Can the Church Fathers and Evangelicalism Mix?

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Wow. I love how I can come to Gospel Simplicity and always get a full dose of honest reflection and intellectual rigor. True Christian grit.

[@GospelSimplicity]

@@Erick_Ybarra thanks, Erick! Really means a lot

[@Drexelandco]

Monster video! Powerful!

[@mihxali]

@@GospelSimplicity Much respect for your honesty with these topics to tackle. How does one not look at Catholicism or Orthodoxy as you rewind time, back to the Church Fathers, direct links to the Apostles.

[@JC_Forum_of_Christ]

@@GospelSimplicity Church fathers are not the word of God. Jesus explains that the New Testament is written in the context of the Old Testament. “Church fathers” will lead you to the Catholic Church. The word of God will lead you to Christ. “For their rock is not as our Rock; our enemies are by themselves.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭32‬:‭31‬ Your rock is Peter. The Rock of a Christian is Christ Jesus… just like who Christ is in the Old Testament!!

[@marlam8625]

@@JC_Forum_of_Christ Scott Hahn points out that the Greek word for ‘covenant’ is diatheke which also means ‘testament’. Meaning that the New Covenant instituted by Christ at the Last Supper IS the new testament -the way of relationship with God that fulfills the old covenant testament of the animal blood sacrifice sprinkled on the people and the alter. It seems the history of language and association has isolated the word ‘testament’ to mean specifically the writings of the Bible rather than the covenant made with blood. I also heard an interesting Hebrew translation that the ‘life’ in the blood referenced in Deuteronomy is better translated as the ‘soul’ in the blood.

[@joshraymond1065]

As a Protestant I had to accept that fact that to be consistent I had to humble myself and trust the church fathers are probably right and I’m not.

[@Alarcahu]

Also a Protestant. I certainly don’t think I’m right on everything but I don’t know why I have to accept the Fathers are on everything.

[@jaycefields756]

As an ex Protestant , I finally realized one day that I was using the Bible alone, despite the fact that the Bible itself never says to do that. Not only that, but the Bible doesn’t even tell you what the Bible IS! Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us how many books do or do not belong in it. How can I follow the Bible alone if by doing so I must discard the Bible itself ? I couldn’t stay Protestant for long after realizing that.

[@andrewsantillan6020]

Almost all of the ideas we have came from them. You will agree with much of what they say and disagree with some. Church Fathers are not equal to Scripture I always keep that in mind. I chew the meat and spit out the bones of what they say.

[@N8R_Quizzie]

​@@jaycefields756well we have to understand that scripture is the great relic. Words from God Himself (that is affirmed by scripture). I would say the Orthodox and Catholic interpret scripture through the lens of the church fathers, but the protestant interprets the church fathers through scripture.

[@joshraymond1065]

@@Alarcahu You don’t have to but if anyone is right it’s probably the people closest to the apostles especially those who are saints and martyrs. The Orthodox Church would not even say the fathers are infallible, but when you look at the tradition as a whole you get accountability between the fathers individually which makes it even more likely to be the true teaching of Christ and the apostles. At least more likely than any other way that we can find the truth.

[@TheProdigalPilgrim]

Came back to the Catholic church last year after years of being an Atheist. Studying the church fathers and church history was a big factor to my reversion. I pray the rosary everyday for Christian unification.

[@Deathbytroll]

I know you mean well but you really just mean submission

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@Deathbytroll Yes, submission to Jesus Christ who established and guaranteed his church, built on the apostles, and their successors by the laying on of hands!

[@TheProdigalPilgrim]

@@Deathbytroll of course it is. I submit to God. I understand its not easy to face the truth. Ive been there, I was an apostate for most of my life. I tell you brother, as a Catholic, id be spiritually lost without the eucharist. I came to this conclusion while actually practicing the catholic faith not just identifying as one. Its not easy, tbh sometimes im tempted to just declare myself aa a follower of Christ and be on my way and be saved by faith, id be lying to myself tho. I always hear the phrase "Catholicism is not for the weak" each day i find it to be true. We are called to be saints and studying the lives of our saints is both inspiring and terrifying. I have much to learn but I pray to God to give me the strength to endure his will, with that, Im not embarassed to ask intercession from all the saints especially to our Lady, the holy Theotokos.

[@ArieldeCastro3]

​@@TheProdigalPilgrimpraying for you, brother

[@TheProdigalPilgrim]

@@ArieldeCastro3 thank you brother. Appreciate it, will pray for you as well. Godbless

[@The.Rockyy007]

3 things that completely changed my life 1. I stopped thinking about the past 2. l read the book: Your Life Your Game by keezano 3. I started believing in God.

[@mike.williams1999]

that book helped me too

[@jamesfx33]

that book is incredible, i recommend it

[@riccky707]

NICE BROTHER

[@JC_Forum_of_Christ]

I don’t think you are saved

[@Godfrey118]

Just imagine an Evangelical (baptist) meeting a Church father that learned from an Apostle themselves, and the Evangelical telling the father that they are wrong

[@danieladonosop]

Whenever I’ve brought up the Church Fathers with protestants, their answer is “well they were wrong”. I cannot wrap my head around that level of pride and arrogance

[@joojotin]

Imagine the other way around

[@jessgirl8292]

I’m sorry but if the Church fathers couldn’t walk into your church (the body of Christ) and pick up where your pastor left off it’s the church’s fault, not the Church Fathers. Christ says I’m the same yesterday, today and forever so if the church is his body wouldn’t be reasonable to say that’s how the church should be as well?

[@NoahHarris-s5w]

Just imagine an Roman Catholic meeting a Church father that learned from an Apostle themselves, and that Roman Catholic telling the father that they are wrong about purgatory, Prayers to the Saints, A Treasury of Merit, & the Marian Dogma's.

[@DPK5201]

​@@NoahHarris-s5wjust imagine a sedavacantist calling Pope Francis a heretic.

[@matthewgroh8797]

Austin, thank you for another thoughtful video. As an Orthodox Christian, I agree with your conclusion that you really can't incorporate the full view of the Church Fathers with the Protestant paradigm. I appreciate you wrestling with this issue (and many others). You are right that what we find in the Fathers rests in a context that is the full, mystical, liturgical Church. Keep seeking, keep wrestling. I hope you find your way to Holy Orthodoxy.

[@justchilling704]

@@matthewgroh8797 literally not one can bc the fathers hold a wide variety of views that no church fully agreed with. Austin was thus both partially wrong, and making a moot point. An example, universalism, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics largely consider it heresy, and most Protestants, but most early church fathers especially ante-Nicene fathers, held to it, most of the early centers of the faith taught it, another example is the modern churches views in women, or the debate of bishop vs elder, etc. even trinitarian theology. Everyone only agrees in part with them, and that’s fine, they aren’t the apostles.

[@stephenmaddox1]

I’m surprised your still Protestant brother come join us 🙂

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

@@matthewgroh8797 listen for the Holy Spirit and follow the Fathers. God will weave it together and he sees fit in time.

[@hawkfish3749]

As an ex Jehovah Witness I was extremely anti catholic but my deep study of church history and the way they worshipped leaves me thinking it looks very catholic or orthodox. I can't ignore this.

[@catholicguy1073]

It certainly is. All knowledge develops so there is for sure theological development just as there is in any other subject. However the roots of the Catholic and Orthodox theology are certainly present in the Church Fathers.

[@bergmamp]

I challenge you to attend at least one or two services of both traditions and see where the Spirit may be calling you (if you haven't already)

[@hawkfish3749]

@bergmamp I have been to mass 4 weeks straight and gotta say I'm drawn to it. The only orthodox church in my town is Greek orthodox. I haven't attended there. Is greek very different than eastern?

[@brianfrederick9799]

@@hawkfish3749it’s the same. There are slight differences in practice between the Greeks, Russians, Arabs, Romanians etc but the same faith.

[@victorserhumano]

Every truth seeking Catholic finds reasons to step off the course and even criticize the Catholic Church until you find the reason you found something wrong with it, was due to human fallibility and quite literally a subversive attack from within. I found my way back through the theology of the body and now more recently the mysticism of faith. I'm not in any way in a perfected state of spiritual alignment but there were times I felt a presence of God's grace, during some really difficult times these past few years. I had to investigate and dwell in the spirit as much as possible because i felt a refuge. It was difficult because of the circumstances i was in was like hell, but the times i felt it, nature around me, began to interact in the most timely and supernatural ways. I have a garden statue of St Francis and felt this natural connection that made me wonder about him a lot. Little animals in the garden came closer to me and i couldnt help but feel their curiosity the same way i was curious about them. It occurred to me that maybe they sense your spirit or perhaps see it, like an aura. I felt this must be the mysticism of spirituality and the beginning of my true faith, one that goes from the practice and obedience of prayer and worship to truly living the mysteries of faith. It really changed the way I viewed the sacraments and brought my experience of faith into a tangible reality through nature. This makes the sacrament of confirmation all the more real for me. I've also been able to heal myself and my mom from her illnesses. She got sick during the pandemic and by evening i noticed ahe had a fever. I didn't want her to be sick with covid. i couldn't verify bc i wouldnt trust the medical and health directives. I put my hand on her forehead and felt it was hot that night so i asked God to give me her illness and by next morning she was better and i was with a fever which lasted about three days. Anyways i would encourage everyone to look at the Catholic Church through a fresh lens of curiosity and without the scrupulosity or the perpetual guilt and performative beating of their chest. Look again like a curious child and wise elder who seeks to understand beyond the judgment of sin. There's so much in there for every kind of Christ seeking follower, from the surface where there is an abundance of light hearted to the very deep darkness where you better guard your flame from within or you'll be devoured by the shadows and lost forever. [Early Church Fathers and Apostolicity Consider Tertullian, who in his Prescription Against Heretics, challenges those questioning the Church’s teachings: “Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 32).] The words One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic are often called the four marks of the Church. One: the Church is one. This means that it is a single, united, and global Church which has its basis in Christ Jesus. Holy: the Church is holy, because it is the Body of Christ with Jesus as the head. This does not mean that all members of the Church are sin free. It means that the Church and her sacraments help to make the faithful holy. Catholic: the word catholic literally means ‘universal.’ The role of the Church is to spread the Word of God universally across the world. Apostolic: the origins and beliefs of the Church started out with the apostles at Pentecost.

[@Golden_writes550]

Reading the Church father's turned over my world... I talked to my Protestant Pastor at the time and Pastor friends they said they dont believe in the father's, only scripture. They stopped talking to me, Guess they were never friends. Eventually the fathers led me to Orthodoxy.

[@catholicguy1073]

It’s more or less a form of brainwashing. You see the same thing in politics with people who made it a religion. I have a friend of mine that got a PHD as a psychologist and he became super far left I pointed this out to him. To which he denied. Then I proposed asking him a series of policy questions. His get out of jail card to shut down the convo was that he thought I didn’t see reality because I told him the bleach gate so he comments on Trump was clearly propaganda and he needs to listen to the full un edited tape. Instead he shut down the conversation and left 😂. He proved my point. This happens obviously in religious circles where people don’t just have a belief but are unable to speak with someone who doesn’t share their worldview

[@The_WatchList]

God bless you. That struggle is deep and hard to turn from family and friends, and watch them turn from you as well. Your struggle is great, but God never gives us anything we cannot overcome. May God grant you many years friend

[@walkingintranquillity9071]

If you want answers to this question, please go and watch Father Josiah Trenham’s (Patristic Nectar channel) video “Bogus Protestant Historiography “. It will answer all your questions and reveal the truth. God bless

[@donelladowdle]

Same thing happened to my husband and I

[@SM-JIL]

Glory to God - you have seen the fullness of the faith

[@chrisalan11rus]

Thank you SO much for this honesty and clarity. I am a recent Orthodox Catechumen from a low church Protestant background and this was generally the thought process that led me to Holy orthodoxy. What I see as the faithful early Church teachings, as lived and written about by the collective voice of the Church Fathers, is not in contrast or opposed to scripture. In fact, the fathers bring to much clarity to the depth of scriptural teaching I have grown even more in love with Christ. What I knew from the Scriptures has only been made more beautiful when adhering to the Way they preserved.

[@fepatter]

The Fathers and Church history led me first to the Catholic Church then the Orthodox Church, where I have been for the past 28 years.

[@jaycefields756]

The Fathers are pretty good at destroying Protestantism , who knew 😂 But if you don’t mind my asking, why did you become orthodox after becoming Catholic? Correct me if I am wrong but don’t orthodox Christians deny Petrine supremacy and purgatory?

[@pragmaticoptimist46]

Your content has convicted me to trust the Holy Spirit and Christ’s sacrifice rather than looking for affirmation in the fallibility of men. I’ve been so scared that I’m not in the “one true church” and if I make a mistake God will never accept me. It’s exhausting and I’ve been filled with anxiety thinking this way. Ive watched hundreds of videos, read books, listened to podcasts in various traditions and haven’t been able to shake this fear until recently. I will read scripture, the church fathers, pray unceasingly and proclaim my joy in Christ. I like my church, love my small group and the Christian friends I have community with. I appreciate my church worships with communion each week and I’ll try to come before the Lord humbly and praiseworthy every week. Not overly excited about our music, and there are hypocrites and unbelievers in the building, but I know our pastor loves the Lord and seeks Him in Spirit and Truth. I believe I’m getting word and Sacrament from God-fearing men. But also…. I’m just tired of the searching, reading, watching KZbin videos trying to find peace. Time to nail this struggle to the cross and give this burden to my Savior who took on flesh, was born of a virgin, lived, taught, was mocked, tortured and persecuted, and ultimately was crucified and resurrected. Praise His Name and Glory to God.

[@toddvoss52]

yes take a break from all that if you are exhausted and it is actually doing spiritual harm. I would recommend focusing on your daily prayer life. I know that always straightens my ship. You can come back to these questions from a place of greater trust and intimacy with the Lord...a calmer place

[@kaylajames3098]

I am tired too.

[@traditionalgirl3943]

No need to reinvent the wheel; Jesus started the Catholic Church. It’s not the one that broke away nor is it the one that is splintered. The Eucharist is worth the struggle. But try letting go and giving Heaven the reins. Ask Mary for her help. As Keith Nester says, “She is not an obstacle; she is a shortcut.” ✝️🙏📿

[@rodrigolima9055]

Basically The New Catholic Millenials brought back the heresy of only being part of corrupted Roman Catholic church you are saved. It's just bizarre. Only Jesus can help you . Not Mary, not saint Joe, not the argentine man in Vatican. Jesus is the only way. And I will always believe that a place with many rites and traditions made by man isn't the way.

[@AZmom60]

@@traditionalgirl3943. It’s so sad to me that you think you need Mary to give you a shortcut to Jesus. You certainly won’t find that teaching in the New Testament. Jesus is our High Priest, our Advocate in heaven. We have been invited to go boldly before the Throne ourselves, not through disembodied spirits. Blessings

[@danb3378]

Eucharist, baptism, one church, and bishops. They were Catholic/Orthodox.

[@Catechuman23]

The Early Church and pre canonization period of the Church is why I became Catholic.

[@MultipleGrievance]

Why? The catholic church of today doesn't truly reflect the simplicity of that age at all. They barely have anything in common

[@robertlubbers5238]

@@MultipleGrievance Where on earth do you get the idea that the Apostolic Age was "simple"?

[@MultipleGrievance]

@robertlubbers5238 Oh I don't know.... History and logic perhaps?

[@MultipleGrievance]

@robertlubbers5238 The church was growing, but it was still relatively tiny. Besides the pauline epistles and the gospels, what other writings existed? The Didache? That's mostly a reiteration of standard christian practice. There was some apocryphal work, but those don't really count...... Basically just letters from Clement and Ignatius. Christian scholarship was in its very infancy.

[@MultipleGrievance]

@robertlubbers5238 When I say simple, I'm referring to the practices of faith & the doctrines, which if you HAVE read the Didache, there is no pomp and ceremony yet. No deep dives into doctrine Like what would come later.

[@echoes-of-faith89]

Hi Austin, your video raises thoughtful points about Protestants engaging with church history, particularly the Church Fathers. The excitement among evangelicals and other Protestants about rediscovering the richness of early Christianity is encouraging. However, your exploration also surfaces significant tensions that deserve deeper reflection. I'd like to engage with your concerns while proposing a way forward. Firstly, your question, “Which Church Father could teach at your church?” is a penetrating one. It highlights a significant disconnect between much of contemporary Protestantism, especially its low-church expressions, and the historical Christianity of the early Church. This gap is particularly pronounced in areas like sacramental theology, ecclesiology, and liturgy, which were central to the Fathers’ understanding of the faith. The Fathers, without exception, affirmed a high view of the Eucharist, the authority of bishops, the efficacy of sacraments, and the necessity of belonging to the visible, unified Church. Ignatius of Antioch, for example, ties the Eucharist to the presence of a bishop: “Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8). This sacramental and ecclesiastical vision contrasts sharply with low-church Protestantism, which often minimizes these aspects. If the Church Fathers could not, by their own standards, align with the theology and structure of many modern Protestant churches, the Protestant claim to continuity with them becomes strained. You suggest that retrieving the Fathers inevitably raises questions about sola scriptura. This is astute. The Fathers did not operate within a framework of sola scriptura as understood by the Reformers. They viewed Scripture as divinely inspired, but always within the interpretive framework provided by the Church’s living tradition. For example, Irenaeus wrote, “For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace” (Against Heresies 3.24.1). Scripture and Tradition were never pitted against each other; they were two expressions of the same deposit of faith. Thus, to appeal to the Fathers while adhering strictly to sola scriptura is challenging. It risks selectively appropriating aspects of the Fathers’ theology while ignoring or downplaying their ecclesiological and sacramental commitments. You insightfully point out that much of Protestantism’s retrieval of early Christian practices tends to omit the sacraments. This is no minor oversight. The sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, were not peripheral to the spiritual life of the early Church; they were its heart. St. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (66-67), describes the Eucharist as the very means by which believers are united with Christ. This emphasis permeates the Fathers’ writings. Ignoring the centrality of the sacraments leads to a truncated retrieval of early Christianity. Without reclaiming a sacramental worldview, any attempt to live in continuity with the early Church remains incomplete. Your discussion of doctrinal development is also critical. Protestants often critique Catholic and Orthodox traditions for their apparent “developments,” yet many of these developments, like Marian doctrines or the veneration of saints, are rooted in early Christian practices and theology. The Fathers themselves often articulated the principle of doctrinal development. Vincent of Lérins wrote that doctrine grows over time, much like a seed into a tree, but must remain faithful to its essence (Commonitorium, 23). If doctrinal development is dismissed outright, Protestants risk a “fossilized” faith that cannot account for the organic growth of Christian understanding through history. Yet, if doctrinal development is accepted, one must grapple with the Church’s authority in discerning authentic developments, as this authority is what kept Christianity unified for centuries. You raise the critical question: Is it possible for any contemporary Christian community to be in full continuity with the Fathers? Catholicism and Orthodoxy do claim such continuity, not by perfectly replicating every practice of the early Church but by maintaining the same doctrinal and sacramental essence. Protestantism, especially in its low-church forms, struggles to make a similar claim because its ecclesiology and sacramental theology are so far removed from the Fathers. Your metaphor of the Fathers as “church uncles” rather than “church fathers” aptly describes this dissonance. While Protestants can certainly learn from the Fathers, the inability to fully embrace their ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or liturgical practices suggests a more distant relationship than one of organic continuity. You suggest several paths forward for Protestants: Anglo-Catholicism or High-Church Protestantism: These traditions come closest to aligning with the Fathers. However, as you note, this often requires a significant re-evaluation of sola scriptura and an embrace of a sacramental worldview. Becoming Catholic or Orthodox: This is a logical step for those who prioritize continuity with the Fathers and accept the development of doctrine within the Church’s living tradition. A Modest Protestant Retrieval: This involves learning selectively from the Fathers while acknowledging that full continuity may not be possible. However, this approach risks treating the Fathers as “a la carte” resources rather than spiritual and theological authorities. To conclude, the retrieval of the Church Fathers is a profoundly enriching endeavor, but it inevitably raises challenging questions about ecclesiology, sacraments, and authority. The Fathers cannot be fully understood or appreciated without acknowledging the central role of the Church as the visible body of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. As a Catholic myself, we see the Fathers not as distant relatives but as our own spiritual forebears. Their theology, sacramental life, and ecclesiastical structure live on in the Catholic Church. To those Protestants engaging with the Fathers, we encourage you to continue this journey, but with a willingness to follow where the evidence leads-even if it means reconsidering long-held assumptions about sola scriptura, sacramental theology, and the Church. The Fathers called us to unity in the body of Christ, grounded in truth and love. As St. Augustine reminds us: “Let us therefore love the Lord our God; let us love His Church: the Lord as our Father, the Church as our Mother” (On Psalm 88). May this love guide us all as we seek to follow Christ more faithfully. Thank you for this interesting conversation and God bless.

[@wonderingpilgrim]

@echoes-of-faith89 This is a very insightful comment. You've given this Protestant even more to think about!

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@wonderingpilgrim Brother, it's about historical integrity. The Early Fathers and Protestantism are not compatible. The Early Fathers, those men who lived and breathed Scripture, and either knew an apostle, or knew one who did, these men were Catholic on every point of doctrine. Some Protestants attempt to portray the writings of the Fathers as Protestants in the same way they do with Scripture, by cherry-picking and twisting. For the Fathers, their Final Authority was the Church. They did not leave the Church as the Protestants did, which is why they are called Early Church Fathers and not Early Protestant Founders. Pax

[@truthnotlies]

What a great comment. Reading the Church Fathers is part of the reason I am becoming Catholic next week!! ❤

[@robertotapia8086]

Beautifully explained I pray @Gospel Simplicity @Austin reads this and everyone that sees this video. 🙏🏼

[@robertotapia8086]

​@@truthnotlieswelcome home brother 🙏🏼

[@SowingWonder]

Your voice is just about the most level-headed around the fence of this conversation. I come from a reformed Baptist tradition, but have had a major encounter with the Orthodox Church for a couple of months now. You have been some of the best help in my thinking through this. Thanks, friend ✌️

[@Chromebreaks]

A question that broke me was, how far back in history can I trace what I believe as an evangelical? I wouldnt want to firmly believe something thats barely 100 years old, I would think christianity has been around for 2000 years right?. As soon as I scratched barely the surface of christian history it was indisputable that evangelicalism never existed prior to the last 2 centuries. Same with sola fide, or sola scriptura, cant find it before the 1500s. to my surprise, infant baptism, the eucharist, apostolic succesion. All found as far back as FIRST generacion of christians, the DIRECT disciples of the apostles, in other words, 2000 years of those doctrines. Also taught universally. All the way until the reformation. Who am I to say me as an evangelical im right, but the people who learned directly from the apostles are wrong (ignatius, Polycarp, Dionysius the Areopagite, and many more).

[@TikkunFiat]

If you can trace these doctrines to the first century, it is not history you're reading

[@JoshOchoa-o3m]

Wow. Thanks. So honest. Anyone who reads and knows that all Protestantism is only a few hundred years is left with a lot of questions...which can only be answered by keep look back into history

[@Ari-ih2nl]

Could it be that you don’t see them because their theological ancestry was vanquished, killed off by the Roman church ?

[@dreistheman7797]

@@Ari-ih2nl Is this a new theory that the "Roman church" you describe altered the known history? None of the Protestant apologists have even uttered anything close to that, even Martin Luther and the reformers will also deny that.

[@Ari-ih2nl]

To be thorough though, one would need to look into the plight of the : Waldenses Armenians Politeans Donatists Albigensians Cathars Anabaptists Plymouth Brethren Patternings. Henricians. Baptists Puritans. ET AL

[@joshuasy10]

Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

[@notavailable4891]

I know I am biased because I am a Catholic convert, but this is one of the best arguments against protestantism I've ever heard. Hopefully I'm not cheapened the depth of your reflection because it is honest and vulnerable and thoughtful I just mean that's what it became for me as I listened. Regardless, this was one of the best videos on this topic from anyone I'll be thinking about it for a while.

[@MichaelLam-p5b]

Agreed. I'm orthodox, baptist convert, and this video basically confirmed my beliefs. You can extend the question and ask Can the pastor down the street be the pastor in my church? And thats the question I struggled with before orthodoxy. Why cant I go down the street to another church and learn the same thing? Why are there 1000s of interpretations for the one thing? Theres only one interpretation, one church, no cherry picking.

[@PaulDo22]

@@MichaelLam-p5b And only One Vicar of Christ, while we are at it.

[@jd3jefferson556]

​@@MichaelLam-p5b as a Catholic, my goal is to bring the Protestants back to the Most Holy Eucharist, they are just so lost and confused without the Eucharist and in the Eucharist Christians are truly united

[@johnsayre2038]

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" and for Austin that means the courage to share his spiritual journey. God bless and keep you. This channel is a great help to many.

[@JohnKlimakos]

All the Church Fathers, Athanasius, Chrysostom, the 2 Gregory's, etc could all preach at my Church. I'm Orthodox.

[@CCiPencil]

Great Video! Reading the fathers and councils caused me to rethink what I knew, been going to an Orthodox Church ever since

[@Reasonandfaith]

The fathers helped me find peace and assurance that the Catholic version of Christianity is true. Irenaeus was a big one for me, as was Ignatius. Ortlund even admits that Ignatius is a challenge to his position. Yet he was clearly a serious authority in the early Church.

[@truthnotlies]

A kind protestant pastor, trying to convince me not to be Catholic, told me that Ignatius "invented the idea of bishops and forced them on the Church to try and prevent heresy." 😅 Anyways, I love Ignatius. He helped me realize I need to not be Protestant.

[@windowfile]

Thought GOD was suppose to provide peace and assurance.

[@atgred]

@@windowfileThrough HIS Church.

[@A-gor]

I'm a bit confused by this. Reading the Apostolic fathers most certainly did not make me Roman Catholic. I think I accept most, if not all, they say.

[@jaycefields756]

@@windowfile He does, and He does it through His church. The church is God’s chosen instrument. It’s how He interacts with the world. You cannot separate God from His church , to do so would mean it is no longer a church

[@rhondalandry5215]

Reading the fathers led me to become Orthodox

[@xxrandmlinksxxbruh2419]

I don’t know how the fathers led me to evangelism

[@ezrajeremiah8631]

Do you really believe Constantine is a Saint? Ps, not Protestant or RC when I ask this

[@ricardogarcia-vi6hv]

​@@xxrandmlinksxxbruh2419 wich ones in particular?

[@RightOverWrong]

Same. Its pretty cut and dry.

[@johnsmiff9649]

Led me to become Catholic

[@matthewmeyer3483]

Wow, what i love about your channel, Austin, is that you make public this journey that many of us are struggling through. Your honest reflections have been a blessing as my wife and I continue to search.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

He's getting closer.

[@TJ-015]

☦️⚔️ 🔜

[@shobudski6776]

He most certainly is. Lord Have Mercy.☦️

[@sethtrey]

KHAAAAAANN!!!

[@remrubram]

Khaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn

[@GreatPlainsFlyTyer]

He’s got icons up, that’s the least protty thing a prot can do, other than admit the true presence in the Eucharist.

[@TheBasicExpert]

I read the church fathers, started attending an Orthodox church and being catechized. Haha.

[@JesusChurchBible]

What church did the early church fathers belong to?

[@TheBasicExpert]

@JesusChurchBible it is my belief reading them that the modern Orthodox Church is the only one in continuity.

[@BornAgainJohn]

That is so wrong. Big differences between early church and modern Eastern Orthodox.

[@TheBasicExpert]

@@BornAgainJohn nah actually you are wrong.

[@RobertWCornell]

@@JesusChurchBible you tell us!

[@stonecrier6891]

For me, and I am sure this tracks with others, it was having implanted in my mind an anachronistic idea of what the early church was. When you read the Fathers, you do not see that same idea of a church, but you see a liturgical, sacramental, and high ecclesial church. And to deny that, I would need to believe that the Holy Spirit failed immediately and then wasn't able to get it right for 1,500 years (or more depending on tradition). Entertaining that idea and meditating on it leads to very dark places, at least it did for me. I had to come to terms that the paradigm I grew up with was just an illusion that had been constructed and that the Church does exist still through all this time. And continuing with that motivation to find that "early church" lead me to Orthodoxy.

[@YugaKhan]

I had a conversation with one of the pastors at Parkside Alistair beggs Church. And I told him that I was reading the early church fathers in he told me basically to be hesitant I'm doing that. In a very nice way but then I pointed out because we were in his office that we were surrounded by books. I told him you have no problem reading thousands of books from people who are just pastors and just share your theology but you're concerned about someone reading the early church fathers.

[@jonahanderson9101]

This line of thinking is what lead me to holy orthodoxy

[@steadydividends571]

I read the catechism of st Cyril of Jerusalem who was made bishop of Jerusalem as part of the 2nd ecumenical council and realized there is no way this guy could be the pastor at my Protestant church or any Protestant church. So I noped right out and became an orthodox catechumen

[@bergmamp]

I'm a catechumen too, and that's what my priest is leading us through to learn the theology!

[@GospelSimplicity]

My Patreon book club just read that. Working on a video on that book soon.

[@collin501]

I love that one as a Protestant. In my understanding of what it means to be a Protestant, Cyril of Jerusalem can be embraced.

[@JC_Forum_of_Christ]

@@GospelSimplicity You know the Word of God proves any and all of Catholicism to be false doctrine…. Eucharist Saint prayer Purgatory Sola Scriptura It’s all there

[@GreatPlainsFlyTyer]

@@JC_Forum_of_Christwhich verse of the Bible claims sola scriptura? Sola scriptura is a tradition of men. The paradox of following sola scriptura is you follow something not in scripture.

[@joeythemonk007]

Your observations are sharp and honest. I cannot imagine the time, effort and prayer u put into this topic for the past couple of years. All for His glory. He is worth all the pain.

[@faithfulacresfarmhouse]

This is why you’re my favorite Protestant channel to watch. Thank you for sharing honestly thoughts even if they’re not the most popular thoughts.

[@georgekrstev7712]

This is very honest. I appreciate it a lot. I couldn't help but think during the video: Claiming a Church Father is not sharing an opinion with them but sharing of the same LIFE as them. These were men that have quotes that overlap with Protestant positions, but what was the life that they partook of that formed them? Another question similar to the one posed in the video, "Could any of these Fathers pastor in your Church?" is "if you were brought to a church in the 400s, could you find ANY church where you could worship and be a communicant?"

[@theprisonersprogress]

Great video. I’m not Catholic. Free Will Baptist youth pastor. I read and re read church fathers recently. Having the same problems. Bishops are real in 2nd century

[@maurashea457]

Thanks for this honest and challenging video. I'd be interested in Gavin Ortlund's response. As a Catholic, I've learned a lot from both you and him and I am very grateful to both of your ministries, despite our important disagreements. I am continually hopeful/haunted by John 17:21-23, the prayer of Jesus that we Christians have all failed to fulfill.

[@ethanw6767]

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” - St. Ignatius of Antioch, ~115AD

[@MarkS.-ry7bm]

It's pretty great how you can just address these touchy controversial issues with calmness and levelheadedness

[@kyrieeleison1243]

Short answer: no. Can’t be consistent with the Fathers without participation in the valid Sacraments of the Church and being under its authority.

[@Galmala94]

Once again an excellent and thought-provoking video. I ran into a somewhat similar dilemma as you with Keith Little's question (which of the church fathers could serve as pastor in your church). I was a low church evangelical and enjoyed debating with various non-Christian groups from Muslims to Mormons. Interestingly, both Mormons and Muslims make the claim that Jesus' message was corrupted and there was a "great apostasy". To me, this was an incomprehensible idea. As Jesus said: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. But once I ran into a really smart Mormon - most of the Mormons I met were regular 19-year-old missionaries. But he had studied theology in college and knew church history well. And he was also ready to defend the idea of ​​the "great apostasy". He then started grilling me about apostolic succession, bishops, the Eucharist, the validity of infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, ecclesiology, soteriology... I had to constantly state and admit that yes, the church had misunderstood this and that. But then I started to sound like someone who believed in the "great apostasy". Well, in the end I didn't really have anything else to say except that I do believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, as did the church fathers. But the creeds regarding the doctrine of the Trinity were written by theologians whose theology was otherwise nothing like mine. Then I moved towards more classical Protestantism and felt that I had taken steps towards the church fathers and their theology. But still some of the problems remained. I also have to admit that Protestantism is going through a difficult time from the perspective of classical Protestantism: the mainline churches in the United States and the Protestant state churches in Europe are really liberal. The fastest growing branches of Protestantism are nondenominationalism (yes, they are Protestants ;)), charismaticism, Pentecostalism... Movements that have a genuine bit of a restorationist spirit. I'm not saying that Confessional Lutheranism and Confessional Presbyterianism aren't also growing in certain parts of the World, but I think the most serious Protestant denominations are falling at the feet of low church evangelicalism. In the future, Protestantism will be defined by Pentecostal theology. not a high understanding of the Eucharist. I appreciate Dr. Gavin Ortlund's work and I believe that evangelicals also have their own tradition and can learn from other traditions, but to be honest, "theological retrieval for Evangelicals" seems to be mostly a thing for theology nerds. Is it easier for a Baptist to convert to Anglicanism, for example, than to push through liturgy, reciting the creeds, and weekly communion in their own church? My own journey hasn't ended anywhere yet, by the way. :) I feel like I'm currently ecclesiastically homeless and deep in a theological hole. I really appreciate many things about low church evangelicalism (enthusiasm for evangelism, community...), but for me it has become an impossible paradigm. Classical Protestantism was a good cure for certain problems, but I didn't find it completely satisfactory either (and due to my own country of residence, Lutheranism would be the only option for me, e.g. Anglicanism would not be on the table at all). But I am not completely convinced, at least not at the moment, of the Catholic or Orthodox paradigm. I see many strengths in them, I feel that the church fathers are closer to these paradigms than high or low church Protestantism, but I still struggle with some things. But thank you again for all these videos, I believe you really put into words the thoughts of many people. When there is so much information and you hear about conversions from one church to another all the time and every day there are new "this protestant found the Catholic church, this orthodox became an Anglican, how cradle catholic found Lutheranism, how a Lutheran priest became Orthodox" videos on my KZbin feed, it is so difficult lol. :D

[@megamatt1915]

in the same boat my friend

[@wynlararinue6866]

I appreciated reading this honest testimony of yours. It seems like you're approaching the quest for truth with a good attitude. It brought to my mind a reflection about Providence: God demands that we seek the truth, yet He often permits us to experience considerable difficulties in finding it. Yet I don't want to believe that, after founding the Christian religion, He would make it hopelessly difficult for us to rationally discern which, if any, of the institutions claiming to be the true Church were authentic and legitimate. That seems deeply unfitting to me. Nor would it be fitting if He made the puzzle so complex that only the profoundly learned could solve it. Nevertheless, testimonies like yours indicate that the puzzle can be quite difficult. If God just wanted to give us simple assurance of salvation through faith without us having to worry about belonging to the right denomination, why would He leave so much evidence, in both Scripture and Tradition, that He founded a visible and hierarchical Church to which we owe obedience? But if He did establish a visible and hierarchical Church, why didn't He provide more unambiguous clarification regarding the nature of its organization and scope of its authority? I think this question needs to be answered for Christianity to make sense. Here's my attempt at an answer: we can discover the true Church, even without exceptional theological expertise, by, first, narrowing down our options, and second, discerning which option is most generally plausible. Discerning that one option is more generally plausible than others does not mean proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, just using our reason to assess that one broad narrative makes more sense and seems more probable than competing narratives. So here are the narrowed down options: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism (you can add a fourth or fifth option if these are not satisfactory). What are their broadly defined narratives by which they are contrasted from their competitors? The Protestant narrative is that God gave us Scripture as our only infallible rule of faith, and the institutional church inherited from the Apostles quickly fell into error, such that it was necessary to found new churches with different interpretations of Scripture. The Eastern Orthodox narrative is that the institutional Church inherited from the Apostles survives, and for several centuries it was able to authoritatively define dogmas and develop doctrine for the whole Church by means of Ecumenical Councils; however, after the most important bishop, the Pope of Rome, and the bishops under his authority fell into heresy, or at least very serious error, the true Church lives on only in the East, and the process of doctrinal development made possible by Ecumenical Councils more or less ceased at the same time, around the 8th or 9th century. The Catholic narrative is that the institutional Church inherited from the Apostles lives on, and it is united by the Pope of Rome and all the bishops in communion with him; consequently, the Church maintains a living tradition with doctrinal developments, more or less dramatic, continuing at least up until the 20th century, and we can trust these developments on account of the authority that approves them. Of course, these little snippets in themselves are not enough to settle the question of who's right, and you may want to modify them if you think I did an inadequate job of placing the basic narratives in contrast to one another. However, I think one thing that comes out is that the Catholic narrative, at least superficially, seems most plausible and consistent. The Protestant narrative entails a minimization of Church authority and continuity with the past which, based on various factors which you've already noted, seems implausible or at least highly troublesome. The Orthodox narrative, by contrast, preserves Church authority and continuity with the past, but it cuts off doctrinal development at a seemingly arbitrary point. Why would God establish a Church that can doctrinally develop then cut off the process in the 8th century? Further, the narrative seems to rely on the assumption that Catholics fell into heresy, namely the Filioque, and even if you aren't convinced that the Filioque is true, it seems far fetched to call it heresy. Further, that entails that God permitted the majority of future Christians to belong to heretical Churches, while the Orthodox territories were largely overrun by Muslims. The Catholic Church, by contrast, is plausible in that it preserves the Church's authority and continuity with the past without arbitrarily cutting off doctrinal development, making far fetched accusations of heresy, or entailing that only a small sliver of the true Church survives. To me, that makes it a more plausible narrative, even if I don't fully understand all the specific doctrinal developments. And, in my experience, whenever I look into any specific Catholic doctrine, like papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception, I find a highly compelling case which I'd be inclined to accept even in the absence of an infallible decision. So in conclusion, I think we can reason our way into Catholicism even in the midst of doctrinal uncertainties just by observing its general coherence in contrast to its competitors. If you are genuinely convinced the Catholic Church is in error, that's a different story, but if you're merely unconvinced, then just observe how Catholicism makes general sense and take that as a reason to trust the Church's authority on difficult doctrinal questions.

[@ChristApologetics01]

Can totally relate to this. The burdensome truth of Apostolic Succession is a bedrock for Apologetics and arguing that the church did not fall away. I'm in a strange bind where I see it but my family i live with does not. Time, prayer, and patience. God bless your journey

[@megamatt1915]

@@wynlararinue6866 well said my brother

[@stmichael71]

A very important consideration that seems not directly dealt with by Gavin Ortlund is that the Fathers are aware of doctrinal development, although they did not have that 'category.' The Fathers that we venerate are precisely those who *developed* doctrine around some point that later came to be enshrined in dogmatic definitions at the ecumenical councils, working out responses to heretical challenges. For instance, Augustine developed a response to Manicheanism, Pelagianism, and Donatism - before Augustine, there was no obvious worked out doctrine of prevenient grace, predestination, and the 'character' imparted by the sacraments. The Cappadocians developed our Trinitarian theology, namely, the distinction between 1 essence/ousia and 3 hypostases/persons, and the account of how the divine names applied to the Godhead. We can examine why they thought these developments were necessary, but I don't see that 'sola scriptura' is at all a good paradigm for understanding what they thought about this. On a similar front, Ortlund himself insists that the Fathers held 'institutional exclusivism' about salvation outside the Church. Since Ortlund takes this to be the main issue separating Protestants and Catholics, and he concedes the Fathers are essentially opposed to the Protestant view of the institutional church (a 'branch'-type theory), it seems to me even Ortlund fundamentally admits the Fathers are not Protestants.

[@chancylvania]

Yeah. Gavin has said many times he isn’t trying to show the fathers are full blown Protestant. Just that the idea that all Protestant ideas just sprang out of nowhere in the 1500s isn’t correct.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

I don't think any competent Protestant apologist would try to maintain that the church fathers were "Protestant" in any relevant sense since the term is very particular to the concerns/attitudes/beliefs of a group of Christians from the 1500s in Europe. It would be like calling Covenant Israel "Protestant." The continuity Protestants have historically argued for are in the core beliefs of Christianity (apostolic doctrine).

[@shobudski6776]

@@chancylvaniaProtestant heresy didn’t spring out of nowhere for sure. Having said that, the early church fathers didn’t advocate anything approaching Protestant theology either.

[@Kaz2Family]

Austin, I was baptized into a evangelical low church about 12 years ago and just became orthodox after two years of looking into it. I don’t understand how people can look into all this evidence and the conclusions that you just spoke about and not be in communion with eithef the catholic or Orthodox Church. Is it fear of peers? Is it loyalty to the church they grew up in? I mean when we say that the man who first wrote outs list of the books of the New Testament (st. Athanasius) could not be a pastor at my church should be a serious red flag. I pray for you and your journey and thank you for your honest depth with clarity.

[@Chromebreaks]

I would understand people who were ignorant to all the historical facts. But people who are studied, that i cant wrap my head around. Just reminds me of when Jesus said in the parable of lazarus and the rich man, even if someone came back from the DEAD and told them all these things, they wont believe, they have moses and the prophets. which means its a problem of the heart, and not a problem of evidence. Lord have mercy.

[@joojotin]

For me its about consistency of how we are saved, spesifically sacraments etc. They say we are saved by grace through faith but then prodive answer that is "mystery" not appealing to logic. Then the argument for that is we cant understand God. Other than that I could propably be orthodox or catholic. There is also couple other things I dont like. Like too much focus on Mary, icons and the saints. There are many times these spesific churchers/institutions have been corrupted. Which is why protestantism arised in the first place. Both catholic/orthodox and protestants have their positives and negatives imo.

[@valwhelan3533]

@@joojotin Church has been corrupt many times throughout history but saints who were reformers (not rebels) , have always come along to confront this and work within the church to correct. They did not pick up their marbles and leave in a snit to found a new church.

[@joojotin]

@@valwhelan3533 I respect that.

[@j.c.5999]

I think you've touched on something that doesn't seem to get addressed much, if at all (unless I've missed something). That is the "fear of peers". To turn away from one's evangelical or low church protestant world, would more than likely result in all of your friends and family turning their back on you and cutting you off. Not to mention, all the backlash you'd experience prior to being cut-off. You would lose your entire support network and a large part of your way of life. Well, okay, perhaps you might retain that rare, genuine friend, but you get the picture. I think if we get down to the hard, cold truth of it, most of us are not willing to make that sacrifice. We can argue theology ad nauseum, but I think this is a very important point that just doesn't seem to get talked about much. At least that is my observation and humble opinion. For me personally, it is not the fear of peers that holds me back, but rather the respect and consideration for my husband. I think all I can do about that, for now, is pray.

[@PLFREF]

Many years ago, after a profound conversion experience to Christ, I became steeped and well versed in the modern evangelical understanding of Christianity. Then I stumbled upon a small book called the Apostolic Fathers, and was not at all impressed. My initial knee jerk reaction was to think that these early church writers were not even Christian! They most certainly did not sound like any typical modern day evangelical preacher or teaching so I just dismissed those strange writings, but only for a short time. The thought came to me that same day, that maybe, just maybe, these “Fathers of the Church”who lived so very close to the apostles time knew better than I did.! Maybe I was the one who was wrong, and maybe my modern evangelical understanding was seriously flawed in some way. This lead me down the rabbit hole of studying Church history, and I eventually became an Orthodox Christian.

[@seansimpson1133]

Reading Cyril as we speak on the unity of Christ. So far as a Protestant I find it comforting just how much he refers to the scriptures to make his points and also rebuke heresy.

[@DD-bx8rb]

You are twisting Cyril to fit your Protestant paradigm. The Early Fathers loved Scripture of course, but when a heretic did not accept the meaning of Scripture as held by the Church, the Fathers referred the heretic to the Church. Facts.

[@DD-bx8rb]

Brother you must except the fact that the early Fathers and Protestantism are not compatible. The Early Fathers, those men who lived and breathed Scripture, and either knew an apostle, or knew one who did, these men were Catholic on every point of doctrine. Some Protestants attempt to portray the writings of the Fathers as Protestants in the same way they do with Scripture, by cherry-picking and twisting. For the Fathers, their Final Authority was the Church. They did not leave the Church as the Protestants did, which is why they are called Early Church Fathers and not Early Protestant Founders. Pax

[@seansimpson1133]

@@DD-bx8rb Thank you for the comment, brother and I’ll definitely keep what you said in mind but let me figure this out as I go. To tell me that I just “must except” something isn’t the healthy way to get anyone to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@seansimpson1133 Actually brother, I am not saying you should simply take my word for it, rather I am inviting you to look at history. Most people do not dislike the Catholic Church, but rather they dislike what they THINK is the Catholic Church and what they have been TOLD is the Catholic Church. I recommend the site Catholic Answers. You could start by keying in the sites search bar "what the early Church believed". Pax

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@seansimpson1133 Regarding Cyril and Scripture, like all the early Church Fathers, he certainly refers heretics to Scripture, to the point that they will accept it's meaning as held by the Church from whence Scripture came. And when this fails Cyril and the Fathers refer the heretic to the Church! The Church was the Final Authority for the Fathers. In Protestantism, there is no final authority to decide who has the "right interpretation" and who does not.

[@leonmatata3722]

I must say man I love your videos. Your videos helped me tear down walls I had against orthodox and catholic. Especially the video with Mrs Fredericka Greens. Now I'm exploring High church Anglo catholic. Orthodox and catholic. Used to be non denominations. God bless, keep up the work. Protestantism needs to be reformed if we going to compete and value our Christian faith.

[@thomisticthinker]

I'm not convinced this is not true of EOs or RCs as well. Apart from all of the doctrinal development, culture heavily flavors church practices. A person born in a more collectivist society will naturally find our churches to be quite foreign. How could they pastor over a society they simply do not relate to? I just don't think this a compelling question. The real question would be, "Given their doctrinal commitments, the more interesting questions are (i) Would they regard today's Christians as Orthodox believers, and (ii) How would they have looked at the state of the church today?" I have no doubt that with respect to (ii), they'd have serious objections to every ecclesial tradition, but I think they'd also be able to see that Christ resides in many of the churches.

[@georgekrstev7712]

I disagree. I think if you were to go to an Orthodox service, you would easily be able to see how many many of the Fathers would feel comfortable there even amidst quirks of differing customs than what they are used to. I was at a hierarchical liturgy with like 8 bishops and 20 priests and it legit felt like the saints were very present worshipping with us. It was completely transcendent and timeless

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

Orthodox services are word for word what they've been for at least 1600 years, and more depending on where you are talking about. That's *word for word.* every other church would be unrecognizable to a Christian from 1000 or even 1500, east and west. TLM is 400 years old.

[@georgekrstev7712]

@@XiHamORTHOCN I'm Orthodox, and I do think much is preserved word for word, but there have been slight alterations. I would say probably the Anaphora and key aspects of the liturgy is near identical, but for example, St. John of Damascus and his adoptive brother St. Cosmas were very skilled hymnographers who composed many Church hymns we still use. They lived 600s-700s. St. John of Damascus wrote our funeral service for example.

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

@georgekrstev7712 True! My bad!

[@NEPS-r9m]

My entire family make the switch to the Orthodox Church ❤ We are growing spirituality so much there!

[@hiltonchapman4844]

Re your ".... switch(ed) to the Orthodox Church...." Pardon my curiosity, but FROM... what....? With best regards, HC-JAIPUR (06/Dec/2024) .

[@johncollorafi257]

7:03 realization that the accepting the Fathers "narrows it down to Catholic or Orthodox" or possibly "Anglo-Catholic," but that was Newman's short lived via media, and the "via" led to the Catholic Church.

[@atropinecaffeine]

I attend a conservative Anglican church. I have not found anything in it that the early church father's would reject (so far), and it also seems to avoid developments that might be problematic* (veneration of icons, etc). [*I am not saying they are problematic. However, the significance within those churches of some (not all) of the Marian philosophy and icon veneration means those 2 things can't be dismissed as "would never be a problem with the earliest church fathers". If these two things were so significant to true worship and belief, they would seem to have been conveyed in the Word and/or the earliest church fathers. Basically if we are using the earliest church fathers to say that some churches are not doing enough to be the original church, we also have to check churches to see if they are requiring more than the earliest church required]

[@GreasedDolphin]

If you truly want to seek God no matter what and your biggest ache is to just be right with Him and do what ever He wants, then reading the fathers from a totally unbiased view will lead you to Orthodoxy. At least pre schism orthodoxy, the rest is for you to wrestle with God on your own. I was a Protestant for 29 years and served as a leader in several churches. I know the struggle and the questions that keep inquiring Protestants up at night. Just keep praying. His knows our heart and He will lead you and open your eyes. Bless ☦️

[@joshf2218]

Nope. As soon as I read Justin Martyr and Ignatius I realized I couldn’t be Protestant anymore. The Orthodox Catholic Church is the true communion.

[@truthnotlies]

Same

[@mj6493]

Orthodox Catholic Communion? If I’m not mistaken the Orthodox and Catholics have excommunicated one another. There is no communion between them.

[@Ceylin_Kurtbogan]

Ignatius of Antioch converted me from Islam. I always felt very strong call to Christianity even when I was 3 but when I read Ignatius in very early 2nd century, only 70 years after his crucifixion, proclaming Jesus to be God above all and all the other teachings that would be considered Catholic/Orthodox right now, I got convinced and converted to Catholicism. After 6 years of that now I am an Orthodox catechumen.

[@countryboyred]

@@Ceylin_Kurtbogan Glory to God brother.

[@valwhelan3533]

@@Ceylin_Kurtbogan Wow - you show far more teachability/humility than many christians.

[@sheylamercado9801]

In my humble opinion, Church Father couldn’t rely on sola scripture since there was no New Testament Canon for the first few centuries

[@reformedcatholic457]

But yet they appealed to what they believed to be Scripture as final authority to refute heretics even when they didn't have a complete canon.

[@PaulDo22]

@@reformedcatholic457 No they didn't. They appealed to the Church and the Authority of Christ. Unless you reject Protestant revisionist history you will always be stuck in this false understanding.

[@seanoconnor5311]

You mean Polycarp's opinion was reliable but Pope Francis isn't? Is this supposed to provoke an epistemic crisis? They also had no monarchial pope, etc. The church got sick after Nicea as it became like the Roman Empire that now ruled it. I'd happily accept an infallible church AND infallible scripture, except it's self evident that the church simply is not what it was in the pre-Nicene days, let alone infallible.

[@reformedcatholic457]

@PaulDo22 Saints in Irenaeus and Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture as final authority? You may want to rethink that statement. I can give you quotes from both who appeal to Scripture to refute heretics and not the church. If they did appeal to the church I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it depending on the context.

[@PaulDo22]

​​​@@reformedcatholic457Let's see those quotes. Your understanding of an appeal to "final authority" is going to be wildly different from reality. For instance you've already conflated what final authority means because you don't understand that the Church produced Scripture. Scripture and the Church can never conflict because they both are inspired. Any dichotomy is only in your head.

[@AdamIsaac01]

This is the question that did it for me ☦️

[@LHWakefield]

Really enjoying your musings Austin. I live in Portland and went to John Mark Comer’s church for several years before getting confirmed into the Catholic Church this last Easter. He’s done a lot to open Protestants up to traditional Christian practice.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad to hear that you're enjoying the videos! As he grows in popularity, it will be interesting to see if his works are a sort of gateway drug to more traditional churches (pardon the metaphor).

[@LHWakefield]

@@GospelSimplicity It seems like it. He certainly was for me!

[@CamSmith_not_a_Bot_lol]

I mean, as a low church Baptist, I don't necessarily find these arguments compelling... Can an early church father pastor at my church? Probably not - there are A LOT of guys (even within my own tradition) who cannot be a pastor at our church... but that doesn't mean (a) they're not saved, (b) they're immature/ignorant believers, or (c) cannot be INCREDIBLY valuable. The early church fathers could be members of our church, but you have to have (a) a particular lifestyle that accords with various biblical passages and (b) subscribe to a very particular set of doctrines to be a pastor. Does that imply a Great Apostasy or Doctrinal Development? I don't see it. Does it imply that different people in different cultural contexts could read the Bible and, with good will, arrive at various conclusions (all within the umbrella of orthodoxy)? I could see that. As an obvious example, the Corinthians and Galatians learned directly from the apostles and veered WAY off course. Could the church fathers also veer off-course in non-heretical ways and issues? Again, as far as I'm aware, no church today practices the exact practice of the church fathers, so all would feel comfortable saying the church fathers erred and were "off-course" in non-heretical ways and issues. There's a lot of people who I highly revere and whose teaching I heavily meditate on who could probably not be a pastor at our church... Examples like Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Michael Reeves (contemporary example), but that doesn't mean they're not incredibly valuable. I think it moreso emphasizes how particular your doctrine needs to be to be a pastor at our church. The standard for pastor at our church isn't a universal standard, but it's how OUR church individually functions. And how we see it best functioning. It's not for everyone, but, as a baptist lol, you're not required to be a part of our church. As a lot of Lutherans (and Gavin Ortlund) have commented, I don't necessarily find these arguments putting me in a weird spot.. Especially as a low-church Baptist. And, to me, even the question at 8:05, I definitely prefer testing doctrine with Scripture OVER Tradition (Councils and Popes)... If the two are put at odds, I'll take Scripture any day xD. No shame there lol. And I don't necessarily mind sharing the church fathers with other denominations lol.

[@Powerranger-le4up]

Reading the church fathers caused me to become even more Catholic.

[@tjseaney_]

Pondering the question, "Which of the church fathers could be a pastor in your church?" I think this is an interesting question. However, how in the world could it be answered? The question assumes the Church fathers had a developed understanding of historical doctrine, like they would read the articles of faith on your church website and condemn them, how could they, they wouldn't know any better, they would probably be like it's good to me, just like the rest of us. It seems to me, that the majority of the Church fathers would be just as lost in medieval scholasticism as they would be in evangelical Protestantism. It seems there is a presupposition that what moderns think of as "Church History" is really, in fact, modern theology in retrospect. Moderns have a subconscious bias to think that they know what a Church father would think. This is pure speculation. A person might say, separate the person from his theological ideas. Judge his theological ideas by the development. However, this seems to be inserting the context in which the theological idea is formulated. You have to exegete history like Scripture. When you do that, I think you realize that each era stands on its own. It can't be amalgamated. Another thing that would interesting to hear you talk about is Reformed confessionalism. The confessions were a liturgy. I think the reformation was getting back to an ad fontes approach. As you state the sacraments are deeply involved with this. 2 not 7. The issue here is a lack of understanding of the culture detached from the theological developments.

[@Steve-wg3cr]

Excellent points. There is no good way to take a church father from ancient history and place him in modern or even medieval times and know what he would have thought about it. Many of the doctrines and practices of the modern and medieval church would be completely foreign to men from who lived in the years A.D. 100 - 500.

[@tjseaney_]

@@Steve-wg3cr Exactly.

[@omorthon5774]

In the spirit of Charity , I could *partially* grant what you are saying . The Protestant reformers read the Church fathers and tried to harmonize their views. **However**, the church fathers aren’t some group who we have no idea what they believed either… we read in their writing specific beliefs that they felt were contrary to the deposit of faith such as infant baptism , which some Protestants today deny (“there is nothing new under the sun”). You can do the same exercise with other ideas and find that as the Reformation progressed and evolved into things such as the Great Awakening it drifted further away in a lot of areas from the orthodoxy. I am not a fan of scholastic but early Protestantism (Luther especially) heavily held to Scholastic presuppositions and neo Aristotelian philosophy; so I don’t understand the disparaging of it. The Church Fathers themselves heavily leaned on Philo, the Stoics and Aristotle. St John of Damascus has an entire book which is a commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, St Augustine uses Aristotilian ideasand the Cappadocian Fathers use Plato’s idea of personhood heavily in their Trinitarian ideas. So the use of philosophy isn’t foreign to the early Church; St Dionysius the *Areopagite* (ie the Greek forum) uses Plato. I think the big issue with the reformation was their investment into Scholasticism which ultimately put those concepts above what the early Christians believed .

[@MarkS.-ry7bm]

At the church of Christ (low church) we have big emphasis on sacraments of baptism as well as weekly Lord's Supper. Lord's Supper had been one of the most meaningful events of my life

[@Notouchs]

Reading the Fathers led me away from evangelicalism to Catholicism. I almost fell down the orthodox rabbit hole if it wasn't for my belief that the Filioque was true.

[@Deathbytroll]

How can it be true if even popes called double causation wrong?

[@RJDJ__]

Because people always misinterpret Papal Infallibility ​@@Deathbytroll

[@RJDJ__]

Amen, It was the Filioque for me at first. Then I actually delved more into the early church and realised they taught Papal Supremacy as well. Pope St. Boniface members, and that in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this Church [the Roman Church] is to all the churches throughout the world as the head is to its body. Whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship. [Epistle 14, PL 20.777, in Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454, by Ed Giles [London: SPCK, 1952], 230, 422 AD] Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria: I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his apostolic power and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

[@Chromebreaks]

Pope was the first protestant, The council of Nicea taught the Monarchy of the Father (NO filioque), The cappadoccian formulation is what is accepted at the councils, (not the filioque ). Papism is as much as an innovation as protestantism

[@noahsolomon726]

​@@Chromebreaks- most Orthodox don't reject Christ’s kingship or the double procession of the Holy Ghost. Mostly, Orthodox are aghast at the alteration of the creed outside an œcumenical council, not the theology of the filioque. You're neo-Orthodox at best, probably a convert.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

It's like you can read my mind and then express eloquently what I'm struggling with.

[@kylie5741]

I always appreciate how thoughtful your videos are. This exact issue is what lead me to high-church Protestantism. After reading documents from the reformation like the book of concord, I'm not sure if low-church protestants can even claim to be in continuity with the reformation itself (maybe with the Calvinist version?). Growing up going to baptist and charismatic churches, even before I read any church father, I would sometimes have this nagging thought that if the apostle Paul walked into my church it would have been completely foreign to him. I really think if either the EO or RC churches were more humble in their claims I would've joined them, but claiming infallibility is kind of a lot. Then there's also the issue of anathemas and no assurance of salvation. The main problem is that when 2 different people try to join an 'ecclesialist' group, one becomes RC and the other EO. Forget perspicuity of scripture - how perspicuous is the church even? Overall I feel like we live in such a weird time. At what other point in history do you have several different denominations surrounding you to choose from, not to mention an unprecedented and overwhelming amount of information available for free? Gavin Ortlund was right when he said that the more you look into everything you just find more questions. Some will claim that their questions were resolved upon joining a particular church but then my question is always how do you know you picked the right one. Idk. Okay Im done rambling on now.

[@1Hope4All]

People who look into the Early Church Fathers should just become Catholic. There's no use of melding the Early Church Fathers with Protestantism. The ECF would have none of it if this was way back then when they were alive. You are more than welcome to come into the Catholic Church! Jesus is waiting for you in the Tabernacle! 🙏🏼❤️‍🔥✝️🕊️⛪🙏🏼

[@kylie5741]

@@1Hope4All So let me ask you my friend, why not Eastern Orthodox?

[@yagurlcam]

i feel exactly the same. everything is very hard and confusing lol, but things r pointing towards high protestantism

[@kylie5741]

@@yagurlcam glad im not alone in that. sometimes people act like the answer is so clear and i dont feel that at all

[@michaelbush1374]

​@1Hope4All I read all seven letters from Ignatius of Antioch. 95% of what was said in those letters seemed harmless. I can't remember which letter it was but one of them said something completely heretical to me. He said you should look at the bishop of your local church as if he were the Lord himself. No thanks. Also, and I don't know whether this has been resolved or not. But the validity of some of the early church father writings have been debated to be forged. Who is authenticating these letters? The same RCC that led 7 centuries of Inquisition and slaughtered William Tyndale and French hugenots? The same church that has miles of archives inaccessible to the common people? The bible says you will know them by their fruits. The two Abrahamic religions that have historically used force to advance or retain power are the RCC and Islam. Catholicism just doesn't line up with scripture to me either, like all their claims are based on conjecture. Why do we need the early church fathers when we can just read about the disciples anyway? Peter didn't wanna be worshipped. Acts 10:26 KJV [26] But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. I doubt he wanted to be prayed to as well. Catholics call Peter the rock when the bible says Jesus is the cornerstone. On this rock=on this revelation. He gives Peter the same keys to the kingdom that all other believers will receive. It wasn't a special position that held authority.

[@lovefilledhearts]

Church is the pillar and the foundation of the truth. Every time you find contradiction between Orthodox theology and your own understanding of Christianity, remember that it's your own subjective voice against voice of Christ's Church. Protestantism can't claim Churches fathers as their own, but Churches fathers can claim protestants away from errors and heresies into truth and into Christ's Church. May God help you receive apostolic faith and enter His Church. Blessings.

[@lannyrayconnelljr]

I tried to love church history and remain a Protestant so I became an Anglican. I found that most Anglicans (the ones I knew) had high respect for the Reformers but would cherry pick the Fathers in order to support their positions. After 5 years I realized that I didn’t share my faith with anyone else in my church. I didn’t want to leave my Anglican Church but I realized that if I wanted to have the faith of the Church Fathers I had to become Orthodox.

[@catholicguy1073]

You’re one step away at this point 😂

[@JWM5791]

No, he's right on point. ​@@catholicguy1073

[@reformedcatholic457]

Don't we all cherry pick the fathers and try to get our point across to promote our doctrine? I find the fathers to support no church imparticular.

[@catholicguy1073]

@@reformedcatholic457 to me you have to get the total sense of their theology rather than cherry picking also understand the historical contexts during that time and where the church was especially with the magisterium in their theology. Over time as one theological question was answered it led to knew questions that arose from that and so forth. Look at the questions the Church had to answer about Christology after the Council of Nicea. So it’s this natural progression that takes place. And this needs to be compared to what the Church fathers knew and understood at this point.

[@lannyrayconnelljr]

@@catholicguy1073 I understand why people would become Catholic and I nearly did myself but I found Orthodoxy more compelling.

[@ZealousEZRA]

Perfect timing thank your for all the work you do!

[@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve]

"Where the Bishop appears there let the people be, just as where JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH " St.Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD 🙌🏻📿🔑⛪️🍷🍞📖🕊

[@shobudski6776]

Yeah, just not only the Roman Catholic church. The church had many patriarchs at that time.

[@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve]

@shobudski6776 Yes indeed

[@henrytucker7189]

You’re asking good questions. After 46 years as a Protestant, I started really reading the Fathers and realized that none of the Reformed churches I attended would ever call Augustine to be their pastor (or any of the other Fathers). But I didn’t stop there. I asked whether *I* would be admitted to Augustine’s church? The answer was an obvious no. That latter question answers your rebuttal concerning doctrinal development. Yes, we all allow certain doctrinal development. But if you believe the Apostles would welcome your views to their church, why would their immediate successors (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) not welcome you (unless you changed)? What is more likely, they got the Apostles’ theology and ecclesiology wrong… or *you* have it wrong? That’s what I asked and that’s why I became Catholic.

[@LukeBowman08]

you've laid out the exact reasons im Lutheran

[@GospelSimplicity]

I think that's a fair conclusion from this video

[@jamesMartinelli-x2t]

Really? Various saints have been given visions of Luther burning in hell.

[@Steve-wg3cr]

@@jamesMartinelli-x2t What saints were those?

[@PaulDo22]

@@jamesMartinelli-x2t I have also seen those references about Luther in Hell and after searching could not find a verifiable source.

[@frchristie]

​@@jamesMartinelli-x2t which saints? 😄

[@aklt4923]

Really thought provoking and needed video. This issue is the elephant in the room for protestants wanting to connect to the Fathers.

[@airpodman1259]

Whenever Protestants force looking into church history, inevitably it will make people leave the ugly shopping mall rock concert buildings to a place where people still actually fast etc

[@VarynDEE33t]

That’s not ‘Protestantism’ though. Don’t take a particular expression of modern day evangelicalism as if that’s all of Protestantism.

[@airpodman1259]

@ I’m sorry. What I should say also is that the blandness or authenticity of expression is up to the individual starting that church. Just like anything a Protestant believes is up to themselves and their interpretation. It’s ultimately post-modern, and won’t last. (Hence the cultural shifts among prots, that don’t exist with EO like women and lbtg leaders)

[@justokproductions222]

@@airpodman1259meanwhile the EO get to rest easy knowing their patriarchs were hand picked by Muslim sultans to ensure homily’s stayed anti-latin

[@seanoconnor5311]

​@@airpodman1259Unlike a pontiff that likes Pachamamas and universalism and now a queer pilgrimage...

[@sarahabraham8743]

This is fascinating. As an Anglican, I appreciate that my denomination holds to prima scriptura, rather than sola scriptura. It means we can recognise the necessity of tradition, such as the teachings of the church fathers, as being a vitally important mediator for establishing church doctrine and practice. Thanks always for your insights, Austin :)

[@ohmightywez]

Well hello!!! I've been a subscriber for three years but I haven't seen your videos for several months. I'd decided that you had taken a break to focus on school and your beautiful new marriage. Or perhaps you were feeling pressured or burned out. I'm so happy to see you and to discover where you are in your faith journey. I've kept you in my prayers.

[@traceyedson9652]

As an EO, it’s less could the Fathers be a priest at my parish and more could I be a communicant in their’s. Or, can I read their writings & homilies & letters without theological editing. Well, yes to the latter. This isn’t speculation for us. It’s an active and living reality. As for the former, that’s a good question. If not, the fault lies with me.

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

Amen

[@marcoslucas7720]

Thanks for the honesty! I`m an catholic converted from protestantism and always appreciate your content.

[@shaulkramer7425]

I like your honesty.

[@Thomasrice07]

I love your honesty and pray for your peace.

[@thecatholicman]

The sacraments especially the Eucharist was so central to the Early Church. There simply is no way the Protestants 1500 years later can stand over what they invented

[@solitarysoul6632]

Can the Catholic Church stand over its innovations?

[@alecfoster448]

Austin, I think this is a fantastic point, especially regarding JMC's book. When I read it, it seemed to me like he was trying to lift as much weight as he could on the individual side. Even though he's very big on living as a community and sharing meals, the sacraments of the church seem missing.

[@actsapologist1991]

This is some really clear thinking on the subject.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks! Means a lot coming from you. Your comments are always sharp!

[@fungusbeef]

Great video. I wish that there were more people having these conversations years ago when I was a low-church Protestant and trying to make sense of church history. Your point about Anglo-Catholicism is so true, speaking as a former Anglo-Catholic. Most Anglo-Catholics have definitely left behind sola scriptura at least implicitly. It's often a halfway house for people before eventually moving into either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, in part because it gives a taste of Catholicism -- and it can leave you wanting more.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

I really wish people would separate evangelicalism from Protestantism.

[@bejamen14]

Same, all the converts to the RCC and Orthodox Church act like Lutheranism and Anglicanism don’t exist

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

@ That’s true. As someone who is from a low church background, Lutheran doctrine is a whole other world than American evangelical doctrine. A reason as to why I’m 90% on board to convert to Lutheranism

[@GospelSimplicity]

I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to do that in this video.

[@AnglicanCuriosity]

Me too! They are not the same

[@matthew7491]

True. It's because especially in America, these types of denominations are much smaller and have smaller congregations. The larger and more prominent churches are almost exclusively some variation of Evangelical/Baptist/Non-denom.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Reading the Church Fathers led me to the Catholic Church

[@ProtestantismLeftBehind]

As a former Protestant of 25 years I really enjoyed cherry picking the Church Fathers making me feel connected to an ancient Church my modern Protestant Evangelical group had no connection with. The best bet was and is to actually go find the Church that the Fathers were a part of, it’s called the Orthodox Church, and joining it, that way I could enjoy real continuity and stop cherry picking.

[@chandlerwheeler7605]

Which you fail to find the peace from leaving Protestantism still from the problem of accretion. What is added from other church fathers and what did Jesus and Paul teach?

[@ProtestantismLeftBehind]

@@chandlerwheeler7605 Strange. I hadn’t revealed I had or hadn’t found peace. But you concluded I didn’t? This is incorrect. I did find peace, peace from the papal Protestant role I embraced which had weighed me down for years. Now I’m free from my papal Protestant role, literally. Simply trusting God that He preserves His Church and His Tradition received by the Apostles and passed onto the Church, which in turn preserved through the Fathers, Ecumenical Councils as guided by the Holy Spirit, provided a theological peace for us all.

[@cleberferreiradejoao1306]

Awesome. Honest and clear. I think we have to think about what continuity really means, considering that ages have passed since the church fathers wrote their letters, homilies and books: each of those writings had a different writer, an audience, a purpose, a subject, that is, a context or setting of production and served as a means of expressing the writer’s intentions and ideas. As times change, these context will never be exactly the same (it reminds me the example of the mustard seed). Our faith has to complete some of the historical inconsistencies and gaps, since nowadays there still is a church which has to have lasted since those times…

[@robertcampbell1343]

I think most will agree that the church fathers are incompatible with evangelicalism as seen today. However I've read countless passages that also are incompatible with OC and RCC. I've therefore found myself unable to commit fully to any tradition, and cling only to God and His own word.

[@freda7961]

"Countless passages" has to be an exaggeration, right? I mean, I'm not the most well-read person in the world, but I think I've read enough. I've only encountered a handful of passages that are difficult to reconcile with OC and CC, and even then, they often just need to be understood in their proper context. Moreover, nobody is claiming that the Church Fathers can't be wrong. On the contrary, both OC and CC teach that individual Church Fathers could err; their writings and opinions are not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free from error. However, the overwhelming testimony of the Church Fathers, taken collectively, demonstrates that Protestantism cannot withstand scrutiny - which I believe is what is guided by the Holy Spirit. To me, it'll only ever be the OC or the CC, but I think the framework of the CC makes more sense, logically and biblically.

[@robertcampbell1343]

@freda7961 you're free to think it's an exaggeration. And also you're free to think I don't understand their proper context. We will all see who was right and who was wrong after death. Whoever was wrong will go to eternal death. Specifically, Austin was direction this towards evangelicalism. This denomination or group of them is a complete joke, but they don't represent Protestantism. Protestants are called such for protesting the actions of the Roman church, of which most evangelical churches never would do today.

[@freda7961]

@@robertcampbell1343 Sure.

[@PaulDo22]

"However I've read countless passages" ....and that's the problem. How you read anything is of little value. How does Christ and His Church through His Apostles teach what you have read? You are way too conceited to realize how you read something is completely without importance.

[@Lauren-v9m]

As Christians we must always seek the Truth and conform ourselves tothat wherever it leads.

[@ChristopherWentling]

It always comes back to the Eucharist. You can take the bells and smells of the early church but without the Eucharist then you can not be in the same religion as the fathers. I think as long as you have an orthodox theology of christology and the Eucharist I think you could att least have a basis to then debate further church development. There are numerous Catholic fathers I would love to have as pastors. They would think I was very lax and maybe put me on church discipline but maybe that is what I need honestly.

[@seanoconnor5311]

Gospel beats Eucharist.

[@ggarza]

The ressourcement movement (back to the wellspring) in which we find strength and inspiration from the Christian faith of the Church of the first millennium can benefit Christendom immensely, regardless of which side of the fence you are on. The Faith of the Martyrs of the first centuries challenges us to move beyond our own mediocrity. Each of us has something to learn from these pillars of Christian faith. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the importance of challenging our own prejudices.

[@chancylvania]

I love that statement about moving beyond out mediocrity. I’m reading the 2nd century fathers right now and hearing ignatius or Justin martyr or polycarp talk about all they go through as well as others drives me not to be idle in my faith.

[@Donnielucas77]

No they cannot mix. Case closed. Church Fathers led me to the Orthodox Church. Its not the same as Protestantism and its not intellectually attained. It is to experience Christ and His Body and Blood.

[@Christopher-so4dn]

Good video, thank you. How do you avoid the idea of a “great apostasy” if you reject the one thing that **all** of the church Father’s held as most important in the Christian life? That is: the Eucharist.

[@LyleHorton]

I walked into a Christian book store and asked if they had anything on the church fathers and she asked if I meant Martin Luther and John Calvin 😂😂😂😂

[@sethtrey]

I know you're laughing, but at least you're also crying.😢

[@gnomeresearch1666]

It became clear that my 'protest' was prideful and ignorant and wholly at odds with the holy men and women of the early Church, of the Martyrs, of the Fathers. It was really just another form of personal relativism. I really was my own pope.

[@primuspilushb]

No. Evangelicalism is a hodgepodge of heresies condemned by the Fathers. Most of them would go so far to say that Evasngelicalism isnt even Christian. NOTE: Im not saying that, but if you look at the acts of the various councils (which we mostly have) it becomes quite clear that some of the heresies that Evangelicalism espouses would be considered anti-christ to the Fathers.

[@truthnotlies]

This ☝🏻

[@1988pugslee]

We should not be grounding our faith in the early church Fathers they were babes and contradicted themselves all over, why? Because they were men, to error is human! Instead, a Christian is to be grounded in the Scriptures Alone where the Apostolic teachings are clearly found. God can't error. Do not make void the scripture for the sake of the traditions of men, all scripture is God-breathed, not your tradition. Gal 5:4. The Westminster Confession of Faith has 5000 scripture references and 1600 years of church history to glean from...start there. BUT... the ultimate rule is always the word of God.Ye must be born again

[@caseygrow5951]

You are going to have to bring something up in particular after throwing that point out.

[@truthnotlies]

@@caseygrow5951 That the Eucharist is just a symbol is one example.

[@mr.e8432]

“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter, upon whom the church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the church?” -Cyprian of Carthage, 259AD

[@ElvisI97]

When analyzing continuity with the past, it is important to consider the significance of certain theological deviations rather than merely counting them. Not all doctrines carry the same weight, so simply comparing traditions that show more points of continuity does not necessarily make one tradition superior to another. For instance, one could argue that Mormons share continuity with the early church because they believe in the ministerial priesthood, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, and bodily resurrection. However, their misunderstandings regarding the doctrine of God fundamentally place them in a different religious category. Even if they were 99% in agreement with the early church, that one significant deviation alters their status entirely. Similarly, when discussing the range of continuity versus discontinuity, it is crucial to recognize that continuity does not automatically equate to authenticity. Questions arise about how much weight to assign to various factors. For example, should we assign the same importance to the borrowing of the symbolic defense of image veneration from pagan practices at the Second Council of Nicaea as we do to other practices? Can the Church impose restrictions on practices, such as allowing married clergy or communion in both kinds, that Christ himself granted freedom to His followers? What continuity do concepts like indulgences and the treasury of merit have with the early church, and how significant should these issues be regarded? What about purgatory, not merely as a place of cleansing but also as a means of paying off temporal debts not covered by the atonement? How should the historic abuses of the Roman Catholic Church affect our conscience regarding submission to its authority? Additionally, one does not have to choose between accepting all forms of doctrinal changes-valid developments and accretions-or assuming a kind of great apostasy. It is possible to acknowledge the diversity and historically contingent developments that we don't share as valid without seeing them as necessary requirements. For instance, the adoption of monoepiscopacy was a development aimed at maintaining unity in the face of growing heresies and potential schisms from the two-fold office. One can appreciate the benefits of a monoepiscopal structure while not viewing it as an essential feature. It is not necessary to posit a great apostasy to recognize that both 2-fold and 3-fold ministry structures are valid.

[@danielhixon8209]

In seminary, reading Richard Foster helped me discover more ancient spiritual disciplines, and Thomas Oden helped me discover the importance of catholicity - looking for the consensus of the whole church (not just Rome) - to rightly understand the faith and the Bible. Both Foster and Oden pointed me back to the fathers. Both could be called “evangelicals,” but not the non-denom variety. Once I started reading the fathers and reading the Bible with that “universal consensus“ lens, things like “real presence“ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, creeds, liturgy, and bishops all became non-negotiable for me. You can find all of these things among Anglicans and Lutherans and, to some extent, among high-church Methodists and other historic Protestants. But not among “generic” evangelicals. As another commentator said, there is a difference between “classical Protestant” and “American evangelical.” What you say about “degrees of continuity” is exactly correct: even Rome or E Orthodoxy are different in some ways than, say, the 4th century fathers. There will always be some development. Also, I don’t think that using the early tradition as a hermeneutical lens is a step away from sola Scriptura any more than using the Westminster Confession as a hermeneutical lens would be. But different lenses bring different degrees of continuity. As an (evangelical) Anglican, my practice fits just fine with what St Ignatius says about Eucharist and bishop (continuity) even if I understand these things slightly differently than he does (development).

[@Chromebreaks]

We would agree that when interpreting texts, we would want to avoid interpreting a text or word anachronistically. Then when we read the Nicene Creed of 381, "one holy catholic and apostolic church" we dont get to ponder "what does that mean to me", wouldnt it be better to know what the fathers who wrote it, meant by those words? same with "who proceeds from the father". What im getting at is, the fathers at nicea meant the monarchical trinity (no filioque) and ONE apostolic church (No branch theory, no division, no offshoot of protestantism). ergo the early fathers would anathemize anglicanism as heresy.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Really well said. Foster and Oden were big influences on me in college as well. Perhaps they were the Comer and Ortlund of a previous generation.

[@marlam8625]

What an honest, humble and well articulated video.

[@sethtrey]

6:00 i think most Western churches would gladly invite a Church Father, but He would likely refuse for reasons they didn't think were important, and even if He came they would not invite Him back.

[@mrjustadude1]

At least as an orthodox person we still pray facing east, use the same litergy (sure its developed over time but its fundimentally the same.) We still venerate relics have bishops, fast on Wednesday and friday etc etc etc. I think the only serious objection a protestant could bring up is icons, they might argue that the church fathers would opose icons, but i see more evidence to the contrary and in either case once could only infer they would object to icons they cant actually make a positive case St Agustine or John Chrysostom would be against them. The Cappadocians seem to be unoposed to them. An even more interesting question is could the iconoclasts from the 8th centry pastor at your protestant church? They were pretty much orthodox besides the whole image thing...so they would be completely opposed to to low church protestantism in many ways. Look at the 8th and 9th centuries. You have orthodox without and with icons and nothing whatsoever similar to low church protestantisim at all. They simply did not exist at all.

[@RJDJ__]

Catholics also

[@Deathbytroll]

@@RJDJ__ Catholics don’t pray east or prostrate or hold to the sacraments of the first 1200 years of the Church

[@robinconnelly6079]

Cool video, man You are in a unique position having really gone into this stuff to the point of going to actual places and speaking to prominent people. Yeah, that's exactly what's going to happen. It's going to get uncomfortable. Here's a really uncomfortable issue. One of the new age bigwigs (maybe Marianne Williamson, not sure) said that all religions now have something significant in common. The new agers (and Hindus) have Transcendental meditation, the Muslims have something like that too, the kaballist Jews have a similar practice and Christians have "contemplative prayer". Everyone is so excited. Thomas Merton teaches a form of Christian TM. Can't remember what he calls it but you repeat a scripture over and over until you go into a trance. There are quite a few "Christian Mystics" teaching this stuff. It came right out of the desert fathers. People don't understand what happens in these practices. What they do is to "remove the veil" between the physical world and the spiritual. Our brains create this veil so we only experience the physical (and the spiritual "through a glass darkly"). Similar things can be achieved with the use of certain drugs. I've been there. Had a bad experience and will never go back. What's out there isn't all good. Once you open that door, you open yourself to all kinds of spiritual influence. People speak of "entities" that you come into contact with when you close of the physical brain. That happened to me and I will never go near that stuff ever again. So that's one uncomfortable thing. I went back to that safety of the scriptures. I only do spiritual things according to the bible. And everything has been fine ever since. Sola Scriptura is safe. I'm not even big on the idea of "the cannon is closed" and this dogmatic rule but, if you stick to the bible you can't go wrong. I do things this way: I live my life according to the writings of the ORIGINAL apostles (and those close to them who passed the canonical tests). I keep the door closed to anything else. I don't trust anything else. That's a fair reason for being that way and you don't have to be a "Sola Scriptura" punter. The Bible is plenty enough. People through the centuries very carefully chose which books were cannon. So, for me, that's a good foundation.

[@perelandra35813]

Listening. My snap reaction is that there’s plenty of truth there for evangelicals to learn. But…how can one take minor points of agreement and throw the hills those Church Fathers would die on away?

[@adamhorstman3398]

Super insightful and thought provoking. Everyone who embarks on ecclesial change would do well to start here.

[@TruthUnites]

Since I was referenced, here is a clarification of my view. From my perspective, I would be happy to have most/nearly all of the church fathers as a pastor, and I don't think my church is as historically disconnected as people might assume. We have a rich experience of preaching, liturgy, sacraments, worship. We are broadly Reformed while fairly ecumenical. The fact that the worship has contemporary instruments I see as a matter of circumstance. But I think we need to recognize the differences of historical context from 1600 or 1800 years ago to today (and these are not merely matters of doctrinal development). There is no church on earth that looks like the early church. None. High church expressions (like Catholic and Orthodox) have greater resemblance in some areas, but they also have particular defeater points because they make strong claims of historical continuity. And claims of historical continuity are often naive to how much is changing DURING the early church (e.g., church government). Protestants can be honest about changes in the church due to differing historical contexts. That does not mean we cannot learn from/retrieve these wonderful early Christians, because we have the same substance of faith. We worship the same Jesus. I fail to see why this would make them mere "uncles." I consider them fathers in the faith. I just recognize they lived in a completely different world. Lots more to work through here. Hope to keep talking. Moving forward, I would be happy to offer a defense of my views in the areas often challenged in this conversation (e.g., baptism), and I would want to bring to the table the numerous areas where the early church looks different from contemporary Catholic and Orthodox views (e.g., views on interest on loans, sex as only for procreation, pacifism, premillennialism, absence of cultic practices, simpler church structure, lack of developed Mariology, fewer sacraments, etc.).

[@GospelSimplicity]

Apologies if I misrepresented your answer! Is there a distinction between, "you'd love to have them as a pastor" and they would be able to be a pastor at your church (i.e. sign your doctrinal statement)? I had thought you had said that the latter wouldn't be the case when Keith asked, but perhaps I got it wrong. For what it's worth, I agree with the idea there are a great number of differences, which is why I said the key is how we measure the differences (sola scriptura or not).

[@GospelSimplicity]

If it's helpful, this is what I was referring to: 01:22:19 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnqlZoyCfbOkd6c Probably could've done more to represent your point that they wouldn't fit anywhere, but hopefully I was at least within the realm of what you said. Again, apologies if it felt like a mischaracterization!

[@TruthUnites]

@@GospelSimplicity no worries! I don't know that you misrepresented me, I just wanted to offer a clarification of my view (since that was an off the cuff answer several years ago when I was pastoring a different church--if I recall without re-watching, it was the issue of baptism coming up at a Baptist church that was a hang up). To answer your question about signing the doctrinal statement: I just read through our doctrinal statement again, and yes, I think lots of patristic Christians and church fathers could sign it. Its under "What We Believe" at Immanuel Nashville. Some fathers would stumble over sola fide, which is in there. Though I think others would happily affirm that. There would be points of friction on a few other points for some (e.g., Augustine on the canon). But we've tried to make it sufficiently broad to be able to be affirmed by a broad range of Christians (e.g., we don't require one view of baptism for church membership). That is the ecumenical desire. So yes: lots could sign our statement of faith, since its a broad expression of Christian doctrine. That doesn't mean there aren't huge differences between patristic Christianity and our church. As I said, I think such differences are a function of differing historical contexts, and we can just be honest about them. As a thought experiment, if Christ does not return for another 5000 years, I am sure that Christianity 2000 years in the future will look very different from today. But I believe the substance of the faith can exist amidst various differences. Man, there is a lot more to talk about here! Too bad I've already been on your channel like 250 times! :)

[@GospelSimplicity]

@ so much to talk about indeed! I just need to move down to Nashville I think, lol. Good point about the difference in your context (Ojai vs. Immanuel), and you’re right, baptismal regeneration is what you said would be difficult. I’m impressed by the statement of faith you all have put together! As you said, so much more to discuss. Alas!

[@TruthUnites]

@@GospelSimplicity you moving to Nashville would make me very happy, of course! In any case, let's keep talking!