in the body and work towards worldly gain just like cancer which takes from the body for it's own ends. This is how I think of the whole Church as it stands. I understand it will be offensive. 3: Who gave you the authority.... To found your own Church. I don't think it's fair to say it's proud to have reservations about becoming Catholic, and I don't think it is fair to say you must submit or be an asshole, but I do think it is fair to say that Jesus established the first visible expression of the Church by ordaining the apostles and giving them the task of founding that expression. If Jesus himself established the first Church, I don't think there is any basis for any other group establishing a subsequent communion on the premise that the first visible communion may fail. By this I am saying that it is proud to think you can stand apart from the Church Jesus founded, for he ordained the 12 Apostles and they are the foundation he set (Revelation 21:14), and think that you are still in good standing with God. I do not say that you have to become Catholic, but that you out to look at the Church the apostles founded and observe it's history, see it go on from that day to our own to see where it has happened to land. 4: basically just what you said. I would probably use the phrase "general consensus" or "most". 5: "To be steeped in Church history is to cease to be a Protestant." The angle I take is that studying Church history does have a causal effect when it comes to making people no longer be Protestant, but this effect clearly isn't absolute. People tend to leave Protestantism because of an increase of knowledge about Church history. They may remain Protestant despite their genuine and in depth study of Church history, but it is rarely the case that people join Protestantism due to a study of Church history. Basically, it is more common for people to leave Protestantism cause of history also common for them to remain in spite of it, but not common for them to join because of it. This does point to a real, though not absolute, effect that Church history has on people, making them become less Protestant or making them leave altogether. There are also ways of looking at Church history that do make it more likely that you will leave Protestantism. If you try to trace back your denominational ancestry till you reach Jesus, you will probably find some path back to him and be able to remain Protestant, but this isn't proving anything cause if you left him then the path back to him is always the way you went away. However, if we start the story at Jesus and you try to trace the heirs of his apostolic teaching to today, you are much less likely to remain Protestant cause the questionable periods don't really ever point to Protestantism, not if you understand what led up to them. The questionable periods I know of are as follows: the Council of Chalcedon, the Great Schism (fourth Crusade), the Papal schism and the council of Constance, and the Protestant Reformation (then there are alot within Protestantism). The problem I see is that even if you come to a time like the Papal Schism and you can't make heads or tails of it except to say that the line of Popes has failed or doesn't matter, I don't see how that would lead you to Protestantism, but I would rather see it as reason to retrace your steps and start looking at the Eastern Churches instead. So yeah, you might be able to get to Protestantism if you go from beginning to end, but I don't see that as very probable. I don't know if you would end up Catholic, but I don't see Protestant as an easy sell if you start from the beginning of Church history.

[@a.kamileon]

John 6 is not talking about the Eucharist (it's actually found in Luke 22). John 6 is discussing the cross, His body broken for us and His blood shed.

[@christinacastillon6439]

Thank you for taking the time to respond in this way. I totally agree. Catholicism is not denomination. It seems some Protestants refuse to see the big picture clearly.

[@realmless4193]

@@a.kamileon why does he use the word "eat" then?

[@realmless4193]

@@christinacastillon6439 well, you have to be convinced of the big picture by degrees. The real narrative doesn't come all at once.

[@tysonguess]

@@a.kamileon "John 6 is discussing the cross" There is no witness attestation in the early church for this claim. All of the church fathers witness to being handed a teaching on the Eucharist regarding John 6. Jesus' use of the word, "Trogon" means to 'literally chomp, grind and tear' with the teeth solidifies this point.

[@donnabrounkowski7648]

Congrats on all your recent life accomplishments. Love your approach to all your discussions. It’s really had me digging into all these topics. Two others that are impacting my views are Blue Collar Catholic and Sonja Corbitt, the biblestudyevangelista. Would love to hear you dialogue with both of these.

[@ponderwoodtimes]

I can tell you love arguments and controversy about as much as I do, and yet I'm thankful for the grace God gives you, as well as the willingness you have to continue this nuanced journey! It has been so helpful in my own tangled journey through historic Christianity. I stopped the video right before that quote and stated it out loud to see if I was right! If only I had a dollar for every time I heard or read it in the last four years, inflation might be a tiny less painful at the moment!

[@ljones436]

As usual, a very thoughtful and respectful presentation. Thank you, Austin and congratulations on your marriage!

[@St_Bartys_Acolyte]

Congratulations on your many milestones! I feel like most of these could also be bad arguments for the Orthodox Church as well. And I'm saying that as someone who is Orthodox. Discussions in good faith are important. You have done a good job pointing out that nuance is a key aspect in this. Thanks for the video!

[@carolyndutton2851]

Good job! I love thought provoking reflections. As much as we want to understand the other side of the table, it is SO hard to push our own understanding out of the way long enough open our heart and mind and truly hear what the other person is trying to say.

[@craigsherman4480]

In short, you as a Catholic speaking to a Protestant, you need to begin with Scripture and then as you progress you need to be able to show where the Church comes into play instead of just hitting someone with blanket statements. It takes time and a nuanced approach to dialogue with someone instead of just throwing something out there.

[@amg2598]

He's not Catholic

[@craigsherman4480]

@@amg2598 yes, I know. God Bless

[@George-ur8ow]

As an Orthodox Christian, I usually start with Christology when speaking to Protestants. Many are unaware of or are unable to articulate, specifically, "who, exactly, is Jesus Christ?" beyond "He's the Son of God". It's often eye opening. All things flow from Christ. As the scriptures say - all things were created through Him, and, in the fullness of times, all things shall be summed up in Him. Theology begins and ends with Christ. A major error of the reformers was to place soteriology before Christology in their order theologea.

[@thomascanuel9937]

As a Catholic, I completely agree! Very poor arguments trying to bring an understanding of the faith to Protestants. The other thing is that we should never try to enter into a conversation with the complete intent of converting. We should be entering with charity, faith, and prayer. We can plant the seeds, but the Holy Spirit is the one who helps those seeds to grow. Especially to our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, they believe in the same God, and charity is just so important in any conversation, especially one about faith. Thank you for making this video! God bless!

[@francescogorbechov4192]

Regarding the last point, while I acknowledge there are indeed Protestants who are well versed in church history, it has been my personal observation that very few are. I have yet to meet a Protestant in person who knows anything about church history prior to the reformation.

[@pigetstuck]

a clue to broaden your circle ;-)

[@thecrimsonpookashell4485]

Christopher Rice is correct. I could just as easily say I've talked to 5 or 6 Orthos or Roman Catholics because I live in my suburb (or whatever) and none of them have read or know much about Justin Martyr. That would be doing an excellent job of making Austin's point. Weak points continue to be weak points because they aren't made from objectivity or honest research, but myopic animus against an unknown opponent who might not be wrong.

[@traceyedson9652]

Really good! I hope you do one on Orthodox & Protestants (that one may deserve 1-3 categories: magisterial, evangelical, & charismatic; maybe “non-denominational). Thanks for helping us defend & argue better. It’s easy for us in historically apostolic churches to just assume the argument of “authority” as self-evident when it isn’t to others. Also, “church father” oughtn’t just refer to anyone in antiquity. A “father” is, by historical consensus, authoritative, though not infallible. For example, Origen is not a “father,” though often treated as such.

[@ladytiamat]

I love your content. It's always informative but more importantly it reminds that we are all human beings and we should always show love in our interactions. Conversations, especially disagreements, are how we build our foundations of faith.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thank you so much! This was such an encouraging comment

[@solovief]

First, congratulations are in order on your recent marriage. And I'm glad you've been able to make some other new changes in your life recently. I have always enjoyed your approach to discussions of differences. I believe what you are sharing here is tremendously important. You lend a perspective that is so helpful to all sides of our inter-Christian dialogue. Thanks for your calm spirit, your wisdom and your patient approach to differences. I also agree with you about how the Newman quote is used. I feel that so many times people share quotes like 'truth bombs'. Honestly, any quotation worthy of sharing usually gains more power when encountered in the overall context of a writer's argument. I began my Christian walk in one tradition and passed through a few others before I arrived at my current affiliation. My own religious journey has been a lifetime process of simply growing in understanding and experience of Christ. My choice to change how and where I worship was definitely not a rejection of my prior way of worship. I see my current choice of church as a deepening of my earlier experience of the faith. I feel that God is much more patient and gentle with us as he calls us to a deeper experience of Him. I think we should extend that patience and gentleness to each other and our dialogue. Certainly there is room for challenge and for correction of previous notions. I think another problem with our religious affiliation and conversion stories, is that we often seem to rush into thing, to want very much to place a badge on ourselves, to seek some sort of finished state while God is simply asking us to spend time with him, to warm up to His mysterious presence and to find ourselves in a world of wonder and grace. If the Christian faith is only about our own mentating and grasping for self-resolution, we might miss the wonderful vistas that God has for us. It took me six or seven years to move from one faith tradition to another and along the way there were so many valid and special moments. I wouldn't change my own journey and I wouldn't want to impede that of someone I care about. I have so many allies outside my own faith tradition and I love the value they bring to my own experience of the faith. Thanks again for all you do here. I truly love your channel. Bill from Tampa

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the kind words Bill!

[@mimi_j]

A very much needed video. Much love and God bless you brother! Also congratulations on your marriage 💕💕

[@jditsfights256]

I really like how your critiques aren’t just disproving the arguments, but simply saying “this argument is flawed” and not “this argument is false.” Very productive

[@jasonrodgers880]

I'm consistently impressed by your ability/willingness to take a non-judgmental and balanced view of topics. As always, thank you for your videos. As far as the 5th argument, there's another way of understanding that claim (that those who truly understand Church history would no longer be protestant): the term "protestant" could be taken to mean "protestor to the Church / faith." I'd suggest Newman was saying that with a proper understanding of what the Church does and why, then the complaints against the Church would fade away. That may have been an overstatement, but I'm not sure it was meant so much as an attack against Protestantism, but a support of Catholicism.

[@TheWheelingDragon4013]

Congratulations on your marriage Austin! I absolutely love your videos! I find that on this one, I've done a few of these back in my early days of Catholic apologetics. Here's a question for you not related to the video lol. Would you ever be interested in dialoguing with a Catholic who has a disability to discuss how he or she finds comfort and God's love in the Catholic Church and how the Catholic Church forms their views on their disability? Same could be said for talking to someone with a disability who is a non-Catholic?

[@tedperkoski7534]

on the John 6th chapter if Christ did not mean it literally: Then as a Good Jew He would have had to explain because, what He was proposing was against the Mosaic Law.to eat His flesh and to drink of His Blood. He even had a second chance to explain when some of His Disciples walked away and would not follow him no more. What did He do? He turned to His disciples and ask ,Will you go also.? By the way, Congratulations on your wedding. Wishing you many Blessed and Happy Years.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Consider the possibility that you are working on 2 assumptions that not everyone assumes: 1.) Even if Jesus was not speaking literally, he, as a "Good Jew" would assuredly explain this misconception. Do you find that Jesus constantly explained misunderstandings throughout His ministry, in every instance of misunderstanding? 2.) that people left on the sole basis of the eating of flesh discussion. Do you find it possible that they left on the basis of everything he had just said? I find it interesting that many people (perhaps not yourself), assume they left just on the basis of the flesh eating point....completely ignoring that they could have left on the basis of this entire teaching. If they left on the basis of this entire teaching, we could explore what this entire teaching meant, in context, as a whole....and why they would have departed from it.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@Bb Dl Interesting perspective Bb Dl, How do I reconcile that with the following? Luke 18:33-34 and after they have flogged Him, they will kill Him; and on the third day He will rise.” 34 The disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said. This sounds fairly explicit that the "misunderstood", and I see no explicit explanation from the Lord Jesus at this moment. Mark 6:50-52 for they all saw Him and were terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and *said to them, “Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid.” 51 Then He got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped; and they were utterly astonished, 52 for they had not gained any insight from the incident of the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. This sounds explicit that the did not understand the "incident of the loaves", but I see no explicit explanation at this time from the Lord Jesus. These are just 2 of the many explicit, not to mention explicit examples that led to my original question above. So help me understand how "every time there was a misunderstanding He explained the true meaning to His disciples. More specifically, since this discussion arose on the subject of John 6, are you suggesting that He not only explained every misunderstanding, but He also did so in the immediate context. Thought: Maybe He did clarify the meaning of the Eucharist....in the passages that specifically address the Eucharist.

[@calebhickerson]

Great video. I’m thankful for your charitable spirit. And even as a prot, I’d love to see a video about bad Protestant arguments.

[@pilgrimspath1825]

Thanks Austin, I love your intention to bring us together to open dialogue Brilliant. Im Catholic and I find your content very thought provoking. May God continue to bless your endeavors. Be assured of my prayers my brother, God bless.

[@josephzammit8483]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4jOpZaNas6FbK8

[@CatholicCarpenter]

Austin, I’m a new subscriber to gospel simplicity I love your channel!! it’s a blessing to see your intellectual approach to so many topics. I am a Catholic. I am involved in apologetics. I have had some success in this area in refuting some who have misconceptions about the Catholic Church. I wasn’t quite sure where you were going to go with this, but again, I am astounded by your intellect and your explanation and perspective on how these are bad arguments. I do believe some are good arguments, but like you said, they need to be nuanced. Thank you for the work that you do on this channel in trying to bring unity to the Christian faith may God bless you! and keep up the good work my brother.

[@petrosdorizas6814]

"To be deep in Gospel Simplicity is to cease to be indifferent towards fellow Christian denominations." I was going to make something more grandiose but it definitely would not have been true, and even there it's stretching it, but hey, maybe a target, haha.

[@ucheodozor4147]

Thanks a million for sharing your thoughts. However, I've been out here on KZbin for years now, and I'm yet to find one single Catholic apologist who argues in the first three manners you have carefully outlined in this video. I have never seen anyone make the sweeping claim that all early Christian writers explicitly held views that might be considered to be strictly Catholic. Rather, a Catholic apologist would typically say that early Christian writers were either Church Fathers or heretics. Of course, they cannot be Church Fathers if they held heretical teachings, for example, if they denied the Trinity, Christ's divinity, or his humanity. So, that much is clear. Besides, it's not even necessary that all ancient Christian writers must affirm the same exact thing. It seems to me that the only thing needed to prove the claim that the Catholic Church is the same early church is a few early Christian writers who can give us a vivid picture of the Christian community life in the first century. And we're not in short supply of such ones. Second, when a Catholic apologist says that the Church is the authority or custodian of the truth of the Christian faith, it's not just a hypothesis or a projection. It's a statement of fact, based on scripture and history, a history that can be traced all the way from now to the first few decades of the Christian faith. Newman's famous cliche about being deep in history is basically meant to say that coming into acquaintance with Church history opens one's eyes to the rich historical heritage of the Catholic Church, especially its long-standing intellectual, theological tradition and the internal logic. It's not necessarily a disparagement of Protestantism, but an expression of a demonstrable conviction. Above all, bear in mind that most of the things said by Catholic apologists are usually said in defence of the Catholic Church against lies and falsehoods deliberately concocted by people in Protestant circles. Some of these falsehoods are deeply embedded in the fabric of Protestantism, usually as a hate message. I personally don't think it makes a great deal of sense to assume that the Catholic Church must be pulled down first before Protestant and Pentecostal churches can emerge. I perfectly believe that we can all make progress together in mutual respect and love. So, before anyone cries foul, let them ensure that they're not exactly guilty of the charges they are bringing against their neighbour. Shallom!

[@kevinmc62]

Thanks Austin! We Catholics should be aware of nuance and always strive to be charitable. Great word brother!

[@williamseeber6733]

I appreciate this topic. You are speaking more about the delivery of argumentation than the arguments themselves. By using a conclusion as an argument, it either assumes that the other person will proceed to ask why? The why needs to carry all the reason behind the conclusion. These are not arguments that stand alone and would be ridiculous to use them and not be ready to explain the reason for them. You approach this great.

[@nathansangalli5977]

Hey Austin! Great video, great channel. I’m interested in studying more theology. Any good book Suggestions?

[@GospelSimplicity]

Oh man, there are so many. I'd start with Theology as Discipleship, Delighting in the Trinity, and On the Incarnation. It's so hard to pick where to start though, and it depends on the subfield of theology you're interested in

[@nathansangalli5977]

@@GospelSimplicity ok cool I appreciate it I’ll definitely look into those. I’m thinking I want to study more along the lines of historical and systematic theology. There’s so many different books! Haha

[@alexs.5107]

1. The only people who believe the same things on the Eucharist as Catholics are orthodox Christians, Lutherans, ... don't. Christians, even those who claim to believe in the real presence don't necessarily believe in the catholic view. The specific forms of this belief varie from one denomination to another. 2. The ultimate reason why Catholics ask who founded your church is history: show me how that church Luther started relates to the early church, Are Luther's views in line with Christian witness before him? On this, Catholics tend to boast of an unbroken apostolic line of succession up to Jesus. 3.On Authority: the goal is not to make you submit to the Church immediately but to point out the lack of consistency in the protestant position. Since protestant ultimate authority is the Bible and everybody can have their own interpretation, where do you get the authority to judge the Church? Why should I trust your interpretation? It s not about arrogance. 4. On Church Fathers, I'll take your point 5. On Henry Newman: Everything else being equal, I think the average Christian who reads the Church fathers is more likely to walk towards Catholicism than Protestantism. Obviously Catholics who use these arguments, try to make a case for Catholicism. However, I doubt that they expect their protestant fellow Christians to just convert after any of the argument even though, as Austin said, some might strongly point to Catholicism. Congratulation On getting married Austin.

[@dawntrudeau]

Congratulations Austin on your marriage, graduation AND new home! Wow! Lol thank you so much for this video. 😊

[@jackdaw6359]

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" Only heard this quote the first time as a Catholic, a former Protestant... Because I studied history. The language of exaggeration in this quote should be obvious. I find it disturbing that people don't know that blanket statements are often just exaggeration for effect. And like another commenter said, there is also the fact that if you go back far enough (deep) into history you cease to find Protestantism.

[@bigfootapologetics]

"Who founded your church?" is actually a means by which the early Church denounced heretics. That's what St. Jerome is talking about when he says: "We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, men of the mountain, or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of the Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church." I personally don't know a better quote about why we shouldn't be Protestant. But I will say this was a great video! As a Catholic, it was helpful to hear how to better relate to my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ!

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Dada Bigfoot, Have you considered the possibility that there are people who you label as "Protestant" that do, in fact, believe they are part of the church that was founded by the Lord Jesus, with a potential historical background related to "reform" of the church founded by the Lord Jesus. Obviously, said people may define "church" differently than your post leads me to believe you would define "the Church". Do you think that these people you label as "Protestant" would say they belong to some different church than the one founded by the Lord Jesus?

[@bigfootapologetics]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Oh, absolutely. But they're few and far between. The most notable among them are Baptists who believe they have an unbroken line of succession to the early Church, typically through John the Baptist, but that's historically silly. Most Protestants can trace their churches directly to a specific person who founded their particular denomination or nondenominational church. That's what St. Jerome was talking about: rejecting any faith tradition that doesn't have an actual unbroken line of succession from the apostles, which, as we see in the Bible, was continued via the laying of hands.

[@Luna-ds4ww]

If you are waiting for answer from Austin you may not wait😄.But thank you for that answer.

[@bigfootapologetics]

@@Luna-ds4ww I don’t mean to be unkind in saying so! He’s totally right in saying that it’s not a good argument for Catholicism because it does presuppose Jesus founded the Church.

[@petertemple7851]

Thanks Austin. Would you be able to make a 5 good arguments for Catholicism video? God bless.

[@snocookies]

Great content brother.

[@user-ii3zs2gr6u]

Good points. Low-quality arguments exist for every position, and I hope you do more of these. When a fellow Orthodox Christian says: "It's in the name, the ORTHODOX Church, it's from Greek for..." I feel like smackin' 'em. A lot of bad arguments just presuppose the conclusion. E.g. Your first example, John 6, would work if there was only the Catholic Eucharist on one side, and crackers and grape juice on the other, so the former wins. Just think of the Eucharist debates between us Orthodox and the Catholic, we receive it in both species, they only in the bread (the Latin Rite at least), so does John 6 mean we win automatically? No, they would say the host is the Body, and the Body contains the Blood, and then there's a back and forth. Platitudinous sloganeering is bad for everyone involved, good work, Austin.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Ah yes, someone that sees what I'm getting at in this video!

[@hemsty2]

Congratulations Austin and your good lady (sorry I have forgotten her name) In the Roman Catholic church here in Australia, before COVID we used to receive under both kinds, but that was withdrawn because of the inherent risks of contamination - I expect it will be restored some time but while COVID is still running wild I somehow doubt it. Would you be willing to do a program listing good arguments for the Catholic faith?

[@robmusial]

Great video and congrats on the marriage! God bless you both

[@lyterman]

#5 A Protestant who knows a lot about history but has not converted may be due to reasons that aren't malevolent (bias, emotional difficulty, asymmetrical exposure only to Protestant apologetics, professional consequences, etc). A Catholic should still be able to reasonably say something like, "Knowledge about Church history should push a Protestant to become not Protestant (Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East)"

[@GospelSimplicity]

Perfect example of nuance!

[@glennlanham6309]

nah. the Papacy stands, and will always....compare Matthew 16:16-19 with Isaiah 22:15-24

[@glennlanham6309]

Assyrian Church of the East= NESTORIANS bro

[@lyterman]

@@glennlanham6309 I am a Catholic, so I don't really understand what you mean.

[@glennlanham6309]

@@lyterman don't settle for someone converting to a schismatic church, give them the fullness of the truth

[@nz3901]

Hi from New Zealand Austin. I watched this broadcast this morning about an hour before I went to Mass. I enjoy all your broadcasts, and especially your nuanced, open, informed, intelligent and charitable approach to all your guests and all the thorny theological and historical issues you deal with. I am under no illusion as to some of the illogical and/or theologically or biblically unsupported catholic stances and of medievalisms that are long overdue for removal, the 2nd Vatican Council notwithstanding. However I recall you once saying after careful thought that (I’m paraphrasing) that in your bones you felt “Protestant”. Well after a decades long waxing & waning in my faith as I watched this broadcast today I realised I am viscerally Roman Catholic. The big thing you didn’t mention was faith. That “freely willed assent of the intellect to revealed truth” as the catechism of my childhood taught. I am a Roman Catholic by faIth. God bless you and your work.

[@themartialartsmermaid]

Your point at the end about the way we treat each other having an impact upon those looking on really hit the nail on the head. Why would anyone want what we have if we treat each other like trash? This channel has been such an incredible blessing and I love, love, LOVE being able to see people from different backgrounds come together in love and respect in order to honor Christ.

[@glorytogodforallthings8448]

Great video, Austin. It is always easier to argue then to listen. I am guilty of it. I was reminded that we should choose peace over righteousness so I think of that before I leave comments. I wanted to give my two cents regarding knowledge of the history of the church, of the gospels, of the church fathers etc- it is all useless and foolishness (as St. Paul says in 1 Cor 2:14) if one does not live according to the word of God as the saints of the early church did. It is one thing to know about God and another to live the word of God, as Christ showed us. Much more to learn! Lord have mercy 🙏

[@fighterxaos1]

I am so glad you brought up that quote about being deep in church history. It really is brought up ad nauseam and it is weird that so many think no protestants know church history, or every protestant who studies church history left Protestantism. Overall though I'm glad you did this video. You're showing a lot of grace and not trying to tear people down, just showing why these arguments are bad arguments.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'm so glad that you seem to have understood the intent and spirit of this video.

[@erravi]

I think part of the reason it’s brought up so much, with the assumption that Protestants don’t know church history or if they do that they convert out, is because of the person’s background. I’m really fond of that quote and I have wanted to use it as a “gotcha” against Protestants in the past, because to me it flows from my conversion: atheist to Catholic. as an atheist I couldn’t trust “just any” church of XYZ denomination-that-disagrees-with-every-other, I wanted THE church. But I think that most of the Protestants I know (Evangelicals) did not come to the faith from an historical angle but from growing up in Christian families and then experiencing sudden/stark conversion.

[@victormossiii1196]

You are spot on Austin! Even as a convert into the Catholic Church. These arguments and others can not just be "a gotcha" and therefore I should convert. I had to wrestle with these plus many claims of the Catholic position before I converted. This was a slow process of 3 - 4 years. Even before then I researched how Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants work together. It is personal journey for each person. I have concluded everyone is called in different places until God wills each member of the Body of Christ to be fully unified. About the arguments: I believe once someone does the research of Church History the choices are Catholic, Orthodox, some sort of Anglican or Lutheran, or other type of Protestant and adopting some ways of older Church Traditions. This is only my opinion and no judgement towards any who would disagree with me. I will say even a person who stays Protestant with the research, that person would have no choice but to abandon Anti-Catolic/Anti-Orthodox arguments especially fundamentalism. Those arguments can not hold up to history period.

[@truthreason1206]

Almost every argument in the world can be reasonable counter argued. It’s almost like an endless cycle.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Fair point

[@moiseybeliy5458]

Going deep into church history is what led me to become Protestant. The early church fathers were simply not modern day Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. In fact, many of the modern-day practices of these two institutions would be not only rejected, but abhorred by a great many of the early church fathers. An honest study of their writings, in full and into context, makes this abundantly clear.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@Moisey Beliy I am in hearty agreement with you. Whenever a Catholic convert talks about "reading him or herself" into the Catholic Church through perusing the fathers, I surmise that they must be particularly poor readers, then!

[@alyce-kayruckelshaus1224]

I don't think it ever does any good to try to argue anyone into any aspect of Christianity, whether it's Christianity in general or a particular branch of it. Just because someone is a good debater doesn't make them right. (But maybe that's just because I don't like arguing.) Good video as always ... and congratulations!

[@al610935]

Love you brother and thank you for the insight

[@zelenisok]

Getting married, graduating, moving, and getting a new job, wow. Congrats.

[@Will-ip8og]

Loved the video, though I have to disagree with you on the last point. There are many educated protestants that are very knowledgeable about the history of the Church. However, I think the point that Newman was making was that the true history of the Church validates the Catholic position, and therefore if one is to have sufficient knowledge of Church history he must be a Catholic. I think you would agree that a Catholic Church historian and a Protestant Church historian would both be knowledgeable but disagree on some key points of history that would make a theological difference and Newman would say that the protestant is incorrect on those key historical points. Edit: But I also agree that it is not an argument.

[@IamGrimalkin]

I think the thing about the Newsman quotation is few who quote is have actually read it in context. Newman was absolutely saying that there were few Protestants knowledgeable in church history. In particular, he was saying that in England at the time ( a 'Prostetant country'), most of the leading academic church historians were Deists; and the one leading chrstiain one he could find was catholic. Perhaps this was true of Newman's time (even though it isn't now), I don't know; but to me the thing about his argument is you could just as well rephrase it as 'to be deep in church history is to cease to be christian'.

[@philmattox8500]

Austin, Eastern Orthodox here, took me awhile to figure out your presentation as to me it seemed anti-catholic and I was surprised by that. But I finally figured towards the end of your presentation when you stomped on the idea of many that all the early Father's were in agreement. They were not. This is the same erroneous argument some E.O. apologists use and it is a pet peeve with me, along with the argument that The Church (Orthodox) never changes. But it does, or rather develops, as led by the Holy Spirit (as the Orthodox believe). Also I have a real problem as an Eastern Orthodox believer in using the term "The True Church" when referencing Eastern Orthodoxy. Rather, with all due respect to my other Christian brothers and sisters, it is the Christian Community that possesses the fullness of The Faith. So I look forward to your 5 Bad Arguments for Eastern Orthodoxy so that I can correct and hone my presentation skills. But not for the purpose of convincing other Christians to come home to the "True Church" but rather to explain Orthodox beliefs and piety so that we can better understand and love one another in Christ. I have no interest in bringing other Christians into Orthodoxy unless that is their wish Instead I believe I should focus on bringing the unbeliever or the fallen away into the Orthodox Community of His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[@George-ur8ow]

@The Wit dont let the 'ethnic' thing stop you. This is a unique american issue. 100 years ago, there were italian catholic, hungarian catholic, polish catholic churches, etc.. Mass immigration from catholic euro countires. For the most part, those churches have lost their ethnic character. Much less eastern euro immigrants, smaller communities, more time to assimilate. 50 or 100 years from now, likelt to lose much of their ethnic character. Look for the truth, not the ethnic makeup of the parishoners.

[@burningbright0103]

Great video! Any one of these arguments mixed in with a sly comment hinting that someone will "eventually" become Catholic when they "figure it out" could easily make them dig their heels in and resist conversion. Unsolicited phrases like "Come home" or "I'll pray a rosary for you" are just off-putting and not helpful if our goal is greater unity and fellowship with fellow Christians. God bless you, Austin!

[@frankk.777]

Thanks for telling what you really think. It’s not really about good or bad arguments but about what you believe in your heart. Now you stated what you believe in or what you are holding onto. But some things will not be a matter of discussion. In the end we as Christians- no matter which church have enough to do being busy with doing something productive for society and with prayer. God bless you!

[@marianafaria6960]

This is great! It is good to know what would not work in convincing my protestant friends to convert to the Church.

[@cactoidjim1477]

"To be deep in Church history..." Could also be taken as the beginning of an assent to something beyond Sola Scriptura. If your mind is changed by reading the Fathers - if you interpret any Scriptures differently because of their explanation or consensus...you've begun a trajectory away from much (certainly not all) of Protestantism.

[@cw-on-yt]

Well done, Austin! ...and I agree entirely with your list! I wonder, though, what you think of the following argument? Premise 1: Between Pentecost and Now, Christ has never permitted (and would never permit) a Large Window of Time (LWT), in which True Christianity In The True Church (TCITTC) is inaccessible to Most Inquirers in the World Who've Met A Christian (MSIWWMACs). Definitions for Premise 1: - A "Large Window of Time" (LWT) means an interval which is larger than 10% of elapsed Christian history to-date. So in the year 130, a hundred years after Pentecost, that window would be 10 years. In the year 1030, a thousand years after Pentecost, the window would be 100 years. Now, in 2022, it'd be about 200 years. - "True Christianity In The True Church" means sufficiently-correct understandings of soteriology, sacraments, ecclesiology, authority, and the like that a smart person paying attention can identify the True Church and find some outpost of it in the world somewhere within a few months' traveling time, where he can go worship. - "Most Inquirers in the World Who've Met A Christian" means more than 50% of the persons in the world who've met a Christian, know they're a Christian, and are interested enough in Who Jesus Is to ask at least one follow-up question about Him. So the idea with Premise 1 is that one aspect of Christ's promise that the "gates of Hades" would not "prevail against the Church" is that Christ doesn't allow Christianity/the Church to mostly-or-entirely die out worldwide, or be eclipsed worldwide, for huge swaths of time sufficient to prevent someone who WANTS to obey Christ from having any hope of being able to locate The Real Deal, no matter how they try! This is a nuanced way of saying: TCITTC is continuous and organic and growing in the world. Premise 2: In Christian history, there have been Large Windows of Time (LWTs) in which certain Protestant denominations' versions of Christianity (e.g. Southern Baptist-ism, in all its distinctives) cannot be demonstrated to have existed anywhere in the world. This is not to say that some otherwise Catholic-sounding person somewhere didn't claim Believer's Baptism By Immersion Only as his personal doctrinal opinion. It just means that the Southern Baptists, looking at that guy, couldn't wholeheartedly claim him as in continuity with themselves, since his OTHER opinions stood on the Catholic side of various disagreements between Baptists and Catholics...or, in some cases, were opinions that both Catholics AND Baptists would hotly deny. (Example: Montanus or Paul of Samosata would both deny special authority to the Bishop of Rome, but that doesn't make them Southern Baptists!) Conclusion: We can reasonably conclude that the Protestant denominations who didn't detectably exist for Large Windows of Time in Christian history are NOT the modern successor of True Christianity In The True Church, and they can safely be ruled out. I think the argument is more-or-less sound in its form: If P1 & P2, then C. I think that there definitely exist examples of Premise 2. (I prescind from saying whether ALL extant Protestantisms fall under Premise 2; but certainly some do and arguably most do. To give a particularly obvious example: Any Protestant group which formally celebrates homosexual marriages as a doctrinal hill-to-die-on -- something they'd schsim from dissenters over -- is a denomination that clearly didn't exist from AD 30 until AD 1970. So modern Episcopalianism is just ruled out, totally. But a more sexually-traditional version of high-church Anglicanism is not so clear!) So, I think the most-debatable aspect is Premise 1. But, I can think of lots of reasons to hold Premise 1. One of the reasons most convincing to me is that, if Premise 1 is not true, then I don't think ANY of us have any principled hope of being intellectually humble, and being confident that we're practicing TCITTC, at the same time. We could only be intellectually humble and agnostic about what True Christianity looked like; or else, we could be unrealistically excessively confident that we, yes WE, had figured it out, even though the faith was so hard to know that men far smarter and holier than ourselves had lost it for centuries! Basically, it would mean that True Christianity and the True Church were basically lost in the mists of time sometime in the Early Church period, to be reconstructed by dubious History Channel Logic by academics making their best guess. You might randomly happen to have wound up in the True Church and practicing True Christianity, if you were lucky enough to be alive during a period where it existed! ...but you wouldn't have any principled-and-adequate reason for being confident about that. What do you think, Austin? Is this argument sufficient, at least, to "weed out" certain denominational contenders as "not worth consideration," for one's own personal membership? Or do you think my argument belongs as #6 on your "bad arguments" list? 😇 (Full disclosure: I grew up mostly Southern Baptist, with some non-denom, Pentecostal, Reform, and Methodist experiences along the way, and am now a Catholic. I am still very fond of my Southern Baptist upbringing, and in an odd way, feel more Baptist NOW than I felt THEN. So I sometimes use Southern Baptists as an example, not because of any special vexation at Baptists, but rather because I feel that I'm one of them, and am trying not to criticize anyone other than "my own tribe.")

[@sheylamercado9801]

Wow, I usually don’t read super long comments but you piqued my curiosity and I have to say you have a well thought out point

[@cw-on-yt]

@@sheylamercado9801: Thanks for your kind reply, Sheyla!

[@alicianpig]

I like this test! However, while I do think this works again certain genres of Protestants (i.e. those who believe that the Catholic Church was totally or near-totally apostate), I don’t think it holds up against the most robust “steelman” version of Protestantism. Many of the Reformation thinkers, including Luther, saw the Catholic Church as a flawed but fundamentally still ‘real’ set of Christian churches. From this version of the Protestant perspective, exposure to Catholic (or Eastern/Oriental Orthodox) evangelism would be likely to entail a real, potentially salvific expression of the Gospel. Even from a Catholic perspective, this is the case. Huge swathes of Catholics throughout history, both clergy and laity, have unknowingly had false/heretical/superstitious misunderstandings of pretty important doctrines but still ultimately died in a state of grace. It’s not much of a stretch to suggest that if Protestantism is true, plenty of folks with incorrect Catholic beliefs about the Papacy, Saints etc could still have a real, saving faith in Jesus. Their false beliefs might hinder sanctification, and an unsaved person might falsely think they’re saved because they’re good at going through the motions of Catholicism. But in most serious interpretations of Protestantant soteriology, a saved person isn’t going to be de-saved because they were wrong about transubstantiation. If Catholicism’s high view of ecclesiology/sacramentalism isn’t true, then access to a “One True Church” matters a lot less - you just need access to ~a~ real church.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Hi, I'm not Austin; and while I would say this argument is an awful lot better than the ones in the video, it falls for similar reasons that argument #2 does: Protestants typically would associate the 'True Church' with the 'invisible church'; and many or most Protestants would include many or most practicing Catholics within the 'invisible church', and stuff like differences in baptism policy or views on homosexuality are not enough to exclude you from that. Typically those who would exclude most practicing Catholics from the 'True Church' would do so either because the Catholic church seemingly embraced inclusivism in Vatican II or because the Council of Trent seemingly anathematized Sola Fide. Both of these happened during or after the reformation, so the argument doesn't really hold.

[@cw-on-yt]

@@alicianpig: Thanks for your kind words. Yes, I acknowledge that the test I propose would not necessarily rule out all forms of Protestantism, as I mentioned at the outset. Moreover, I can acknowledge that some forms of Protestantism could escape in a different way, by arguing that the test is simply wrong. To do this, they must either deny the relationship between Sufficiently-Right Belief and Doctrinal Authority/Epistemology; or else, any connection between Doctrinal Authority/Epistemology and The True Church. I think what you're describing is the latter? ...but there's another aspect you raise, which isn't quite the same: You said, "If Catholicism’s high view of ecclesiology/sacramentalism isn’t true, then access to a One True Church matters a lot less." Now that ISN'T what I was getting at, because I wasn't trying to argue about the lack of valid sacraments making salvation harder for the individual to obtain. I think an argument can be made along those lines (and, as you say, that argument could be attacked by attacking the idea of high sacramentology); but that wasn't my particular argument. I was focusing solely on the Epistemic Necessity of there being a continuous body of believers holding the right doctrines, in each century since the Ascension. And that Epistemic Necessity does not require a particularly high ecclesiology...not so far as I can tell, anyway. Take, for example, a group of Southern Baptists (I use them, again, because they're "my folks," although perhaps not many of them would happily claim ME in return now that I swam the Tiber) who hold that the Early (Acts Chapter 2) Church was Southern Baptist in its baptismal practices, soteriology, ecclesiology, ordinances, major moral teachings, liturgies, and the like. That's not a high ecclesiology or sacramentology. Indeed, it's a very low-church ecclesiology (congregationalist) and there's NO sacramentology at all since they deny the idea of "sacraments" as such, referring to "The Lord's Supper" and "Believer's Baptism" as ordinances, not sacraments. So: Can this group escape the Epistemic Necessity of continuity? I don't think they can. To escape it, they have to be okay with Church History containing LWTs (Large Windows of Time) in which nobody sufficiently-close to themselves exists. ARE they okay with that? I think the existence of J.M. Carroll's "Trail of Blood" demonstrates that SOME of them felt the necessity of arguing that they'd been there all along: They were willing to identify the "trail" of Anabaptists as belonging to the category shared by Novatians, Montanists, Donatists, Paulicans, Albigensians, etc. Better-informed Baptists now regard Carroll's "Trail" as an embarrassment, but what's the alternative? The alternative is this: No Christian in the Early Patristic Era, the Era of the first Ecumenical Councils, or the Early Medieval Period, held anything close to 50% of the Baptist distinctives on ordinances, soteriology, and low-church congregationalism. They all had the Bible (with, admittedly, some extra Old Testament books...at least, they'd call Sirach, etc. "extra") and yet none of them saw American-style Baptist Evangelicalism IN the Bible. If that form of "Baptistism" is true, then the truth died before Ignatius of Antioch started writing, and didn't rise from the grave for 1500 years. It was absent from the world for 75% of elapsed Christian history, in spite of the Source Authority for their Epistemology of Faith (the Bible) being available for use (and not just "available," either, but also "living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword," etc.) the whole time! That strains credulity, I think. The odds of that happening, GIVEN the premise that "Baptistism" is true, are incredibly low. Yet that's what happened...which makes the premise that "Baptistism" is true pretty dubious. Since Christianity has always, throughout history, contained solid majorities that held a high sacramentology and a high ecclesiology, it'll be easier to argue that some modern church retaining high sacramentology and ecclesiology WAS present throughout history. This makes its interpretation of the Bible more plausible, since throughout Christian history, solid majorities have been coming up with similar beliefs. That's why I felt that the various Orthodoxies, and the more-conservative expressions of Anglicanism, had the least difficulties getting through my "filter." But perhaps I didn't fully understand you reply? Let me know if I missed something. Best to you, CW

[@HighKingTurgon]

I might add a 6th bad argument, though perhaps it's just a peeve: just throwing around phrases in Latin! The Latinate patrimony of the Church is such a treasure, and too many of our "apologists" only know enough to be dangerous.

[@dickymartinus1753]

The Church established by God, who is Christ, is one and will not be scattered until the end of the world. Those churches outside the Church of Christ are merely the towers of Babel, made by men, to be scattered by themselves. That's my bad argument... Sorry, my English is bad. I am from indonesia God Bless U

[@ignacio.gonzalez.osb_dc]

Great video, as always, Austin! We must continue to pray Our Lord's prayer in John 17:21 -- that we may be one as Jesus and the Father are one. It is helpful in this context of arguments for Catholicism to remember or learn from "Lumen Gentium," paragraph 15 -- the Church's understanding of her relationship with Protestants: "15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth." The entire document is at this link: www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

[@einsigne]

beautiful

[@JoshJ12]

Is the sign behind you a neon sign? It looks really cool, I kinda want to own one as well,but I have heard that these are dangerous fire hazards.

[@GospelSimplicity]

It is neon. My wife got it for me

[@JohnBoysGold]

As you say these all need nuance but they aren't bad arguments. They just aren't the mic drops people often think they are

[@maxonmendel5757]

I pray for the reunion of the whole church together

[@0004voltz]

Amazing, you covered all of them?

[@billymandalay2454]

Do this 'in remembrance' of Me, NOT 'in replacement' of Me.

[@musicmaker1026]

I agree for the mostpart. I can't agree with the last one however. The premise of that quote is that a thorough understanding of Church history will lead one away from the protestant faith. Of course, as with any short quote, it does not encompass every bit of possible nuance, but it is generally true. If somebody knows the history of the Church, they will see that many protestant beliefs simply cannot be found, and they are forced to either try to warp history to their own beliefs or conclude as Zwingli did, that he alone held the truth, and all before him were wrong.

[@xunzhedao]

May God grant you and your wife many blessed years together!

[@octaviosalcedo9239]

Austin, great video! I would question the true faith of somebody who uses argument two. However, am quite sure of their ignorance of church history and lack of charitably when discussing the Christian Faith.

[@shepherdson6189]

I'm sure Catholic apologists you've guested wouldn't fall to these kind of bad arguments, not to mention the likes of Trent Horn, Joe Heschmyer and Suan Sona who are nuanced on these subject matters. But at the end of the day our biases would still be the one to dictate our level of acceptance. Hence, skeptics will remain skeptics no matter how good evidences have been presented. That being said, the comment section most of the time is not a good place to get good Catholic arguments. Rather, a good Catholic apologist has much better things to say to those really searching for truth.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Oh absolutely, Trent, et. al, have MUCH better arguments and/or presentations of these arguments. They are miles away from what I described here

[@actsapologist1991]

Well... its been a while since I've had the opportunity to write a book length comment. Time to begin mentally preparing.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Haha, I look forward to it! I think that you'll find this is less a video arguing against Catholicism, and more so a video calling for better formulations of arguments and greater nuance, two things you're quite good at

[@actsapologist1991]

@YAJUN YUAN : There wasn't as much to work with as I thought there'd be, and our gracious host made most of the points I'd raise.

[@nicolelowe3619]

You look like the main actor from Redeeming Love! its such a beautiful christian love story and made me and my fiancé cry. I hope anyone who reads this checks it out, its main lesson is about persistence, forgiveness and redemption♥️ btw, as a catholic- agree with these points!

[@dansedevie123]

I am a Catholic and I think you made great points! I totally agree that nuance and dialogue is important, for both sides.

[@ChristianCatholicMedia]

I disagree. He made weak points.

[@dansedevie123]

​@@ChristianCatholicMedia I'm going to elaborate. Most of the arguments he mentioned (the Eucharist, Church history) are important reasons to me for being Catholic. Yes, there are Protestants who have never considered these arguments, but there are also Protestants who are deeply familiar with them. It would be wrong to assume that the only reason people are Protestant is because they are ignorant of these arguments, or that you can just robotically present these arguments and POOF- win. Dialogue involves listening to the other side.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@dansedevie123 great point Jess

[@ChristianCatholicMedia]

@@dansedevie123 use your logic for Jehovah witness or Mormon. Of course nobody thinks boom win. We must argue with love and truth. Many Protestants simply do not love truth and many do. God Bless.

[@dansedevie123]

@@ChristianCatholicMedia I'm not sure we are understanding each other or what this has to do with JWs and Mormons. God bless.

[@joolz5747]

Hi Austin Congrats on your wedding! Got pictures to show us? So I am old enough to be your grandmother I think. I am a cradle Catholic. All of those arguments you laid out are strange to me. I have never ever thought any of those were correct. So I don’t know where you got that or who you listen to but I disagree with them. The one thing that I believe is the most sensible is the fact that Christ founded a church and from scripture he appointed 12 apostles and from what I understand there is a long line of succession from them all the way to this very day. Now I imagine it is not 3000% perfect. But I do believe that the line is as accurate as possible. And that would be the Catholic church small c founded by Christ in the world. The only thing I know is that this religion I am in is very deep and has tons of things in it which bring you to Jesus quicker. Each Protestant faith has something wonderful yes, but every single thing in the Catholic Church is an abundance of ways to get to Jesus. That to me makes the most sense. Plus the succession. And nobody that I know thinks that every single church father agrees! I’ve never heard that one! Each individual church father has different things to say. And honestly this has been going on a very long time. I think that the John 6 reasoning is worth thinking about. But I don’t think any of those things that you mentioned make any sense at all regarding you must then be Catholic. That makes no sense to me. We are searching for Jesus all of us. If you find Jesus through Catholicism good, if you find Jesus through Calvinism good, it depends on where you were raised how you were brought up what you believe…who told you what and it really makes a big difference that everybody’s different. So we need to unite on finding Jesus. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic or Protestant in my humble opinion. If you find Jesus whatever you did was for you. God opened doors or placed people in your life. So thank you and that is my two cents! God bless you! 😃💜🙏

[@dreamweaver3406]

As another grandma I concur

[@joecardone4887]

A “bad argument” is very subjective so I’m curious to see what you have to say here.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Not to spoil the video, but essentially, a lot of these are bad arguments because they're not really arguments, at least not as they're commonly presented in KZbin comments. I think there are good points behind many of them, but I think they're often framed poorly or delivered poorly

[@joecardone4887]

@@GospelSimplicity Uh huh i think I gotcha! So basically on the surface or because of someone presenting the point poorly they aren’t convincing?

[@JohnBoysGold]

I would love to see a video exploring whether or not Protestants should reconsider the canonical status of the "apocrypha".

[@JohnBoysGold]

You'd love this video! Catholic Secrets Revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls with Dr. John Bergsma

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Very helpful!

[@scottforesman7968]

I'm a Catholic convert (30 years in Protestant ordained ministry), but that doesn't mean I just 'buy' whatever I'm told is true. I have to BELIEVE it is true, I have to be convinced it is true. John 6 for example. Jesus is likely telling them about His incarnation, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." He is likely inviting them to BELIEVE that, and to (since He is God) find life in Him. Beyond that, I've said to my Catholic friends,, "Hey, you say that Protestants don't have valid Sacraments. Does that mean that they (according to John 6) have 'no life in them'? Good grief, if that were true, there would be a marked difference between all faithful Catholics and all faithful Protestants. But there isn't, is there? No. I don't doubt the efficacy of the Sacrament to transmit God's grace, but don't tell me that Protestants have "no life in them." As for the Papacy, the Catholic historian Eamon Duffy has written, " (Neither) Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles." I do see Peter (Mt.16) being 'commissioned' as the head of the Apostolic band, but I do not see any indication of the establishment of an ongoing 'Vicar of Christ'. That is something that evolved over time. Thank you for your programs. Pax.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Scott, It is so refreshing to hear someone who can acknowledge the points you made, while simultaneously admitting to be a "Catholic convert". It seems that so many people feel they must completely reject any and all arguments that may threaten their specific tradition. Thank you

[@noelperfecto2302]

Austin, do you have any idea if the Catholic Church and Protestant Church would ever unite ?

[@darrent.atherton8493]

This is where I currently am in my explorations of Roman Catholicism and apostolic succession generally: It seems to me that the best one could hope for from an ongoing episcopal tradition is the preservation of the original teachings they started out with. If they cannot achieve this, then what exactly is the purpose of this ongoing papal office or episcopal structure? And so, does the Catholic Church achieve that end or not? This is what we have to determine. If they did not, or cannot, achieve that end, then we wouldn't expect them reliably to be able to *expand upon* or *unpack* those original teachings, either, in any authoritative sense. (I understand that the other and no-less-important point of an authoritative priesthood is to administer the sacraments-but again, if the teaching is not preserved, this might call into question those sacraments and their administration.) When all is said and done, aren't all followers of Jesus asked, in humility and sincerity, to come directly to him for teaching and for spiritual sustenance? Please know I am not deriding Catholics here, as there are many I admire, and I love both tradition and liturgy. To me, the Body of Christ is real, though I don't claim to fully understand it. I'm merely describing where I presently stand on the subject. And it's not so much a bulletproof position in itself, just an honest hesitation.

[@urusledge]

Can you provide any examples of the Catholic Church not preserving original teachings? Have you gone through the history of those examples and how the Church arrived at them, as well as their full Scriptural context? Also, what does it mean to come directly to Jesus for answers? Can you find an example of that being commanded? (And don't quote "I AM the way". That is not what that means).

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@urusledge Pardon my intrusion Uru, What does "I AM the way" mean?

[@darrent.atherton8493]

​@@urusledge Hi Uru. I can provide a couple examples, but this is something I am currently working through and have not come to firm conclusions on. Also, I cannot go into the level of detail required to do justice to these subjects in KZbin comments. Two examples I'll give are the Papacy and the Marian dogmas. Again, this is not conclusive, as I am studious, but not an expert. Essentially I'm not yet convinced by the concept of the Papacy as described in Vatican I, that it has a certain kind of authority and that it has always been that way from the beginning. As for the Marian dogmas, again I am not convinced by its historicity. It's not that I'm against honouring or having a high regard for Mary, but the significance attached to these dogmas by certain Catholic authorities is concerning, ie. shipwrecking one's faith, etc. and I'm not sure that this is in line with the fundamental teachings of Christ. Honouring Mary is of course different than believing particular things about the conditions of her conception or her being taken from this earth in a certain way. In John 5 Jesus says, "You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life."

[@lyterman]

@@darrent.atherton8493 A few things that helped me overcome those hurdles if you don't mind me sharing. Papacy: You're probably talking about Vatican I, not Vatican II. The issue here is that Vatican I is a full-throated, detailed account of how the office of the Papacy works. That doctrine could have been known, but not in that explicit of detail, for Vatican I to be true. A good parallel here would be Biblical inerrancy. Define that in a completely detailed way, however you like, and then try to find that definition in the first millennium. In a way, it will be there, but in seed form. Probably not with as clear of statements or as fleshed out of details, but it is right to say that Biblical inerrancy has been believed at all times. The Catholic claim is that we should look at the Papacy the same way, not subjecting first millennium understandings of doctrines to their 19th century technical definitions. Marian dogmas: It seems part of the issue for you isn't just if the dogmas are true, but the fact that they are binding upon the faithful Catholic. The thing here to remember is that once these doctrines are defined infallibly, their denial necessitates a denial of the teaching authority of the Church. It is that that is condemnable, not failure to believe the dogma necessarily. To bolster this argument, there are famous examples of saints who believed things about the Marian dogmas that would be condemned today. The most famous example is that Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception (he believed something very similar, but not the dogma as defined today). He is a saint, but someone who took his position today is a heretic simply because they deny the authority of the Church to teach on such things, which Aquinas never did. Hope this helps!

[@darrent.atherton8493]

@@lyterman Thank your for your input, it's appreciated. And yes, Vatican I, my mistake. I've come across these approaches to the issues before, and while they may be acceptable in some ways, I find them somewhat problematic in others. In the case of the Papacy, I understand the rationale of the 'seed form' hypothesis, but it seems circular insofar as one must presuppose the authority of the Papacy/Catholic episcopacy in order to accept their pronouncements and expansions upon the alleged real nature and full parameters of their own authority. Do you see what I mean? "It seems part of the issue for you isn't just if the dogmas are true, but the fact that they are binding upon the faithful Catholic. The thing here to remember is that once these doctrines are defined infallibly, their denial necessitates a denial of the teaching authority of the Church."

[@tamarakonczal6350]

You crack me up. And I miss your hair. lol

[@jonathanbohl]

I wonder if he will steel man these arguments or if that's possible. Much like Thomas Aquinas would have done. I saw a comment about these arguments convincing many people. It would be interesting if that is true.

[@victor382]

TBH I believe these arguments are borne more of a reaction to shallow arguments thrown at Catholics than really thought-out arguments about the Church trying to convince.

[@PokerMonkey]

Jesus founded One Church, as between zero and two. In a letter written by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107AD, he called God's Church "Catholic", meaning Universal. You can come up with all types of excuses and reasons, but there were No Protestant Churches until Luther, 1500 years after Christ. ALL Protestant Churches are man made or woman made. Protestant derives from "Protest". Protesting God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It's like a beautiful Ocean Liner on a long trip to heaven. 1500 years after it set sail, some people decided to take rafts and jump off the ship. Now 500 years later, you have tons of people on those rafts drifting around, but the Great Ocean Liner is still on its path. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

[@kirstenfondren9226]

Amen 🙏🏻

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

Poker, Do you consider it possible that Ignatius meant "catholic" in way different than you may mean "Catholic". If you could consider this as a possibility, then please also consider the possibility that there are many people you may be labeling as "protestant", who are in fact trying to be "catholic", although maybe not in the same sense that you seem to define "Catholic". I'll speak for myself: I strive to be faithful to the catholic faith while not being Roman Catholic.

[@PokerMonkey]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Ask yourself how many Churches Jesus created? How many existed when St Ignatius wrote that letter, and since he was a Catholic Bishop, I’ll go with Catholic.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@PokerMonkey Thanks for the reply, Jesus created one church. I'm afraid that we may be using the word "church" differently as well as "catholic", and consequently fear that we may be speaking past one another rather than answering one another's questions. May I assume that "one church" to you means the Roman Catholic Church? let me clarify what I mean by "one church": the entire body of the faithful, irrelevant of the unnecessary camp divisions (denominations) that man has fallen into.

[@PokerMonkey]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 I know what you are talking about and the “Church” is the Catholic Church and the “Church” is the full body of properly baptized believers, who are part of the Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, even if you are not in full communion with it.

[@shadow9495]

I think John Henry Newman would face palm a bit about how the quote is used, don't get me wrong I think he is right but but he is speaking about the general concensous of the historical church as something more Catholi, and orthodox rather than manner in which protestants reform their practice

[@Jordan-1999]

This question is mainly for Austin, but I welcome anyone to respond if they wish to. Do you believe that by ascribing human attributes to God we have endangered ourselves, both physically and spiritually by bestowing more harm rather than good upon our brothers and sisters, to whom we should love regardless?

[@matthieulavagna]

Can you name a church father who disagreed with baptismal regeneration?

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Just love your point number 4, because the Church Fathers never, never, never, were unanimous on any point of church doctrine other than those directly related to Christ's divinity and sonship. A case in point concerns the establishment of the Roman Catholic papacy based on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Said church claims unanimous consent of the Church Fathers in the establishment of said doctrine and that Peter was the first Pope. Not so. In fact I would here agree with the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Church Fathers; Augustine: "... but the rock was Christ..." Jerome: "The rock is Christ" Origin: "All Christians are the rock... insofar as they confess faith in Christ like Peter." John Chrysostom: "... 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church', that is, on the faith of his confession." Basil of Seluecia: "Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter'..." Ambrose: "... Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...'". To constantly say that "all agree" is to constantly lie and to base one's church on lies and half truths is to build on shifting sands. No thanks. I prefer "the Rock" which is Christ. And... if the Marian doctrines are false, the whole system falls. Not to mention the disaster that is the celibacy requirement and the fruits thereof, which I won't go into right now. Thank the Lord God Almighty for the Protestant Revolution, without which this world would be a much darker place.

[@aphiliac]

As an Orthodox Christian, not having yet listened to the arguments in the video (as it has not premiered), I would have this to say about them as they are listed in the video description: Argument 1 - John 6: Assuming this is about the eating Christ's body and drinking his Blood, the Orthodox Church would also say that the Eucharist is more than mere symbol, but wouldn't go so far as the Roman Catholic Church to define the mechanism by which the bread and wine become body and blood with the exactitude of Latin Scholastic theology. Therefore, this is a bad argument because it sets up a false dichotomy: either you believe in the "real presence" as a Roman Catholic or you don't as a Protestant. Even within Protestantism there are varying views concerning the nature of the Eucharist. Argument 2 - Who founded your church?: The Orthodox Church would claim that it was established by Christ in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, this is a bad argument because it sets up a false dichotomy: either you are part of the Roman Catholic Church that was established by Christ (on Saint Peter) or you are part of a "Protestant sect" that was established by "some random Reformer". Argument 3 - Who gave you the authority to judge the Catholic Church?: Is that an actual argument? Sounds more like a question that would have been asked during an interrogation under the Inquisition under pain of death... Argument 4 - "All the Church Fathers...": There is no such thing as consensus partum. Moreover, historic Roman Catholic patristic florilegia used to argue for Roman Catholic doctrines have been, by the admission of Roman Catholics themselves, full of forgeries. Even if they weren't, a consensus among Church Fathers does not ratify truth. Rather, a consensus among Church Fathers is received as being true because it is congruent with the truth. What is truth and how do we come to know it? It goes without saying, the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Protestant churches all have vastly different answers to that question. Argument 5 - "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant": The Orthodox Church is rooted in history. Therefore, it is not immediately obvious that one should become Roman Catholic by simply looking into church history. Therefore, this is a bad argument. In the future, maybe you can present 5 Good Arguments for Roman Catholicism? I would be curious to know what they would be :)

[@GospelSimplicity]

I must say, you've anticipated my words quite well! I think the next will be "Five Bad Arguments Protestants Use Against Catholics" but if this goes well, perhaps I'll make a series of "5 Arguments" for Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism, covering both good and bad

[@aphiliac]

@@GospelSimplicity Sounds good! Keep doing what you are doing. May God grant you wisdom! :)

[@krimbii]

A bunch of good arguments for Roman Catholicism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rp2WoXdqoZV-a7c

[@georgepahos7909]

@@aphiliac Good points Albo 👍

[@King-uj1lh]

All your points here, are well these are bad arguments because they dont aplly to the orthodox. I know they dont… they are addressed to protestants. The fifth point js against protestantism and you say its a bad argument because it doesn’t refute Orthodoxy??? Its not supposed too. All of these are “well these dont apply to the orthodox”, we have our own apologia for you guys lol.

[@CezzyHaag]

Good video. I'll try to think about this. One to include in the protestants video: "Call no man father." That one is so annoying and makes no sense.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'll add it to the list! I'll be honest, I'm struggling to keep the "bad arguments AGAINST catholicism" video to just 5, lol

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

If someone has a “phd in church history” and they do not at least believe that a visible church led by bishops, apostolic tradition, baptismal regeneration, and the true presence Eucharist are there from the beginning, they either didn’t actually study early church history or they did and they are lying to you.

[@joelancon7231]

ngl on that last one I thought you were about to quote was Fulton Sheen "There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church." Not that I think that it is a bad argument(primarily because its not an argument), but my goodness the Catholic Keyboard Copy+Ctrl V Commandos have a way of spamming it to hilarity

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hahaha that one is certainly popular

[@amelancholybear1534]

I'm wondering if there will be a rebuttal.

[@JohnSmith-jo1fs]

Cradle Catholic here 1. Agreed. That's so annoying. 2. Agreed. That's so annoying. 3. I don't really hear this one but you're right that a blanket appeal to 'authority' makes no sense. 4. Agreed. More nuance needed. 5. Hahahahahaha. Agreed. Talk about arrogance. Liturgically, there are Lutherans and Anglicans who are more rooted in history than many RCs. Anabaptists are obviously trying to be rooted to the historical lifestyles of Christians. All Protestants think they are following the message of Jesus Christ, a historical figure who walked the earth. They just disagree with Western Catholics and the various Eastern churches about what that means. ... That line does pack a punch though... so I get the appeal.

[@bobaphat3676]

anabaptists that crazy protestant sect that caused mayhem over the german low-countries. hahaha.