Two Approaches to Conversion

[@ninjason57]

This video sums up my experience in my theology research over the last decade or so. I've watched/listened to probably hundreds of hours of debates, presentations, sermons, arguments ect. They all come down to authority. What does a person consider authoritative and how that downstreams to their beliefs. I've come to the conclusion that when Jesus returns his sheepfold will be full of Roman Catholics, Protestants, orthodox and those outside those three categories. The New Testament clearly shows that the gospel has the power to change any person into a child of God. Jesus said anyone who does the will of the Father enters the kingdom of heaven. We can all come up with different interpretations of what that means but in the end that judgement falls to Jesus. So as Christian's we should stop having so much anxiety over this and rest in that our God is loving and just, he knows if your heart is true. If that's not enough then do what Jesus recommended: abide in his word, ask the father for the spirit, put your faith in him, love God and your neighbor.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

What lovely subjectivism!

[@annalynn9325]

I converted from Protestant to Orthodox and yes I agree, Jesus knows if your heart is His. Before I became Orthodox I was studying Revelation and considering the possibility of end-time martyrdom. I realized, my faith is too thin and intellectual to ‘stand to the end.’ I realized my faith walk was not equipping me.

[@ninjason57]

@@EpistemicAnthony Call it whatever you want. The Pharisees also said Jesus' claims were subjective.

[@lifematterspodcast]

I agree, the Gospel has the power to transform anyone and God’s flock will hopefully be full of Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and even non-Christians by God’s grace! But, we will all be participating in the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Mass. I guess what I’m trying to say is that, while there will be all types of people in heaven, it does not mean that the Authority of the Catholic Church is not true and that we should not believe it.

[@mikelopez8564]

@@ninjason57I don’t think subjective means what you think it does. Jesus’ teachings were, and remain, clear and difficult; to love God first and others as yourself. To deny that just puts you at sea without an anchor

[@elainaformica3355]

Gosh. You’ve summed up the two approaches I’ve been grappling with for the past two years into a 10 minute video. Thanks for the clarity!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad it was helpful!

[@aleksapetkovic7329]

Beautiful icons of St. Bede and St. Cuthbert. I have noticed that more and more people are starting to remember these great fathers who were the pillars of the Church in the Isles and I am overjoyed because of that. Great icons with a unique style.

[@HollyMD71]

It took me like 10 years to convert because I loved my Protestant Church. I didn’t WANT to believe Orthodoxy was true mainly because it looked too much like Catholicism and I was comfortable where I was. I knew in my heart something wasn’t right with the path we had been on for 30 years but these were my people and for a long time that was enough. After years of studying, It just happened one day in Sunday School. Like a light switch. I knew it was time to leave. That was in 2019 and my entire family of 12 converted as well. God is good. Sometimes people just aren’t ready for the change. It’s a lot. But I am so in love with the faith. I never felt this way as a Protestant. Not like this. It’s different. Everyone has their own journey and I love my Protestant and catholic brothers and sisters! :)

[@ARTCreationsOfficial]

I like to recommend the book "Answering Orthodoxy" by Michael Lofton.

[@jalildragneel2674]

Cheers brother, from the Catholic Church here, I hope we will be one church as God wills it. John 10:16 he wants one Church, one shepherd and one flock.

[@breathofhallelujah2277]

I'm a former Protestant who converted to Orthodox Christianity two decades ago, when I was 23. In my case, although I agreed with the little bit I knew about Orthodoxy at the time, there was also a less rational part of me that absolutely felt called into it. I've listened to a bunch of your podcasts over the last couple of weeks (those dealing with Orthodoxy, as I was on a mini-trip during Holy Week and I wanted something that wasn't secular to listen to). You remind me very much of a dear friend of mine, one of the very few who grew up Protestant and who has remained Protestant and active in the church. He's the one person whose religious upbringing seems to mirror mine most closely, to the point where even though we grew up thousands of miles away from each other, we still know a lot of the kids' songs that were so popular in Protestant Christian circles in the '80s and early '90s. It's almost eerie. However, although he's been exposed to Orthodoxy and he's got friends and acquaintances who are Orthodox, he's visited Russia, and I even got him to an Orthodox church service years ago, he doesn't have that same pull in his heart (so far) to take him out of Protestantism. And you know what? It's not my job to try to convince him either. Yes, theology matters, but above all, to love God and to share that love among believers and to offer that to the entire world is much more important than all the arguments about theology. I guess the biggest thing would be that if you feel yourself being called, certainly, test the spirits, but don't resist.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thank you for sharing this story of how you and your friend have had similar experiences yet come to different conclusions. I think it's important to have space for that.

[@ARTCreationsOfficial]

I like to recommend the book "Answering Orthodoxy" by Michael Lofton.

[@goofygrandlouis6296]

Yeah.. the main roadblocks to a conversion.. are rarely theological. - against Catholics, biggest block is (still) the Vatican. As corrupt as ever (especially if you've followed the latest allegations on Pope Francis), which remains a turn-off for Protestants; - against Orthodoxy, the main roadblock is cultural. If you're born in the West, Orthodoxy has a foreign "oriental" vibe; - against Protestantism, the main roadblock is austerity. No mysticism, lack of sacraments, lack of a lived experience.

[@adoseoftheosis]

man, I think this is your best video yet! Thank you for being a sane voice in this space that is so often occupied by very loud, vitriolic voices. I would love to have a conversation with you one day!

[@barrelagedfaith]

It is a bit ironic that I listened to this video right after seeing Joshua Charles' (its so obvious... duh) post: "“God made identifying His Church quite easy. Under the Old Covenant, you had to be in one of the Twelve Tribes under the leadership of the Tribe of Judah. Under the New Covenant, you had to be under of the Apostles under the leadership of the Chief Apostle, St. Peter (hence why St. Paul himself went to him before beginning his ministry.) Under the New Covenant today, you have to be under one of the successors of the Apostles under the leadership of the successor of St. Peter, the Pope. Simple. Obvious. Like a “city on a hill.” ***Joshua is a super thoughtful, kind guy, but as he uses a typological slam dunk argument, he doesn't seem to realize that typological arguments can be used in all sorts of ways. There are a number of church fathers who go from OT type to Peter to all the bishops. For example, Hahn/Suan love to use the new Eliakim argument (Isaiah 22), but the first father to comment on this goes from Eliakim to Peter to All the Bishops. So typological arguments really shouldn't be treated as slam dunks apologetically, but they are helpful and contribute to the conversation. I think Austin is making good points about our differing approaches, assumptions, paradigms, hermeneutics which play a bigger role than many people, especially 'converts,' might realize. @adoseoftheosis, hope you are well bro!

[@adoseoftheosis]

@@barrelagedfaith ALL ABOARD THE FRIEND-SHIP!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'm glad you found this helpful! Your comments are always insightful, so I trust I would quite enjoy said conversation

[@adorablebelle]

You’re awesome, Austin! I am a cradle Catholic, but still very much consider my Christian pilgrimage to be a lifelong work of conversion. I think the point that having to intellectually ascent to every claim of a faith tradition before converting is far too high a bar.

[@johnalexis8284]

so you were born again at birth?

[@adorablebelle]

At seven months 😂

[@johnalexis8284]

@adorablebelle sorry, that's impossible but nice try.

[@drewcrewsdpt]

Thank you for your channel. I haven’t had much opportunity to dive into the longer form videos but I’ve been studying the Orthodox Church here recently due to interest and understanding what the first century church was. I’m from a church of Christ viewpoint so we tend to emulate that first century church viewpoint. But as I’ve studied I’ve been intrigued but also confused when I encounter something (iconography, veneration of saints and Mary, the tradition of the Orthodox Church) that challenges my beliefs. I hope to come to fuller understanding. But your videos are very helpful so thank you. May God continue to bless you in your work for His kingdom.

[@samaldridge5283]

I am a hasty convert to Catholicism. Yes, there were some intellectually compelling motives for that. In all honesty though. It was an issue of the heart. And as a relationally minded person, the Catholic Church provided me a theology and set of people that embraced my wounds and gave me healing in profound ways through the sacramental life. I don’t think anyone can really discern their way into a church using their noggin only. We are relational beings with real bodies and inner lives not just rational brains on a stick. I don’t recommend all do what I did, but here are my two cents.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing these thoughts!

[@JimCvit]

It just takes a leap of faith. Once you do that everything else just comes.

[@timtabor1181]

Good thoughts. Thank you for continuing to pursue productive discourse between different traditions .

[@orthochap9124]

Comfort/convenience was a big hurdle for me as a baptist pastor. Surely God wouldn’t want me to leave the pastoral job I got with a seminary degree? But I had to humble myself to a secular job in order to do it. It was worth it though and I’d do it again, as hard as it was at least now I’m consistent in my beliefs and practices.

[@taylorbarrett384]

Why not just become a Priest..

[@orthochap9124]

@@taylorbarrett384 I found out it was better to submit my calling to others asking me to become a priest rather than pursue it from of my own pride (as before when I became a Protestant pastor). Additionally, my wife at the time of my conviction of the truth of Orthodoxy was not open so I converted with my children first. Now she is an unofficial inquirer/catechumen. Perhaps in the future, but for now I am assuming no unless God makes it extremely apparent through whatever means he wants to beyond my pride/desire. I have met people personally, wives who have had serious mental illness as a result of holding their husbands back from the priesthood, so also don’t want to put any pressure at all on my wife in that way.

[@sivad1025]

Praise God. Catholic conversion requires such great sacrifice and humility that is not required going the other way to Protestantism. I've never heard of an ex-Catholic talk about what they had to sacrifice to be Protestant, except maybe disappointed family members (which obviously goes both directions)

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@sivad1025 I know a Priest who left to become Protestant and had to get a secular low paying job to provide for his family as a result..

[@orthochap9124]

@@taylorbarrett384 my wife was not open to converting at the time, so I converted with my two young children. Now she is an informal inquirer/catechumen though 3.5 years later. No one can become a priest if his wife is not Orthodox, the matushka is a very special and valued role in the Church.

[@summerwhitney4962]

Hi! I just want to say a HUGE thank you from the bottom of my heart for your channel. I only found you two days ago. You are so intelligent, insightful, and sweet in spirit. I'm struggling trying to figure out which denomination I belong to. Im wrestling with deep theological questions and your videos are helping me greatly. Thank you so much for doing what you do❤

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'm so glad that you're finding my videos to be helpful on your journey!

[@ElijahGreenwell]

Awesome video, it is something that has gone through my mind in my conversion journey to the Catholic Church but I never had the words to describe it. I really appreciate your videos, keep the thoughts coming! I found a lot of rest in your channel when I was discerning all the claims of the Christian faiths and couldn’t seem to land perfectly anywhere.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the encouragement!

[@robertotapia8086]

🇵🇷 As a fallen away Catholic, i struggled when I was on my journey back i felt confused in trying to figure out where to go what church to attend what denomination holds the truth or is it the non denominational route. The Holy Eucharist and the desire to truly receive him led me back. Apostolic succession, and church history helped a lot. Sounds funny but Listening to James White and his debates with Catholics led me to research deeper into things and topics, i just had no clue. If anyone would like a list of names that also helped me feel free to ask, GOD Bless your family and you @Austin @Gospel Simplicity and all of you to my brothers and sisters.

[@Rolando_Cueva]

@@robertotapia8086 Lo que sigo sin entender es, donde está la sucesión apostólica en la Biblia? No he podido encontrarla.

[@robertotapia8086]

@@Rolando_Cueva por qué no has buscado esta ahí y @Austin a hablado sobre eso. Sinceramente varios apologist te le explican detallada mente para que entiendan.

[@DanJWil]

Processing the faith through the mind and making it an intellectual exercise…. And Pride

[@jonasopmeer]

So appreciate the balance. Thank you!

[@JWM5791]

Smply surrender to, and follow, Christ wherever you are.

[@johanvandersandt8904]

Congratulations on the house!

[@glorytogodforallthings8448]

I recognize the Icon of the Nativity on your right (my left) and the Good Shepard on your left (my right). I saw some recognized an Icon of St. Bede who I recently learned is a saint of the EOC. Austin, i love listening to your show, even though I don't always agree with what is said on it. May God bless you and those coming, in good faith, to talk about Christ.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoy the channel! The icons are: Left: St. Bede Right: Top - Crucifixion and St. Cuthbert. Bottom - Jesus calms the Storm, The temptation, and Christ the Good Shepherd

[@ericglendinning3505]

Love the new space! Congrats!

[@actsapologist1991]

Years ago I heard William Lane Craig talk about "plausibility structures" and it haunts me still. People can be presented with evidence, but what they do with it will depend on their life experiences, priorities, and methods. It's why a person can say, "I don't care if there are good reasons to believe Jesus rose from the dead. If the Bible says [X], then it is simply false and that's all there is to it."

[@sirrevzalot]

As an atheist, I’ve *never* met anyone who spoke like that, saying biblical claims are untrue because they’re from the Bible (circular). I *have* heard many Christians (William Lane Craig included) say because something *is* in the Bible, that makes it true irrespective of contradicting evidence (also circular). Have you expanded your conversations to those outside your tribe? I notice your example appears to accuse your interlocutors of question begging while ignoring that of some of your champions.

[@actsapologist1991]

@@sirrevzalot : You mis-read my sentence. The person in question isn't saying something is untrue because it is in the Bible. Rather, the person is saying Christianity as a whole is unacceptable because of something the Bible teaches. For instance. Have you ever met a person who says: "Christianity cannot be true because it holds that the Bible is completely true, but the Bible teaches that the sky is a solid dome containing water." Or, "Christianity holds that the Bible is the word of God. But the Bible endorses slavery and patriarchy. So, if there is a good God, that isn't his book." Ever heard anyone say stuff like that?

[@sirrevzalot]

@@actsapologist1991 In all fairness, I read it just fine. There are clearer ways to communicate as you well demonstrated in your clarification, for which I’m grateful. To answer to your question, yes, I have heard some who venture to make such statements, and as written, I agree with them both. Inerrancy is something even Christians don’t agree on, so I’ve little interest in wrestling that pig. For those that say it’s without error, however, and that’s what makes the claims valid (i.e., the tradition i grew up with), insofar as the religion is synonymous with what the book teaches, then yes, Christianity isn’t true. One can’t set up an all-or-nothing paradigm and get mad when one’s intuition proves to be evidentially false. Maybe you have a more nuanced view of scripture, but since you gave the example that most closely maps onto my experience, well, there it is. Regarding the other example, well, I don’t think Plato could’ve said it better himself. Any god must be in all ways just and the just can not do harm by way of exercising their justness as that’d be a contradiction. If the god of the Hebrew Bible is a god and slavery and patriarchy cause harm, that doesn’t mean there’s no god. However, it does mean, according to Plato, it’s not a god’s book because the god in question is giving injunction to harm, making it unjust.

[@ClintnRebeccaWarner]

Austin, I've watched many of your videos over the past few years, and have never commented before today. I went through all this too, and even took RCIA and met with multiple priests and was all in for converting to Roman Catholicism (ultimately I didn't, and this went on for almost 10 years) . I had some brief flirtations with Eastern Orthodoxy too. Minus the papacy there are several of the same things you have to affirm to be EO like you do in the RCC. I decided if I was going to go down that road that Rome's ecclesiology made more sense than the East's. Really the East can't stay united any more than Protestants can, so I'd rather stay Protestant if Rome's claims didn't convince me (which they ultimately didn't). Then, I attended a very Anglo-Catholic style Episcopal Church. The Book of Common prayer and their liturgy was beautiful but I couldn't stomach the very liberal stances toward Scripture and marriage, etc. After about a decade of wrestling with these issues I became an LCMS Lutheran. You can still have the liturgy, Real Presence, infant baptism, and an historic perspective without having to affirm so many other things that Rome or EO teaches that have no basis in Scripture or in any of the early Church Fathers. I wanted to tell you that I appreciate you haven't just jumped in to something with both feet. If you're not convinced then that's good that you're taking your time. Many Catholic apologists mean well but tend to get people to make rapid conversions, and many end up with Rose colored glasses on when they enter the RCC and then have that illusion shattered and often fall out the back door into unbelief. I believe I've heard you state you believe in the Real Presence after studying the issue and early church on the matter. I do as well. I'm glad that I didn't jump into joining the RCC after becoming convinced of that. I think many Evangelicals who have no knowledge of church history will read the Fathers and see the Eucharist, or infant baptism there and since they associate those things so strongly with Rome they immediately believe "well I have to become Catholic" instead of realizing you can become Anglican or Lutheran or Presbyterian even. I'm so glad I didn't instantly convert to the RCC. I felt a strong pull from the beauty of the churches, the fact that it was so different from how I grew up and I liked that, and the sense (not necessarily true) of timelessness and the allure of the art and ethos of the whole thing. However, when I studied the facts I found they didn't match those feelings. Now that I've been a Lutheran for many years I continue to feel glad that I didn't make a hasty conversion because I keep uncovering more reasons on why I don't believe Rome's claims, and I also may have fallen out into unbelief once Francis became Pope if I had joined the RCC back then. I was looking into it while JP2 and the Benedict XVI were pope and I find the differences to be jarring. My long journey of indecision finally helped me be much more clear and certain today, and I feel a lot more confident and grateful about where I'm at. I can see how God used that process to protect from joining something I didn't fully understand and was viewing with rose colored glasses. As I just stated I feel I may have given up on Christianity had I jumped into Rome back then, and then learned what I know now. So, the quest is valuable and can teach you a great deal. You're a wise man for being reflective and slow about all this. Anyhow, Austin pardon my long comment. Keep up the good work. The background at your new place looks great already! May God bless you and this youtube channel.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I really enjoyed reading this and hearing your story! Thanks for sharing

[@ClintnRebeccaWarner]

@@GospelSimplicity Thank you for the comment. You and your wife are in my prayers as you discern your path forward.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

​@@ClintnRebeccaWarner I'm curious about something and maybe you can help me. I understand that the Lutheran churches do not have a ministerial priesthood, but you say they have the Eucharist. Who has the authority to turn bread into the body and wine into the blood of Jesus?

[@ClintnRebeccaWarner]

@@xaviervelascosuarez Are you asking in order to draw me into a debate about authority and that only the RCC and it's priests have that authority? Or just because you want to know? I'm part of confessional Lutheranism--the conservative Lutherans. We are not in communion with groups like the ELCA that have female clergy and the LGBT theology. We believe the validity of Holy Communion depends on it being observed in conformity with its institution in Scripture. We also believe the operative power is in the words of institution when used according to their institution. So, it is a public communal act of the church's worship--not random people sitting around at home doing it. For it to be valid you would need to have a called and ordained pastor/priest presiding (not a layman) and you would need to have valid matter (bread and wine) and the words of institution present. We don't believe the pastor/priest has an indelible character from his ordination to sacrifice on behalf of the living and dead like the RCC holds. We do however, believe that the office of the Holy Ministry was divinely instituted for the New Testament church. The office of preaching teaching and administering the sacraments (whatever title you give it) comes from Christ and since Scripture refers to the ministers as "stewards of the mysteries of Christ" the mysteries refer to the Sacraments. So, we believe that when the ordained pastor celebrates the sacrament in accordance with its institution it becomes the body and blood of Christ. As important as the Sacrament of the Altar is it isn't always necessary for salvation. So, there is no need for a layman to do it-- layman can baptize in an emergency. Communion is good to have at the time of death but not absolutely necessary at the time of death and therefore there are no circumstances which a layman needs to preside at the sacrament. As for where the authority comes from at its source it is from Christ commanding the ministers of the church to preach, teach, baptize, celebrate communion etc, as we see evidenced in Holy Scripture. So, that is where the mandate comes from and not from being in communion with the Bishop of Rome in the line of Apostolic Succession (though we probably do have it if someone wanted to get into all that).

[@ClintnRebeccaWarner]

@@xaviervelascosuarez I wrote you a response but when I hit post it was somehow lost. I'm providing you with a few quotations from the Book of Concord--the doctrinal statements Lutheran clergy have historically sworn to uphold and which represent the beliefs of my church body officially: "Again the Formula of Concord eloquently states: "Concerning the consecration we believe, teach, and confess that no man's work nor the recitation of the minister effect this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but it is to be ascribed solely and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. But at the same time we believe, teach, and confess with one accord that in the celebration of the Holy Supper the words of Christ's institution should under no circumstances be omitted, but should be spoken publicly, as it is written, "the cup of blessing which we bless" (I Cor. 10:16; 11:23- 25). This blessing occurs through the recitation of the words of Christ (FC Ep VII, 8-9). For the truthful and almighty words of Jesus Christ which he spoke in the first institution were not only efficacious in the first Supper but they still retain their validity and efficacious power in all places where the Supper is observed according to Christ's institution and where his words are used, and the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed, and received by the virtue and potency of the same words which Christ spoke in the first Supper" (FC SD VII, 75). Additionally here are some quotations concerning who presides at and consecrates Holy Communion: ". Practice in Accord with the Doctrine of the Office of the Public Ministry 1. The Pastoral Office "The regularly called and ordained pastors of the church are to officiate at the administration of Holy Communion. God's Word describes both the universal priesthood and the office of the public ministry as divine institutions (1 Peter 2:9- 10; Titus 1:5-9). Edmund Schlink, writing on the confessional view of church and ministry, succinctly states: The Confessions do not permit us to place the universal priesthood as a divine institution over against the public ministry as a human institution. The idea of a transfer of the rights of the universal priesthood to the person of the pastor is foreign to the Confessions. The church does not transfer its office of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments to individuals in its membership, but it fills this office entrusted to it by God, it calls into this office instituted by God. In this office the pastor therefore acts in the name and at the direction of God and in the stead of Jesus Christ. He acts with authority not on the basis of an arrangement made by believers but on the basis of the divine institution. [22] The Augsburg Confession underscores the importance of a regularly called pastor for the administration of Holy Communion: It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call (AC XIV). Our teachers assert that according to the Gospel the power of keys or the power of bishops is a power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute the sacraments (AC XXVIII, 5). Accordingly, the Apology explains: But let us talk about the term "liturgy." It does not really mean a sacrifice but a public service. Thus it squares with our position that a minister who consecrates shows forth the body and blood of the Lord to the people, just as a minister who preaches shows forth the gospel to the people, as Paul says (I Cor. 4:1), "This is how one should regard us, as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the sacraments of God," that is, of the Word and sacraments; and II Cor. 5:20, "We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (Ap XXIV, 80).

[@changjsc]

This is a very insightful video! It kind of reminds me of why Muslim-Christian dialogue (and evangelism) can be so frustrating at times; different prolegomena methodologies that deal with facts differently.

[@dodavega]

You are a gentle soul. A saying I live by: if one wishes to live in the light there is evidence to do so. If one wishes to live in darkness there is evidence to do so. As a lifelong Catholic I have learned over years that many Roman dogmas are untenable. Rome never reasons. It declares and anathematizes anyone who disagrees to hell. That is a big deal for me.

[@Steadfast-Lutheran]

Good video. I’ve come to the same conclusions myself.

[@delvaassante5699]

Thank you Austin, for always being respectful to all of us. I am Catholic and have used the “does this make sense to me” method when it comes to the assumption of Mary. I think of how God the Father chose her out of all the people on earth to carry Him in human form, to love Him, to raise Him, to go against her human motherly instincts and ALLOW herself to let go of Him to save the world. I have no definitive proof that Mary was assumed, but I simply can not believe that Our Lord would allow her blessed body -the vessel that carried Jesus Christ- to remain on earth and decompose like every other human. She was way too special for that. So the Assumption makes SO much sense to me. I believe it is true…that the Lord lifted her body and soul to Heaven. And although I pray to God, I do ask Mary to pray to her Son for me . It wouldn’t be the first time she asked Jesus to help someone, right? Hope you have understood my thought process. Thank you again Austin.

[@MediaevalGuitar]

In my conversion to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, getting the big picture played a decisive role. Cobbling together, or trying to cobble together, the apostolic faith, doctrine by doctrine, from the Bible is the Protestant way but ends in inconclusive results. E.g., does the water in John 3 refer to baptism as the Church Fathers understood it, or is it figurative as the Baptists understand it? Is every individual believer able and expected to reconstruct the whole faith on his or her own? The Bible itself points beyond itself for the settling of doctrinal issues, as Acts 15 indicates. And the Bible also refers to unwritten teachings so we cannot just assume the faith in all its details was written down for us to discover once we get a Bible in our own language. In addition,, the Bible speaks of certain men entrusted with the deposit of faith to guard it.

[@ARTCreationsOfficial]

I like to recommend the book "Answering Orthodoxy" by Michael Lofton.

[@MediaevalGuitar]

@@ARTCreationsOfficial I recommend The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome by F. W. Puller. It's an Anglican work in the public domain. The copy that you can find on Google Books bears the name of Orthodox professor at Princeton Fr. George Florovsky (1893-1979).

[@DanicusRex-m1m]

When I discovered orthodoxy, I took to it like a fish to water. It's what my soul longed for. It got me to live in a way that 40 years of cradle protestantism couldn't. I like what you said about the downstream doctrines because it definitely happened to me in the form of the aerial tollhouses. Not really sold on that doctrine (waiting for the comments claiming tollhouses are dogma 😅). But I think that's a good example of not having to be sold on everything. If I had to agree with everything before making the choice, then it can be assumed that I think I know all the answers and am just looking for a church that fits me and not the other way around.

[@BaikalTii]

there's a certain fallen angel whose goal is to prevent people having a life saving relationship with the Lord. one of his favorite weapons is rationalism and it's ultimate perversion, scholasticism. the Latin church and it's progeny protestantism promote these. when a person opens his heart to the Holy Spirit and allows Him unfettered access that person will come to Holy Orthodoxy. thereby defeating the accuser.

[@pamelashropshire7298]

This is exactly what I’ve been experiencing in my dive into Catholicism. (While I’m intrigued by Orthodoxy, the only options where I live are Roman Catholic or the various Protestant denoms.) I started by studying the Catechism, with reservations about certain aspects (some of the Marian dogmas). Then I began to consider Church authority and the papacy. I’ve been asking myself, as a Protestant I accept a great deal of Catholic teachings anyway. If I trust those teachings that came from the Catholic Church, is it not hypocritical of me to reject others simply because of my Protestant upbringing? I’m kinda stuck here, but I’m not unhappy to be stuck and trusting the Holy Spirit to continue to guide me.

[@Max_Pilgrim]

Finally he's growing a beard

[@GospelSimplicity]

Could really use a shave

[@evans3922]

that's pointig towards Orthodoxy ?

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

You should do a spread on the Church you attend and the ministries there. I'm just curious.

[@rhondatrainor1672]

I can’t see the icons, but the Holy Trinity by Andrei Rublev is one of my favorites.

[@goatsandroses4258]

Consider: What exactly did Jesus do when he gave his disciples power to bind and loose sin? Was this only given to a certain rank of person (the apostles)? Was it then passed down to their physical successors (bishops, priests, etc.)? Or, instead, was this given to all Christians ("Confess your sins to one another.") How we answer this determines whether a particular Church hierarchy is necessary (for absolution) or not. Whether or not a physical Church with a particular hierarchy (even if not physical apostolic succession) is necessary isn't exactly a dividing line between the Ancient Churches and Protestantism, but it IS I think a pivotal issue in determining which way we will lean. Of course, many people simply join a church because they like the music, or the pastor doesn't preach too long, or their friends go there, or there's a great youth group.

[@andresrodriguezamengual8652]

Thank you for this

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@dumbidols]

I saw my Protestantism as untenable after studying the pre-nicean fathers for several years, finding an absence of Protestant doctrine, and a plethora of beliefs and practices that are not present today in Protestantism. After that, I concluded "that which is early and universal is likely to be apostolic." Then to my surprise, I found that many of these beliefs are still present in the world in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But which one? I think a look at the Great Schism/Filioque, Papal Supremacy vs Historical meaning of "Ekklesia" and doctrinal development migration that has taken place since that time pretty conclusively answers the question.

[@freda7961]

I honestly believe that it can only be either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It takes so much mental gymnastics for Protestantism to make sense.

[@ARTCreationsOfficial]

I like to recommend you the book "Answering Orthodoxy" by Michael Lofton. I think it will help you.

[@foodforthought8308]

How about all 3?

[@gamefan8552]

From what I've learned it comes down to two things: 1.- We do not have all correct information or it it incomplete, then do the best decision with info available we have, so that would cause us to come to different conclusions. 2.- We know what is the right one, but we "like" more one over another due to personal preference, or bc we see something we "do not like" in one of them then only option is the other one. God would know reasons why people choose one over the other, but to know truth one has to put aside personal opinions and keep searching for truth no matter where it lead you to. For me its all about the Church itself, if it was founded by Christ and given power and authority to teach infallibly by Him in matter of faith and morals to Apostles and their successors then no worries of additional teachings, they would all be approved by Jesus and confirmed by Him so no danger of later on being worried of this.

[@SeanusAurelius]

So if it was given to the church, then why the papacy? Ought not the pope to be able to be corrected by the church which is infallible? Wasn't the ability to bind and loose given to all the apostles? And wasn't it necessary that Paul (who wasn't even one of the 12) correct Peter?

[@gamefan8552]

@@SeanusAurelius You need to further understand the Catholic Church teachings, reading the Catechism would go a long way to explain many fundamental things. Jesus gave power to bind and loose to all, but to Peter only gave him the keys to the Kingdom additionally. The charisma of infallibility is only used under specific circumstances and does not mean all a Pope says or does will be infallible. It's more of a gift to the whole Church than to think only to the Pope. Of course, the Pope and the CC despite having charisma of infallibility does not rule out having some bad members, or even a Pope doing or saying something wrong, just that he will never bound the whole church to teach or believe in it under pain of sin. Peter denied Christ three times and Judas betrayed Jesus, despite this that same Peter the Holy Spirit spoke through him in Acts 15 when he settled the issue of jews and Christians, saying "It seemed good to the Holy Sprit and us" at the council. Thus speaking infallibly, even if Paul corrected him. Despite Judas betrayal, the CC still endured and has done so for over 2000 and will carry on until end the end of times, just as Jesus promised.

[@gamefan8552]

@@SeanusAurelius Also power to bind and loose given to all Apostles, means that the college of bishops in union with the Pope (which are the successor of the Apostles) have authority to excommunicate or reintegrate anyone to communion with God. It comes from the authority of Sanhedrin to bind and loose which Jesus transfer from them to his Catholic Church which he founded on Peter.

[@marincusman9303]

My approach is that I want to be part of the church of the first 1000, 500, 300, 100 years. The only one that looks like it’s in continuity with that is the Orthodox Church.

[@goofygrandlouis6296]

You're probably correct ^^ (and I'm a craddle Catholic, but still..They don't have a Woke and/or abusive Pope 😢, and they stay true to the original ways)

[@seankbrannon]

Yeah, that is your approach. Many of us see the changes that have happened since the beginning. I appreciate Orthodoxy, but it just is not an exact reflection of either first-century theology or practice.

[@marincusman9303]

@@seankbrannon it doesn’t claim to be an “exact reflection” but if that’s what you’re looking for, then who is?

[@seankbrannon]

@marincusman9303 I'm not looking for that. But Orthodox believers frequently express the idea that their version of Christianity would be very familiar to the apostles if they were to show up at an orthodox church today. And that is just not true. Some elements would be familiar. Others wouldn't. That can be said about just about any church, no matter how traditional or contemporary their styles and liturgies. And that is okay.

[@marincusman9303]

@@seankbrannon some people might say it would be familiar. Obviously if they walked into a cathedral it would feel a little different than their churches under persecution. Whether it would feel “familiar” or not, the Orthodox Church *is* the church of the apostles, and it *is* the faith that they handed down, that has been preserved and expounded over the millennia.

[@jmferris542]

Have you interviewed any Catholics who became either Evangelical or Protestant? It would be interesting to know what the spiritual, intellectual, and emotional journey is for people moving that direction as well!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Steve Christie and Dr. Chris Castaldo are two people I've interviewed that went from Catholic to Protestant

[@kazager11]

4:00 The problem is that Rome is asking you to put faith in Rome. You would be asking an atheist to put their faith in God. Rome can be false (which they deny), God can not.

[@Pre-Denominational]

I've met many atheists who'd argue God can be false. The entire opposition to William Lane Craig's case for the OT slaughter of Canaanites was "If God DID command that, then He isn't good". Many such arguments were also part of the New Atheist movement. The Catholic claim is that God is true (and good, and beautiful), and that He established a Church which has the protection of the Holy Spirit against formally teaching error. The faith, then, is not in Rome, but in the Holy Spirit. The only question is whether or not you believe the Catholic Church, or ANY institution, has that protection.

[@pamarks]

There is one more approach that I've covered in my videos, that is roughly what David Bentley Hart writes about on "Tradition and Apocalypse." Simply put, considering any church as a living organism, and evaluating its life, paradigm and core functions against what we know about the goals of God for mankind, and the eschatological hopes clear in the bible. You dont get knockdown arguments, but i think this can bypass years of study into details that, in the end, arent decisive anyways. Because one thing is certain: it does not follow that because a denomination has a wrong self understanding, that the denomination is not the one true church.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I've been meaning to read that book!

[@SeanusAurelius]

DBH is a bona fide universalist heretic and should be ignored on matters of the faith.

[@stevesawicki2062]

why delay? because they fear rejection, or have a need to please men, rather than God. "The truth shall set you free."

[@mikeoconnor4590]

It seems that Christianity is primarily an historic religion so logically we should be able to trace things back to the beginning One problem though is until Christianity became legal the historical record is not so robust but certainly once it became legal we find a more robust record. We also see clearly at that point a sacramental system and a church hierarchy - and this wasn’t viewed as an innovation but rather something that was passed on Church hierarchy is certainly there very early even before Christianity was legalized. It’s just that the record is more robust after legalization. Seems obvious that Ignatius of Antioch believed in church hierarchy and he had a direct connection with the apostles!

[@petardraganov3716]

When I became Christian, not knowing who is right, the first thing I did was take a look at the dogma by dogma approach and go "Nope." I was a neophyte, blinded by sin and ignorance. Even if I am relatively intelligent, that's not saying much of anything - the task is way beyond anyone's pay grade. Christ promised that He would not leave us orphaned. Without Holy Mother Church, we would be orphans. You are invited to be part of a family, not a fan club. I have difficulties, yes, because I am sinful and ignorant. But that can be remedied. I am growing in joy and peace, and boldness. If anything, I most want to defend the teachings where I have been proven wrong. I love being proven wrong, because that is where growth in wisdom and love happens. That is how I came to Christ and that is how I came to Rome. "I don't need a Church that is right where I am right, I need a Church that is right where I am wrong."(GKC)

[@sivad1025]

Exactly. Catholicism is humbling for us inclined towards intellectualism. It's also freeing to not have to figure out everything for yourself

[@bonniejohnstone]

It’s hard to see your Icons but two are from Mull Monastery in Scotland. St. Need and St. Cuthbert. (I have St. Moses the Black, St. Ita and St. Patrick from Mull Monastery in their unique style). There’s Christ the Good Shepherd and the small ones are too hard to see. The iconographer for the Mull Icons is an artist that works with terminally ill children in Romania. Because there weren’t icons left in Scotland, Fr. Serafim wanted to bring the stark spirituality of the Celtic Saints thru this new style.

[@GospelSimplicity]

St. Bede and St. Cuthbert from Mull Monastery -- good eye! Christ the Good Shepherd, the temptation of Christ by Satan, Jesus calming the storm, and the crucifixion are the others.

[@user-dv8bs7tb5c]

Its very difficult to balance " what do I THINK" with " it doesnt matter what i think its its TRUTH" Im hoping that based onnthe fact that humans tebd to like to have a teem or tribe it was inevitable that the chirch is divided.... Im hoping that all people who believe in their heart and seek God is what matters most to God. Truth is we just cant know so its more about choosing what helps you grow closer to God and definitely not whata the nost convenient for your life. This video sums up my thpught processes and confusion so bice to relate to. It goes in circles, just like trying to find faith with hard proof. I am leaning towards Orthodoxy but i wsbt to know what i dont know that might be difficult for me to get on board with as someone who has been agnostic my whole life. it seems to be the most realistic Church. Son I am wondering if there is an offficial stance on creationism and how that goes along eith archaeological discovery etc because i csn be on on board with the notion that perhaos we dste thing incorrectly to a degree but it really doesnt seen to bw trye that the world is 6000 years old for example... I think thats one of the hardest things for me to reconcile and being a reasonable person i feel the creatio stories are TRUTH and written on our hewrta as they show up in every culture world wide as well as the Bible... We KNOW we were made. But the timeline and mans understabding and interpretation of the Bible and TIME i think can miss a lot. I have google thi question and different sites ssy completely opposite answers.

[@huntz0r]

Needing to be convinced a church’s theology is correct before you’ll join it is like needing to be convinced the course material is correct before you’ll enroll in a university program. The problem in both cases is you aren’t in any position to know whether the material is correct because you don't know the subject yet. In the case of the church, you are looking for somewhere to learn how to be a saint. Those who are already perfect can feel free to pick the church that seems most right to them, however, the rest of us should use different criteria.

[@SilouanSea]

Well said and summarized. However, I think you've left out two massive areas that are much more important. Conversion isn't primarily an intellectual activity. It is primarily an emotional and/or spiritual activity. I don't discount the role of rational learning and thinking, they just play much much smaller role in conversion than we like to think. A third approach would be participation. This is the way one should approach Orthodoxy. Not with lists and by reading lots of books but by participation. Orthodoxy teaches that true knowledge does not come through our rational capacity but through our noetic/spiritual-heart capacity. Thus one can't know God or His Church by reading or analyzing with our rational minds but through our "nous", and this means we must repent and find a new way of knowing altogether!

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

The question comes down to am I the authority or is the church the authority?… People answer that in different ways.

[@Skipsul]

You make an interesting note on the potential for brittleness in conversion. One of the commonalities I've noted again and again and again with a lot of the "ex-vangelicals" is that they mostly come out of very rigid and fundamentalist branches (though these branches would deny this) that explicitly or implicitly teach that one must take that branch's theology and praxis, and especially its own particular Biblical interpretive framework, wholesale and without question or grace - any doubts about that framework are cast as doubting the entire Bible, so if you have any niggle, then you might as well be entirely apostate. So, if your church is Young Earth Creationist, and you doubt that, you're told that you also doubt the *entire* Bible because of a very narrow view of Sola Scriptura. If your church preaches against, say, psychiatric medicine in favor of "Biblical Counseling", and you or a loved one has congenital bi-polar and needs medication to function well, then you're doubting Biblical authority, and thus might as well go apostate. And so on. And a lot of these people, when they leave their church, never go to any church ever again (believing churches are merely centers of power and manipulation) or else leave Christianity entirely, never considering that maybe it was their church and its esoteric narrowness that was the problem. Put another way, they reject *one narrow form* of Christianity without realizing how narrow it was, but then continue to judge every other church through that same interpretive lens. And if they ever do approach another church, they are incredibly wary of being burned again, and so often will hold out converting because they fear being trapped by dogma yet again.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Well said

[@sivad1025]

Granted, I wouldn't call myself "exvangelical" but I could not have had an experience farther than that. My biggest problem in the nondenominational tradition was that it was so non-commital on theology that I felt it enabled me to believe whatever I wanted to justify poor life styles. There was no emphasis on what sin specifically is and how we specifically remedy it. Granted, that got me back to a liturgical Presbyterian church when I was still anti-Catholic so it didn't cause my conversion. But evangelicalism has so many flaws from the dogmatism you describe to the lack of dogma that I experienced that creates a hunger for traditional Christianity

[@EpistemicAnthony]

Solid video brother. I'm an Orthodox Christian. What you are discussing here is something I plan on making a video about in the future, and that is dealing with this epistemically (how do I identify truth?) vs ontologically (what things are true or false?)

[@GospelSimplicity]

Sounds like a great video! It's a distinction that often falls by the wayside in popular apologetics.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

@@GospelSimplicity Indeed. Why do you think that is? I personally suspect it is because people assume their own reason/intuition is a reliable guide to truth, and so the question of epistemology never comes up.

[@Skipsul]

Epistemology is an underrated area - people often do not know why they believe what they believe, and whenever their core framework is damaged or threatened, you can see their entire sense of self collapse, or else they retreat.

[@edwardman1742]

Are epistemology and ontology “vs” each other? I’m not sure they should be referred to in this way. Rather, they should complement each other. I.e. “how do I identify the truth” would precede “what things are true or false”. They don’t challenge each other.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

​@@edwardman1742not against, just contrasted with eachother. "Vs" only because people typically ignore epistemology.

[@evangelineclark223]

Great video, Austin! For those who lean towards theological relativism, do you think there is a relationship between theological relativism and at least some degree of deism? If we believe it doesn’t really matter to Jesus where we go to church, doesn’t that mean we believe He just hasn’t bothered to reveal all that much about Himself? What would be the point of further theological study if God didn’t care about those particulars? More importantly, how could relationship with Him thrive in a context where all we can know about Him are the lowest common theological denominators? It kind of looks to me like relativism and deism go hand in hand, at least to some degree.

[@foodforthought8308]

I disagree. I think it's much more nuanced, particularly because the lowest denominator Christian truths are profound revelation: Holy Trinity, protocanonical Scriptures, Incarnation, Gospel, Sainthood, Theology of the Body. We all share this in common and it alone is sufficient to make us Saints. If you disagree, read Bruchko. Christ is willing to work with the little theological understanding we have. And often this means using humble evangelical Protestants to advance His Kingdom. I personally don't think these are slam dunk issues that divide each Christian tradition

[@evangelineclark223]

@@foodforthought8308I completely agree that the lowest common denominators are sufficient to make a saint for those who have never felt the inclination to deeply study theology. I was thinking more about someone who has done a deep dive into the scriptural and historical foundations for his or her faith, whose confidence in their own Protestant tradition seems to be irrecoverable, and who is feeling the weight of the options that Austin discussed in this video: conversion to RC or EO, relativism, or abandoning the faith altogether. For me personally, theological relativism feels untenable because it seems to necessitate a God who is too distant, too removed from us to provide the guidance and truth our hearts long for.

[@foodforthought8308]

@evangelineclark223 I appreciate the clarification! I honestly identify as the confused Protestant. I have been studying Church history and Catholic/Orthodox theology for years now, and throughly enjoy it. At the same time, I have become allergic to popular modern day Protestant theology and worship styles. There is nothing like a well handled, reverent and Spirit filled Catholic Mass, traditional or otherwise. I long for the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession. All this being said, I cannot as of right now in good conscience make the jump into either tradition. The extreme view of Ecclesiastical infallibility is my main hangup. I can accept this interpretation of "binding and loosing" to some extent, but to be Catholic I must go as far as to pharsaically lock non Catholic Christian martyrs outside of the Kingdom (see Council of Florence). Although they may claim that God is not bound, they contradict this vital principle in their teaching, thus I fear ironically mischaracterizing God worse than Calvinism does. Yes I believe God wants all to come to knowledge of the Truth. But that Truth is Christ. Anyone who sincerely calls on Him in and humbly repents of sin regardless of theological misunderstandings is automatically joined to His Church and Mystical Body by virtue of this Baptism of Desire. I think all Christians intuitively know this to be true on the basis of the Goodness and Mercy of our God revealed in Christ. Yet we elevate our traditions to such an extent that we lock genuine Christians out. This is not the purpose of the Keys. So while I concede that the Church built on Peter and the Apostles is affirmed in Scripture and is the ideal structure for the Gospel to go forth, its purpose is to draw all men to God. But God is not limited to such structures and I think Church History reveals not all their solemn Magesterial teachings are infallible. Furthermore, where Orthodox and Catholicism disagree, I tend to side with Orthodoxy yet prefer the Papal structure of Catholicism. So no this is not a slam dunk theological issue. I will have to remain Protestant for now while recognizing the Beauty and "fuller theology " of the ancient traditions and praying that we realize the "already but not yet" reality of our Oneness in Christ. Longing for Heaven where the Perfect Fullness of Christ's Body will be realized

[@platospaghetti]

I found this video very interesting! As a convinced evangelical, I really can’t see the problems people have with sola scriptura or why anyone would go Roman Catholic. You opened my eyes a bit to the ways people approach the evidence, which at least made me understand more why people might convert. 🙂

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad to hear that!

[@costakeith9048]

I know many like to pretend they're all part of the same religion, but in reality Protestantism, (traditional) Catholicism, and Orthodoxy are three very different religions based on very different worldviews, they form very different metaphysical systems. Protestantism is steeped in modernity, it grew up alongside empiricism, skepticism, revolution, etc.; there's a reason that evolution vs. creationism debates are a thing in Protestantism, they share enough of a worldview with Science, a non-Christian modernist religion, that they can actually debate the details of their beliefs without the debate descending into presuppositional analysis. Though Catholicism has also been trending towards modernity in recent decades as well, traditionally it is steeped in the pre-modern worldview of medieval Europe, which was largely a result of the Latins finding common cause with the Germanic Arians and the development of a common worldview between them based heavily on the metaphysics of Aristotle. Orthodoxy is steeped in the Greek cultural world of late antiquity, born amongst the great philosophical debates with Neo-Platonism and the growth of Christianity into the Imperial Religion, it is steeped in the worldview and cultural presuppositions of the ancient world. Which one you gravitate towards is really going to depend on your worldview and cultural presuppositions, which is why most people simply remain in the religion they were raised in. What's different today is that it is becoming increasingly clear across society (in both secular and religious spheres) that modernity is philosophically untenable: there may be issues with the other systems as well, within Orthodoxy there's plenty of critique of the Aristotelian worldview, for example, but those criticisms haven't entered the cultural zeitgeist in the same way the critique of modernity has. This causes many, especially protestants, to look for a more coherent metaphysical system than the one presented by modernity which has largely been usurped by Science anyways, many may even come to the intellectual conclusion that modernity is deeply flawed. But many of these people, despite their intellectual doubts, are still deeply modern people, they view the world through the lens of modernity, they embrace the political they of the Enlightenment, they think empirical and scientific methods are reasonable ways to understand and interact with the world; despite their philosophical concerns, they cannot bring themselves to abandon the modern worldview, they cannot bring themselves to see the world through the lens of a medieval or ancient man, it's too strange and too foreign to their life experiences. These people are simply not comfortable converting to a medieval or ancient religion on a level far deeper than intellect.

[@cabellero1120]

Protestant: Love God but keep your distance... Orthodox: Draw close to God, He loves You!

[@johnnychikko3800]

I know this may sound over-simplistic but my faith journey brought me out of Protestantism into apostolic Christianity and finally into Catholicism. Orthodoxy has a relativistic ecclesiastical problem and Protestantism has a relativistic biblical problem.

[@johnnychikko3800]

To be fair the Catholic Church has a heart problem. :/

[@apocryphanow]

The ultimate question that can settle where to go to church can be where did the Holy Spirit lead you? If the power of the Holy Spirit guides someone into a church and God hath set some down in the church (as it says in I Corinthians) then God's guidance is the source of the individual being in the church. This will also never be a satisfying answer to those who want debate, or theology, or philosophy. God's spirit guiding you, is not their philosophical or theological answer as it based on a personal experience, and not an answer that is apparent to everyone. This is because the reason is an experience and not an argument. It was a move of God and not a decision of a human mind that led someone to the church. It's a testimony and not an answer to an argument. Perhaps the better answer is, are we willing to let go of needing an answer that can be explained or believed by everyone, and instead accept the work of God to place us where God would have us, so that the Holy Spirit is the reason we are in the church we are in, regardless of how others will feel about it?

[@brennendavis3283]

I want to say the left icon is Saint Bede, but I could be totally wrong.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Correct!

[@George-ur8ow]

Any plans to visit different Orthodox Churches? That would be interesting! I know you visited a Serbian Orthodox Church, not sure of any others (on your channel anyhow)

[@delvingeorge2807]

If possible bring in KZbinr Catholics such as Christian B. Wagner who runs Scholastic Answers YT channel formally known as Millitant Thomists. Or bring in Byzantine Scotist or Intellectual Catholicism on please, it would be fun to listen to discussions. 🥺

[@GospelSimplicity]

I do lots of discussions, in fact far more than solo videos

[@delvingeorge2807]

@@GospelSimplicity These guys are good at what they do would be interesting nah.?😄 I do watch the discussions you post.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

I would also look at Dr. Ortlunds new video on Icon Venerarion...I would argue one would not even need to believe in Sola Scriptura to reasonably reject Catholic authority claims...As we see at Nicea 2 they anathemarize those that don't venerate icons when Dr. Ortlund clearly demonstrates this was not even a Catholic belief for hundreds of years (yet it was claimed at nicea 2 to have been apostolic teaching). Thus Nicea 2 can not be an infallible council which touches quite negatively on the authority claims and infallibility claims of "the church" and "the magisterium ".

[@freda7961]

What is his basic argument? He suggests that because it’s an accretion - assuming it is - as this was supposedly not an early belief or practice per Gavin, and only declared later, that that would invalidate Catholicism or Orthodoxy? I can’t follow the logic. To simplify, does he mean to say that accretion is bad? If so, that would put Protestantism in a very difficult position.

[@wbl5649]

Cradle Catholic who left the Church in early 20's and became an Evangelical ( Calvary Chapel) for 30 years. Reverted back to Catholics a few years ago via the Latin Mass. I will never accept all of what the RCC teaches especially Purgatory and much focus on Mary. However I believe enough that I can worship with them and receive the Eucharist as the true Bidy and Blood of Christ . Honestly I believe all arms of Christianty have become corrupted from the original intent of Christ over the centuries. All. So I have to settle in somewhere, there is no form in which I have to make some compromise. Each contain something I won't completely accept.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

Can you be truly catholic without accepting the dogmatic doctrinal/ magisterial corpus _in totum?_

[@wbl5649]

God Almighty will judge, not man.

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@wbl5649 But then isn't the church teaching - supposedly infallibly - that you really do need to accept the Marian dogmas or burn in hell and there's no room for debate?

[@JenniferMcMann]

Another possible starting point is to ask how many churches did our Lord establish? How many brides could He reasonably have? Is He like Solomon with hundreds or is even 2 brides one too many? If there is One way, truth, life, Lord and baptism how can there be more than one Church? If we accept more than one Church, we've accepted more than One way and truth and that simply isnt possible. If you can accept the necessity of one church the question then becomes which one is it? Some say the papacy is the litmus test, maybe so, but I'd take a deep look into contraception and see where that points. God bless all who are discerning His will 🙏

[@GospelSimplicity]

The problem here though goes one step further. In proposing two alternatives, one church or many, we must already import some idea of what the church is. Is it something that can be quantified? Chances are that our very definition will be a matter of contention.

[@JenniferMcMann]

@@GospelSimplicity maybe we would diverge on the definition of chuch but i dont know that there is room for divergence regarding truth, is there? can we accept multiple truths on any given issue? For example, Jesus is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist or He's not. Both positions aren't correct. Or regarding salvation, are we eternally secure with a single profession of faith, or we being saved by faith through grace and could, through choosing unrepented deadly sin, lose salvation? Or are both those positions wrong and we are with no freedom to choose? And so on...same for contraception, is it compatible with Christian family planning or its a contradiction to the nature of God and therefore incompatibile? Jesus is the way and the truth, not a way nor a truth. He calls us to the way and the truth and He had to provide us an authority to know the Truth on these things. He didnt leave us orphans to box each other with scripture versus to defend our private interpretation. If His prayer on the night before He suffered and died was for His disciplines to remain one, He would have made the way for that and He did.

[@toddvoss52]

I'll play the icon game. The only one I could enlarge and see clearly was the Good Shepard icon. Do I win a free icon ? 😄

[@GospelSimplicity]

The leader so far recognized three!

[@kynesilagan2676]

When a well thought protestant individual such as Austin have this kinds of contents, Trent Horn always come to my mind. If you subject ANY denominations [existing and has existed] to the standards they are putting with the Catholic Church, them would fail horrendously.

[@Isaiah53-FL]

You'd be surprised. Not many denominations burned "heretics" at the stake for the high crime of translating the Bible into their native tongue... among a litany of other things

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

exactly right. i am a former protestant and it never occurred to me how many sketchy ideas I mindlessly consented to as a Baptist because I thought everything we believed was right by default.

[@sivad1025]

I also had a list of all the dogmas and wrote out which denomination I agreed with! Then your channel got me to St. John Cantius last Summer and Father Joshua talked with me for two hours in which he greatlt emphasized the importance of beauty and carnal unity in the church (carnal, meaning we're unified by physical actions rather than spirit alone). He explicily told me to stop intellectualizing things so much! It spoke to me, and Catholic theology started to simply make so much more sense than the Protestant alternatives. Then of course, you start to see these dogmas in church history which makes them really hard to ignore! My conversion happened in under 10 months because the Catholic side consistently had better answers issue-by-issue, but, ultimately, because the Catholic vision of the church and sacraments was just more coherent and beautifully expressed I think you can get to conversion both ways, but they work in conjunction with one another

[@cw-on-yt]

Hmm. Why the _bodily Assumption,_ instead of, say, the _Immaculate Conception?_ When I became Catholic my concerns were the other way around. I thought it was perfectly obvious that the _disciplina arcana_ would be applied to the locations of Mary, Lazarus, any remaining apostles especially Peter, every bit as much as to the Eucharist. And once persecution ceased to be an issue, it was also perfectly clear that the relics of Mary could not be found anywhere, whereas the relics of so many other New Testament figures were in known places with churches/shrines on them. And, there was an existing tradition related to Constantine's mother about why this was. And it seemed reasonable that something that already happened to Enoch and Elijah (and maybe Moses) might have happened to Mary. So if I'd remained Protestant, I'd have probably held Mary's bodily assumption as a private opinion.

[@johnlee6780]

Immaculate Conception was easy for me. If you will noted that Jesus is undoing what happened back Genesis (fall of man) by being the new Adam. Eve came from Adam ribs in OT and now Mary reverses that (Jesus came through Mary). Both Adam and Eve didn't have original sin and Jesus and Mary is superior to them being the original fulfillment of God's will from Adam and Eve, hence it fitting that they be sinless and never touch by original sin or any sin. (God had promised that the new Eve will be an adversary of the devil (see Genesis and Revelation regarding the woman).

[@christianf5131]

No, I cannot name who is on those icons.

[@DeconvertedMan]

Be a skeptic. Is more fun. :D

[@jasonmalstrom1043]

I think I see Christ with the lost sheep, I have one of that myself.

[@RoyCarter]

I think the people who seriously consider Catholicism and end up rejecting it, ultimately don't want to be bound by it. Their acceptance or rejection is what determines if it's true or not. The actual thing stands apart.

[@kazager11]

God is the standard of what is true, not what I believe or what Rome teaches.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

I can tell you from personal experience that this is false. I came very close to deciding to join the Catholic church not long ago (within the last year or two). I didn't care if I was "bound" by it. I just don't think that their claims to being the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church are correct. In other words, I think that the Catholic Church isn't catholic enough. That's why I chose Anglicanism. I think that it is appropriately catholic (i.e., they don't condemn you or remove you from the body for not believing in dogmata, such as Mary's Assumption, Perpetual Virginity, or Immaculate Conception, and they accept other denominations as part of the catholic Church). Please, don't take this the wrong way, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like one of those things that people like to believe about certain groups rather than something that is borne out by evidence.

[@RoyCarter]

@@Real_LiamOBryan Pretty sure this is an example of the point I was making. It can't be the true church because it doesn't agree with you.

[@kazager11]

@RoyCarter it can't be the true church because it falls short of its own claims. It can't be true because it isn't true. Honest research would show you that.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@RoyCarter That assumes that I brought those beliefs to the search for truth. As I said, I nearly became Catholic. That was because I was becoming convinced it was true. I studied those issues, realized what the truth was (in my opinion), and followed that. For you to claim that I have some other motivation for rejecting Catholicism (such as not wanting to be "bound" or rejecting the Catholic church because "it doesn't agree with" me) displays a lack of charity and just is doing as I said, namely, wanting something to be true of a group so one holds it to be true. It's like the kids that want to believe their mothers, as well as the mothers sometimes believing the same, that kids bully other kids because they are jealous of them. Just because it sounds good to one's ears, that doesn't make it true.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

I am Christian because it's the only religion whose founder claims to be God (and backs it beyond reasonable doubt). I'm Catholic because it's the only Christian church that claims to hold an authority to decide infallibly directly delegated by God (and backs it with Scripture, irreducible logical consistency, and historical coherence). I see authority as a non- negotiable because obedience is the only way we have to know that we love God. If I can pick and choose what to submit to and what not, I am obeying no one but myself. In the final analysis, I must be able to not agree or not understand, and still say: "not my will, but Thy will be done."

[@consecratedsoul]

If you start with the presupposition (albeit true) Jesus founded one Church, who historically through the *permanent gift of the Holy Spirit* compiled their inerrant Bible in 382AD at Council of Rome, then it logically follows I can trust and believe in that Church when defining dogmas (perpetual truths) unless I reject Jesus promises. It’s that simple. Either the Holy Spirit is with them “ALL days” as our Lord promised or it “disappeared” “temporarily abandoned” us for another church, which is the insane nonsensical logical conclusion of protestantism.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

*"It’s that simple."* It's only that simple if you don't include discerning what that one, true Church actually is. That's where it gets messy. It sounds like you just assume that, because it has the name Catholic, and because other denominations seem to have gone out from them, therefore, Catholicism is the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That doesn't follow. If the Church can put out heretics, then why can't the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church put out a group by leaving, thereby "reforming" the catholic Church?

[@consecratedsoul]

@@Real_LiamOBryan Re-read the presupposition.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@consecratedsoul Okay, I did. It still looks the same as when you first wrote it. My point still stands.

[@xpictos777]

I just couldn’t be part of a group Christ himself didn’t establish. It is the idea that if I was born during the 15 centuries before the reformation I wouldn’t be Protestant. For me, it isn’t really about opinion, but reality and being honest with myself. So in good conscience it was either Orthodox or Catholic, but not anything else.

[@cabellero1120]

For Orthodox and Catholics The Church makes up the people. A home, refuge like Noah's Ark Outside of the Ark, there was no salvation.. The Church is a sure refuge for sinners Not a museum, A hospital.. Sin is Sickness and Christ Is The Physician, Who heals us. For Protestants, People make up the church. It's just a building, little more.....

[@Wilkins325]

I think I can spot the Christ the Good Shepherd on the far right and the temptation of Christ on the left of that? You seem to be a customer of Legacy Icons haha

[@GospelSimplicity]

Good eye!

[@TravisKirchem-gd4wy]

Have you ever heard of a Catholic converting to Protestantism by reading Church fathers? I think the Church Fathers point more directly at Cathlicism. The only question is how much of their beliefs do we want to take. I think that's the reason Protestants can read them and not convert. After all, they are not infallible

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

"Not long after this, I began to notice discrepancies between Catholic apologists’ map of the tradition and the terrain I encountered in the tradition itself. St. Ambrose’s doctrine of justification sounded a great deal more like Luther’s sola fide than like Trent. St. John Chrysostom’s teaching on repentance and absolution-“Mourn and you annul the sin”-would have been more at home in Geneva than Paris. St. Thomas’s doctrine of predestination, much to my horror, was nearly identical to the Synod of Dordt’s. The Anglican divine Richard Hooker quoted Irenaeus, ­Chrysostom, ­Augustine, and Pope Leo I as he rejected doctrines and practices because they were not grounded in Scripture. He cited Pope Gregory the Great on the “­ungodly” title of universal bishop. The Council of ­Nicaea assumed that Alexandria was on a par with Rome, and Chalcedon declared that the Roman patriarchate was privileged only “because [Rome] was the royal city.” In short, I began to wonder whether the Reformers had a legitimate claim to the Fathers. The Church of Rome could not be straightforwardly identified as catholic." -- Onsi A. Kamel, Catholicism Made me Protestant, FirstThings.com. www.firstthings.com/article/2019/10/catholicism-made-me-protestant Now, you may not agree with what they wrote, but they are clearly trying to convey the idea that the became convinced that the Church Fathers were on the side of Protestantism, ultimately, not Catholicism. So, yes, I've heard of it.

[@freda7961]

@@Real_LiamOBryanExtremely rare do you ever hear of it though. That’s not proof in and of itself, but that should give anyone a pause.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

What you seem to be implying is Christians although believing Scripture is the Word of God when they come to Faith they may struggle with some of the verses (in a similar way you seem to be saying one could reasonably join Catholicism and work out the difficult dogmas later). That is not a one to one comparison as the Scripture is the Word of God while claims of the Catholic Church are not an equally authoritative "Word of God" situation. I suppose that depends on your presuppositions but I don't think the claims of the Roman Catholic Church can be fundamentally put on par with the nature of Scripture being God breathed theonoustas.

[@GospelSimplicity]

As you said, that depends on your presuppositions

[@dustinneely]

Because staying Protestant doesn't cost anything. You can find a church that agrees with YOU.

[@lupinthe4th400]

It's because data are theory-laden.

[@pgstudio4651]

Any of the Ancient Apostolic Churches will serve you well.

[@ANGAR0NE]

Pride, there isn't a Protestant religion. Which denomination is the right one?. There are differences so big on the different denominations that one can say Jesus is God and others Michael the Archangel. Sorry, I wish everyone was right, but there is only one truth. 😢

[@mathiasweil3507]

It is not up to us to determine what is the truth between Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism. All those churches claim to be the true Church of God but they are not God to decide if they are his Church. When one converts to Christianity, he does not conceive the Truth as Scripture, nor Tradition, nor Magisterium. Even the authorities established by God can be corrupted as we see in the Bible ; Traditions may be both from God or against God as we see in the New Testament ; and the devil can also quote Scripture ! But when one converts he recognizes the Truth as a person to whom he can talk to as this person is still alive today sitted at the right hand of God. And this person loves you and wants you to be saved. So there is no need to be anxious, the Lord does not want us to be anxious. We can hardly determine where is the true Church of God by ourselves because this Church is not our church but that of our Lord. And as the Lord is alive, we can ask him directly where He wants to see us worshiping Him. He will answer that prayer by personal revelation because He is a person and has authority of his own and is unlimited so He can reveal himself as it pleases Him to do.

[@ARTCreationsOfficial]

I like to recommend you the book "Answering Orthodoxy" by Michael Lofton. I think it will help you.

[@pigetstuck]

I would propose another way... Instead of bringing very specific, and often apologetically tinted, questions to the scriptures "Is Catholicism true? Is sola fide true? Is icon veneration legitimate?"... instead read The scriptures and let the apostles and their community emphasize what we should know. Let them speak instead of just using them as a theological word puzzle. You don't have to sola consider the scriptures... but why not start there...

[@tomlem64]

You seem like a very nice young man. I am somehwat new to this dicussion so I will just state the obvious: You do know that many more people convert from Roman Catholic to Protestant then the other way around, right?

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

Is this true? I would really be interested in any sources you might have for that. I was just looking the other day to try to find numbers on conversions to and from Catholicism. I couldn't find too much.

[@tomlem64]

@@Real_LiamOBryan I guess I was just stating the obvious. Approx. 500 years ago Martin Luther attempted to reform the Church of Rome and was susequently excommunicated. Since then, the number of Protestants has increased to nearly a billion people, or about the same number as the RC Church. Those early Protestants were orignally Roman Catholic before becoming Protestant, so clearly the conversion rate was almost entirely RC to Protestant. Fairly recent Pew polls in the US show the two largest religious groups in the US are (1) Roman Catholics and (2) former Romand Catholics. Throughout South America, which was at one time nearly 100% RC we see that the Protestant Churches are exploding with growth while the RC church is dramtically declining in virtually every South American country.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'm aware. However, the nature of these conversions (broadly speaking) tends to be different. In my experience, at the everyday, ground level, there are far more Catholics becoming Protestant. However, at the level of the academy, there are more Protestant theologians who become Catholic than vice-versa.

[@tomlem64]

@@GospelSimplicity Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense. I wonder though if those Protestant thologians are not adequately investigating Confessional Lutheranism? This seems like a silly question, as Luther was at the forefront of the Reformation, but Confessional Lutheranism (and Confessional Calvinism for that matter) would seem to fulfill many of the inadequacies that many Protestants find in modern American Evanglicalism, which has come to dominate the religious culture in the US, while at the same time avoiding the many untenable doctines/dogma of Roman Catholicism. Just a thought.

[@delvaassante5699]

As a Catholic, I know why…Protestants evangelize better. There’s a lot we could learn from each other. Pray for unity.

[@thephilosopherfromdixie7466]

You take issue with the Assumption of Mary but dont take issue with the idea that God is a real estate agent.

[@consecratedsoul]

Either you allow God to reveal himself to you in a historical, logically consistent, harmonious way or you place self invented obstacles, seek confirmation bias and justify your sins in order to not bend the knee to his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and instead follow your own opinions and standards.

[@barry.anderberg]

Easy. My wife won't hear it. Zero interest. So I'm stuck in low church protesantism. It's not all bad, the pastor is very good. There's just absolutely zero liturgy, zero iconography, baptism is only a symbol, communion (Eucharist) is only a symbol, modern christian radio hit worship songs. Meh. I go to Divine Liturgy by myself whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

Sneak her into an ACNA church. It's often, depending on the church's leanings, a mixture of low and high church. Liturgy, talk of saints, baptism and communion are not merely symbolic, more traditional hymns (though, usually of the English tradition). The only thing missing from your list is probably iconography.

[@freda7961]

Your wife’s beliefs shouldn’t stop you from practicing yours. My wife is a Protestant, and I still regularly attend the Mass.

[@qazyman]

People are really different. I don't have any doubt that Protestantisms, and Luther, are all part of Gods plan. This isn't a negative of Catholicism. I'll be honest with you. I'm from Texas. I go to the border with Mexico often. You want to see the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. Go look at that line. Look at it real close. God loves people on both sides the same. If there was only one true faith, we would be calling it Judaism.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

Cool. Since all faiths are true and there is no one true church, I have decided that the books ascribed to Paul actually aren't divinely inspired.

[@qazyman]

@@EpistemicAnthony - That would be a very bad decision. It doesn't mean others will not make good ones. " So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

[@jemari2]

Or, through humility one submits to Christ and His Church. There are only two options: Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Protestantism is not a Church, but a set of ideas.

[@michaelbledsoe4355]

Why can't you believe that the Catholic Church was the True Church but fell away into apostasy. Cause thats what happened commencing at the 2nd Council of Nicea

[@thejoshuaproject3809]

The reason I didn't convert when I was a catechumen at an Orthodox Church was because they never cracked open a Bible even once and all they focused on was mysticism.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Interesting to hear that! Thanks for sharing your experience. What church do you attend now?

[@thejoshuaproject3809]

@@GospelSimplicity A PCA Presbyterian Church. That tiny church has been awesome in its beauty and simplicity of the sacraments and the preaching of the Gospel. For private devotion I've been praying the Daily Office from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer international version. Thanks for your videos.👍🏽

[@MrJayb76]

It's not that complicated. If you want to be your own interpretative authority then go protestant. If you want a supreme court to settle matters of dogma and faith then go catholic.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

"Come home to Christ" should be the moto of the protestants.

[@regisprimo2429]

We are all, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anabaptists etc, part of the Body of Christ - The Church. We all recognize Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. May the sectarianism that exists in the idea of “one true church” not transform us into Pharisee Christians, always ready to judge our brothers in Christ. Peace and Good. 🙏🏻

[@_jillkay]

This! Just being part of a church that calls itself the “one true church” doesn’t sit right with me. I also don’t like how it teaches that unbaptized babies will never see the face of God. They don’t get to go to Heaven, according to the Catholic Church.

[@soteriology400]

I see the magisterium as a cult like trait. I will be judged by Gods Word, not by someone who did not die for me. It is Jesus who sits in Moses seat, not the Magesterium. ”But as for you, do not be called Rabbi; for only One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for only One is your Leader, that is, Christ.“ ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭23‬:‭8‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬ This conversation occurred two days before Jesus died.

[@Joker22593]

False premise: Nobody has the same abilities to reason.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Could we say similar? Or at least, one’s ability to reason isn’t the determining factor?

[@cabellero1120]

True Faith Isn't comfortable... None of the Martyrs believed that.... Too many " christians" believe that God loves them so they don't have to go through Any hard times or trials... St Paul said different IN THE Bible! Jesus said if the world hates Me, it Will Hate You Because Of Me Evangelicals think they're on the road to the Emerald City..... Where All manner of perks and benefits are exclusive to them.... God is Not a country club.

[@jmh7977]

In my heavy delving into the early church fathers, writ large, and working my way up slowly towards and theough the historical epochs, i.e. Alexandrian vs Antichochan controversies, first iconoclasm, east-west split of 1054, etc, via a historical approach, and then comparing what is presented today as "the true church", whether it be Roman, Eastern, Pre-Nicene, or some Protestant flavor, they are ALL inevitably found wanting and are all subject to doctrinal novelty. So, if the epistemological and historical belief in the Christian God is the foundation on which all other things must be built, Scripture is the most original and oldest source. Scripture, even decentralized and fragmented as it was in Paul and Peter's lifetimes, predates dogma and the church. Therefore, an interpretation of Scripture that adheres to an institutional Church as a completely valid authority, it is always nonetheless premised only upon Scripture's dictates. This, even as I continue to pour into every church father I can find and who has been translated, inevitably leads, even by kicking and screaming, toward the Reformation and the original Reformers reclamation of the Gospel truth from Pharasaical traditions. Granted, the Protestants of today have also veered way off path, but this is indicative of human and church history, and it appears it will always be in play by sin and by the great manipulator and deceiver, the devil. The first Reformers were as close as possible to reclaiming what the earliest church communities believed and practiced, prior to the inevitability of institutional accretions, and while every Christian expression today seems to have missed the mark somewhat, Lutherans and Anglicans were the closest, despite their histories. More or less, there isn't one historical Christian expression that isn't guilty of error, not one, so the best we, as current day penitants, can achieve in preserving the Gospel, the greatest news in all of existence, is to cling to those who would preserve it best. And even that is subject to great scrutiny. All authorities must be subject to THE authority, God's Word, or it's simply another attempt by man to mimic God.

[@jeremyfirth]

How do you decide what is in the canon of scripture? Are you just falling back to trusting the very church who you are also trying to reject? There were many books floating around in the early church. Some were gnostic (heretical) texts. Some were not heretical, but not used in the daily liturgical cycle of the church (apocrypha) and also books that were used in daily liturgical readings in the church (which is what you now call the New Testament). So just by choosing to set the Bible as your authority, you are relying on the church to determine which books you are paying attention to.

[@jmh7977]

@@jeremyfirth You may have misunderstood me as a "SOLO Scriptura" advocate, because many who are Orthodox or Roman mistakenly categorize Sola (the only infallible authority) with Solo (the only authority period). If I'm understanding your response in good faith (and correct me please if I'm wrong), your question premises that I reject the visible church because you posit that the Scripture, as it exists today, could not exist without the Ecumenical councils codifying the established canon. That is a classic viewpoint held by both Romans and Orthodox, and it's easy to understand its appeal at face value. But to be fair, I don't personally think it's the strongest when put under heavy scrutiny. First point, I don't reject the visible church, only that its dictates are without error, so to answer your question, "are you just falling back to trusting the very church who you are also trying to reject?", the answer would be no. But both my statement and your question are loaded from the get-go and they deserves qualifying. Those who advocate for theirs being the "one and only" true church as being the "one and only" VISIBLE church will probably reject anything I have to say about it, so long as I am not in lock-step with their own dogmatic choices and views. I am thoroughly unconvinced of ecclesial anxieties coming from the early church fathers, when certain words and phraseology written in an archaic grammar and usage are mistakenly read through a modern lens via one's own confirmation bias. If Irenaeus, for example, is to be read the most charitably to his original meaning and context, then easily his best work, "Against Heresies", can be read in the correct historical context of very specifically containing the growing threat of Gnosticism within the nascent Christian church communities via an apostolic succession of bishops and/or presbyters (of which Valentinus, the chief leading Gnostic of the age, rejected outright), and not as a fundamental framework for a centralized ecclesiastical institution to enshrine itself around at the expense of earlier traditional practices or adherence to accepted God-breathed Scripture of the time. But, I can certainly understand and sympathize with the argument and why it would be appealing to both Romans and Orthodox. From the earliest fathers to the Protestant Reformation, the progression of language from localized communities toward a political centralization of power (first between Alexandria and Antioch, then eventually between Rome and Constantinople) can easily be seen, and were you to compare the earliest language to the language of the High Scholastics, for example (like Aquinas and Dons Scotus), there is a stark contrast in context and meaning, very far removed from the context of its original authors. Second point, that's completely fair, many wished to cash-in on the value of "found" "lost works" of this or that Apostle of Jesus or early father, and it would have been very difficult to ascertain which letters were to be deemed God-breathed and Scripture and which were to be deemed as forgery or uninspired. That said, herein probably lies a fundamental difference between viewpoints: does God ever move outside of His visible church or only and ever through it? If we believe that God moves outside His visible church to influence history, the direction His church takes, what certain church opponents write and do against it, etc etc (as He clearly used Israel's enemies against her to rebuke and chastise His people in what we would call the OT), then there really is no issue whatsoever to believe in the established canon of today (whether it be the Roman understanding, the Orthodox understand, or the Protestant understanding, to narrow it down to the largest three historical expressions) as being separate from the authority of a visible church. Of course, like with any approach, there are always potential issues, such as, if this is the case, what's to say the Latter Day Saints or JW's aren't wrong? For the record, I do think they're wrong but that's another topic altogether. This then is why there is a visible church and why it matters today and why its authority is as it should be, that is, bound and underpinned to the infallible authority of the inerrant God-breathed Gospel. If I discovered another author's work, who was long dead, but whose work was seen by the leading authorities of the time as verifiably inspired and God-breathed as Scripture, my putting it into a binder and adding chapter titles would not make me its author, ESPECIALLY if the author is God, creator of the universe. By virtue of its author being God Himself, I wouldn't even be able to be the contents safe-keeper. Likewise, the Ecumenical councils codifying the canon by the leading authorities of the time do not make the visible church its author, and God, never to be mocked, would never allow His visible church to contradict His Word and not suffer gravely for it. If, however, on the other hand, God ONLY and ever moves through His visible church, and never outside of it to influence the world, then the position I believe you are holding is more difficult to contend with. God moves things when He wills, even His visible church. And if it's His will that the visible church codify a canon of Scripture as "official" for subsequent generations, who are we to resist this as a basic fact? It doesn't change that the author of God's Word is God Himself, and that He used various human actors to bind and chapter it. Third point, the Old Testament, the assembled books of the Tanakh, were codified outside of any Jewish ecclesial institution. Even throughout the Hasmoneon Dynasty and up through the Roman occupation and life of Jesus, OT Scripture was properly understood and codified prior to the Jewish religious leading sects of the time. There existed no infallible authority outside the text itself, and yet a canon was organically established and promulgated, an OT canon every Christian expression uses today, some with and some without the Deuterocanonical (or 'second canon') texts. It wasn't the Greeks or Romans who codified or even officiated the Tanakh, though debates would be ongoing, especially in the Western Medieval Church, which eventually resulted in the the 66 book canon of the Protestant Reformers and the 73 book canon of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church, their canon depends on which Diocese is asked, some say 81 books, others say 78 books, others I've seen claim 76 books. So, in closing, I would argue that I don't much disagree with you about who historically is relied upon for what canon of Scripture is adhered to but on who's authority it is premised entirely. If the visible church precedes God, then they precede His Word. If God precedes the visible church, then His Word precedes the visible church. But I would contend that John 1-1:3, no matter which translation we adhere to, speaks bluntly on this issue. The Word, then, preceded the visible church, and whomsoever God chose to simply bind pages together via Ecumenical council is no author at all but merely a vessel to be used at the time of His choosing to His Glory. The church will always be bound by the truths of the Holy Scripture and not the other way around, because God is the Word and the Word precedes and rules everything else, and every vessel He uses has its use at its appointed time (and no, I am not a Calvinist, in case that last part sounded too deterministic and Genevan).

[@jeremyfirth]

@@jmh7977 So the Book of Mormon is included in your canon, by your reasoning because it was authored by Christ, according to the Mormons.

[@jeremyfirth]

@@jmh7977 In other words, you accept the visible church's discernment in determining what is scripture (because you reject the Book of Mormon), but you do not accept the other traditions and practices of the same church that has discernment with regard to what is and is not scripture. I don't understand the reasoning behind this position.

[@jmh7977]

@jeremyfirth Apostolic authority, church consensus, canonical declaration, and the recognition of the voice of our Shepherd, are all what bear witness to the authority of God's Word, and the Mormon church has neither of those things. So, I wouldn't say that was the logic laid out.

[@fro2485]

I’ll choose the side that refuses to minimize the atoning work of Christ on the cross.

[@freda7961]

And which side is that? The one the majority of which can’t bear to see the crucified Jesus and would insist that our Jesus is a risen Jesus as if one is in opposition of the other? The same ones who would treat Holy Week as vacation time, family week, except on Easter Sunday?

[@fro2485]

@@freda7961 the tomb is empty… and the cross is barren. He sits on the Throne above. His work is finished and is not “represented” every Sunday in the Mass.