Exposing MYTHS of Church History (w/ Dr. Michael Svigel)

[@JTHootman1]

I grew up Catholic, attended highschool Seminary before I started the path I am on now through attending other denominations, making friends with people from different denominations, and choosing to pursue Jesus as an active member of an Evangelical Church. One of the things that has been hard for me is the lack of understanding of how many wonderful things the Catholic Church and other denominations of Christianity can offer in the understanding of God. There are things that I disagree with, and could not find good arguments to change my mind in the different churches, but there are aspects of each denomination that have profoundly informed my understanding of God. I appreciate so much this conversation. The humility to know that you don't know it all while still trying to know all you can has allowed a conversation where we can better see how others may have a clearer view of who Jesus is than we might and certain places and others where our view might be closer to that reality. Jesus said that people will know that we are his disciples if we love one another. I believe that you are lovingly engaging our brothers and sisters through this channel. Thank you.

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

I would investigate apostolic succession, the canon (more thoroughly than this video), and read what the apostolic fathers wrote regarding baptism, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and the nature of the church. Like many, you likely experienced a watered down ritualistic Catholicism with very little gospel. Please look into the fullness of the Catholic faith before dismissing it.

[@crobeastness]

@@imjustheretogrill4794 thats exactly what happened to me before i left the church for atheism and then ended up coming back to the Catholic Church Catechesis is horrendous in the church and people who leave the Church at young age and become anti-Catholic are the worst. as an atheist, i never was anti-anything, i just didn't care and was a deist for a while, never being attracted to protestantism who don't trust the Holy Spirit to preserve the Church until their hero martin luther.

[@cw-on-yt]

ARGH. Speaking of "urban legends": It is a bit of an "urban legend" to claim that Jerome did not accept the deuterocanonical books as canonical. In reality, he initially pushed back against their canonicity, then later accepted them ...and, yes, around the same time that he first signaled acceptance, there's also some other language which can be ambiguous or waffle-y. But, later than that, there's also language that's full-throated and unambiguous in acceptance. Should we summarize all of that by saying "he didn't accept them" without qualification? (It's speculative, but it seems a pretty reasonable proposal, that his early period of rejecting their canonicity was influenced by the rabbis with whom he was studying Hebrew and Aramaic, in order to be able to translate the Old Testament. The rabbis of that era were naturally disinclined to accept them because Wisdom chapter 2 contains a Messianic prophecy which had been very effective in convincing Jewish people of Jesus' messianic identity.) So, please urge folks not to repeat the claim that Jerome "didn't accept the deuterocanon," full-stop. It's more complicated than that, and doesn't agree with Jerome's final position on the matter. It would be like claiming that Tertullian was a passionate defender of the papacy. (Early on, he was; and then, when the pope's opinion differed from his, suddenly, he wasn't!) That said, I liked this interview a lot. It's especially helpful that Dr. Michael Svigel clarified that nobody in the Early Church rejected the deuterocanon as spurious or heretical. People often think of first-century books as belonging to two categories: (1.) It's Canonical, and (2.) It's Spurious Gnostic Damnable Crap. But that leaves out a whole category: (3.) Considered Orthodox In Content, And Recommended For Devotional Use, Even If Not Ceremonially Read Aloud In The Liturgy. Category (3.) includes things like the Didache, and the Shepherd by Hermas, and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, and the records of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and Cyril's Catechetical Lectures. These are not considered "Divinely Inspired and Inerrant" the way that Galatians is, and so they aren't ceremonially read-aloud-from in the liturgy. But they're considered, for early Christians, as helpful reading for understanding how to live what Watchman Nee called "the Normal Christian Life." Their initial authors should be accepted as orthodox believers in the context of 2nd Temple Judaism, and their acceptance as devotionally-helpful and orthodox-in-content by the early Christians indicates that their content was unobjectionable to that audience, also. Consequently, EVEN IF WE DON'T REGARD THEM AS CANONICAL, we can read them with the same level of comfort that some folks read "My Utmost For His Highest" by Oswald Chambers, or maybe "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. And if we find content in them which we find appallingly heretical, we should stop short and ask ourselves: "What's wrong with MY understanding of the Christian faith, if I find the deuterocanon objectionable, yet the early Christians DIDN'T?"

[@masterchief8179]

Yes. About the OT deuterocanon, the true fact is that St Jerome was submitted to the authority of the Church and it is clear to me (and Catholic scholars, I guess) that he fully accepted the decision of the Church of Rome in Pope St Damasus about the Biblical canon despite his consolidated previous theological orientation. I sincerely can't understand how a claim as strong as "Jerome rejected the OT deuterocanonical books", without further explanations and qualifications, can be so diffuse not only inside the Internet blogosphere but among serious Protestant theologians and historians. The simple fact is that after the definition of the Canon in the (regional) Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope St Damasus (366-384) - please notice that pope Damasus was EXACTLY the pope that comissioned Jerome as his auxiliar and entrusted him with the translation of the "Vulgata" -, Jerome submitted to it entirely and never questioned the papal authority in its decrees, which would be even unthinkable to him. There is no evidence for this position, like he supposedly rejected, let me say, the book of Judith or First Maccabees should be in the Bible despite Pope Damasus and his successors. The "Vulgata" Bible was completed around 404-405 after Damasus' death and, as we must notice, WITH (not without) the Deuterocanonical books just as decided in the Council of Rome (382), enforced by Damasus' post-counciliar decree and later reafirmed in the Council of Carthage (397), a North African regional council in full communion with Rome (not a Donatist council). By the way, St Jerome's ecclesiology was so extremely clear about how he understood authority that one can hardly push this kind of argumentation. He NEVER dared (which, according to his strong personality, says a great deal on how to understand the primatial role of the Roman Church) to defy Pope Damasus and his successors’ authoritative teaching decrees: __________________ *St Jerome (347 AD - 420 AD)* _”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that _*_GATHERS NOT WITH YOU SCATTERS_*_ (Matthew 12:30); he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_ . (Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2). __________________ About Pope St Gregory the Great, his ONLY writing about the canonicity used to "favor" the Protestant position about the Bible canon was reflexive of the EXACT position endorsed by St Jerome and simply references it, in which he explains there were two categories of books according to that Doctor of the Church: i) canonical books and ii) ecclesiastical books, being the first "inspired" and the latter "inspiring" (more or less this analogy fits). Of course it is debatable if the canon affirmed the Council of Rome (382) was defined to the whole universal church as a definitive teaching, because things weren't as clear in ecclesiastical affairs in a period of history were communications were harsh, distances were enormous and cultural divergences were strong, specially if we envision that the decrees of Pope St Damasus were lost at his time and only during the papacy of Pope St Gelasius (492-496) they were revealed in a compendium as the Decretals of Damasus. Even for scholars who questions if the compendium known as the _Decretum Gelasianum_ was truly written by Pope Gelasius himself (and it has PRECISELY the same canon of the Catholic Church, for instance, albeit some diverge even here) at the very least and in worst scenario the Decretum of Gelasius was written in the sixth century (prior to Pope Gregory) and was undoubted accepted as ecclesiastical document referential to what the Church already believed to be the scriptural canon. This argument about Pope St Gregory the Great arguably rejecting the deuterocanonical books comes pretty much from William Webster, when he qutoes (really, it is the ONLY argument he poses for it) the 'theolegoumena' Pope St Gregory made as a private theologian, not as the Bishop of Rome. And surprisingly he achieves the conclusion that is contrary to what the text truly and actually says. It is EXACTLY this very passage: __________________ *Pope St Gregory (540-604 AD)* _“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are _*_COUNTED BY ST JEROME OUT of the canonical books,_*_ and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. _*_NOW, ACCORDING TO HIS JUDGEMENT,_*_ in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) ARE _*_NOT_*_ CANONICAL, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. _*_YET, THEY MAY BE CALLED CANONICAL,_*_ that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being _*_RECEIVED AND AUTHORISED IN THE CANON OF THE BIBLE_*_ for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage”_ . (Gregory, In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also Cosin’s A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.) __________________ This means Pope St Gregory was making one of his famous theological commentaries about the historical books of the Bible - at this very part, he issued the "scholarly" position of St Jerome about the theme. William Webster's strong Protestant and anti-Catholic position about the canon became so famous among Protestant scholars that it is simply assumed as a fact, just as he depicts it, that not only Jerome (!) but also pope Gregory (!!) rejected the deuterocanonicals as canonical books of Scripture. If that was true, we would have documents and specially letters of Pope Gregory I (there are TONS of letters he addressed to other bishops, even Eastern ones, about a myriad of themes) concerning the very theme of which books shouldn't be read in the liturgy, specially because the canonicty of a book, for Catholics, is entirely connected to the condition of being readable at the first part of the Holy Mass, which we call nowadays the "Litugy of the Word" (and at that time was called the "Mass of the Catechumens"). In that Pope Gregory the Great even says to reconcile St Jerome with St Augustine, one of the pillars of the provincial Council of Carthage, never to take the deuterocanonical books out of the Bible canon. It was just the exact opposite. It is important to NOT replicate historical anti-Catholic misinformation. Please check the quotations I give and you'll find out Webster's stance on the Internet. Truth must be investigated in all seriousness. Just Google "Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious" and "Webster" and check for yourselves. God bless!

[@HenryBonesJr]

Gary Michuta has addressed a lot of these deuterocanonical objections by Protestants on his YT page - "Apocrypha Apocalypse." There is a lot of good meat over there.

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

Correct if I’m wrong but pope Damasus provided his list as universal, though acceptance was not demanded. In other words, he taught those books universally but did not mandate them.

[@TheMarymicheal]

@@masterchief8179 nicely put together

[@nathanhornok]

35:20 "the necessity for Apostolic succession for validity of sacraments and validity of orders. That is a developed doctrine, it's not something you see in the first or second century literature." Not sure how he interprets Ignatius epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8 explicitly says the Eucharist, Baptism, and love feast should only be done with the oversight of the Bishop.

[@daddydaycareky]

I also felt that his interpretation was a bit lacking here and ignores a lot of history. The laying of hands goes back to Moses Numbers 27:18-23 18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership, and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. Deuteronomy 34:9 9 Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses. In the New Testament we see this continue as a source of succession and authority: Part 1 of 2 In the letters to Timothy, we see that he has definite authority over the Churches which he oversees, but we are also told that the elders and even Paul himself has laid his hands upon him. In Acts we see that the laying of hands is a physical way to impart the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Acts 13:2-3 tells us that “while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.” While Paul was spreading the Good News in Ephesus, and we are told that he “placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:6).” In 1 Timothy 4:13-14 Timothy is told that “Until I [Paul] come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.” In his second letter to Timothy we are told that “ For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands (2 Timothy 1:6).” Similarly we are told Tiitus also had authority to “appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:5),” and to determine false teaching and even silence these false teachers (Titus 1:11). We do not have clear evidence that Titus had hands laid upon him, it is an assumption, but in addition to authority to determine false teaching, he shared other gifts in common with Timothy and Stephen, which was the gift to “teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)” in addition to being reminded that he is to “encourage and rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15).” This is a huge deal. To be honest, if there is no apostolic succession, Catholicism is a joke.

[@HenryBonesJr]

He indeed has problems for his particular viewpoint.

[@jessedutch3086]

Yes, I had the same question during the interview. I was waiting for Ignatius to come up as he seems to be fundemental for the way the OC CC build the teaching on this subject

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

Apostolic succession is clearly taught even in living memory of the Apostles. This boggles my mind.

[@daddydaycareky]

@@imjustheretogrill4794 I think he was trying to imply that "succession" does not mean what we think it means. But if you look at succession in the Bible (I think I did a pretty good job in my previous post) and in extrabiblical Jewish sources, it seems to be pretty obvious how succession was understood in that time period. In my opinion,, it lines up succinctly with the Catholic and Ortho understanding. Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:1 "In order to act as a judge in the supreme court or in a Small Sanhedrin or in a court-of-three, one must be ordained by someone who has been ordained. Our teacher Moses ordained Joshua by placing his hands upon him, as it is written: "He laid his hands on him and commissioned him" (Numbers 27:23). He also ordained the seventy elders, and the Divine Presence rested upon them. The elders ordained others, who in turn ordained others."

[@jessedutch3086]

This was great. So nice to hear an evangelical scholar from DTS speak so generous on church history. Truely, we are united in Christ. I'm currently leaving a dispensational church full of church history haters. Totally done with it.

[@nathanhornok]

God's speed on leaving that Judaizing heresy (I speak from experience).

[@dr.j5642]

IFB?

[@nathanhornok]

@@dr.j5642 Are you asking what prot denominations I left? Not IFB. I'm just saying the Dispensationalism (which seems, like Calvinism, to have infected many branches of American Protestantism) is a Judaiziing heresy. It takes nearly all the OT promises that the first Christians applied to the Church, and says it all applies to an incredibly narrow sliver of the decendents of Jacob, and the Church Age is one giant parentheses where we are waiting around for God to get back to his real plan for His people. It swaps Christians and Jews in God's plan. It's a sort of spiritual identity theft. And in whatever Christian sects this heresy holds sway, the churches are bound to die. Jesus is gonna yank that candle back unless the Christians stop falling for that silly nonsense.

[@nathanhornok]

@Josh Glenn Yeah, the 1800s was indeed the century of awful ideas. Regarding Dispensationalism, if you buy into the Protestant idea of the "invisible church" then dispensationalism is actually a pretty natural conclusion to arrive at. If the Church age is just an invisible program of individual salvation, it makes sense to take the "literal" language of biblically prophecy and find a physical thing to apply it to...what better option than modern day Jews/Israel? Which IMO explains why the Prots most prone to the "invisible church" idea (evangelicals, etc) are also those who fell under the sway of dispensationalism. Another interesting development I've noticed is that dispensationalism is not so much coming from the seminaries anymore, rather the pop culture of rapture movies, etc. is the main driver keeping the heresy afloat.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@nathanhornok calling it a heresy is your ignorance: they correspond to the 7 covenants in the Bible and I do think the Catholic ( Universal) church is much bigger than just your RCC and incorporates All true believers which is the Spiritual church of All believers written in the Lambs book of life or the True church. No, tradition or denomination is the only true church: that exclusive idea is very cultic as Mormons , RCC, church of Christ, SDA , and JW , ingleia Chrstos and Unititains, Jesus only, claim just for themselves . The people in heaven are those who have their names written in the Lamb's book of life: not on membership rolls of the RCC.

[@jesseredwards]

As a Catholic I greatly appreciate this guest’s take on Church history. Though he and I don’t agree on everything, it’s nice hear his defense of the Middle Ages and other aspects of Catholic history that are often used as attacks against us. He’s clearly trying his best to be unbiased and charitable.

[@h00sha]

I love it when protestants lie about their age. There’s no way that you’re 22, Austin. Your open mindedness, and well spokenness totally betray you.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hahaha, I must admit I read "I love it when Protestants lie" and thought "oh no, here we go." This was a pleasant surprise

[@mimi_j]

I read the first few words and was like “wow wow wow wow wow” *if you watch pitch meeting then you should get this reference

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

From his view, we can have no certainty about the Canon or it’s innerancy. If scripture was assembled by men, without authoritative teaching authority prevented from teaching error, it is just a subjective tradition of man.

[@grantbenson7458]

Exactly. The buck ends here with Protestantism.

[@jterrellielli7058]

His logic is whack. He’s the equivalent of a movie critic and not a Director. All that knowledge yet what is He a Baptist? Lord have mercy. I would fear to reject so much. Vanity. Ego.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@jterrellielli7058 the ego of U is historical Laughable .

[@jterrellielli7058]

@@davidjanbaz7728 bravo, champ. Way to write.

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

Would you consider interviewing Mark Goring or Garry Michuta? I think William Albrecht would be good to interview further on subjects besides Mary as well. Btw, I’m a Protestant but after looking at stuff for 2 years in heavily considering Catholicism.

[@George-ur8ow]

Some of the disagreements within Christianity (as a whole) are very complicated (which should not be dismissed) but, one can fall just as easily into the trap of paralysis by analysis. Much of the overwhelming questions can be addressed and whittled down through the proper order of theology: begin with Christology (who is Jesus Christ?) before Ecclesiology (who's in charge? What is the proper structure of the Church?) and before Soteriology (how are we are "saved"?). In my experience, getting Christology down meant much of the rest falling into place.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Interesting! I was just reading on Pope Benedict XVI, and his opinion was much the same

[@George-ur8ow]

@@GospelSimplicity The debate between St. Cyril & Nestorius in defining "Theotokos" vs. "Christotokos" is a great place to start if one is interested in exploring Christology to a greater degree. Although the debate on the surface was about what title Mary should be called by, the actual debate was over who Jesus Christ is, for only by understanding who Christ is can we arrive at how Mary can be properly referred to. A small snippet: when I read the following from St. Cyril's letter to Nestorius, I had to learn more: "Do you not know that at the incarnation Christ gathered and assumed into himself universal human nature? On what other basis do you think that all of mankind will be resurrected?" I'm not surprised Pope Benedict wrote the same, Christology is VERY similar in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism (as is Soteriology, the big difference is in Ecclesiology of course!). Understanding who Christ is was the emphasis throughout the early councils & is all over the writings of the Cappadocians.

[@George-ur8ow]

@Brian Farley No, that is not what I am saying, you are putting ecclesiology first. I am not Catholic, but I don't believe Roman Catholics traditionally hold to putting ecclesiology first in their ordo theologiae either. Orthodoxy certainly puts Christology in at the first item to be addressed: "The mystery of the incarnation of the Lord is the key to all the arcane symbolism and typology in the Scriptures, and in addition gives us knowledge of created things, both visible and intelligible. He who apprehends the mystery of the cross and the burial apprehends the inward essences of created things, while he who is initiated into the inexpressible power of the resurrection apprehends the purpose for which God first established everything.” - St. Maximus the Confessor (580-662 a.d.) First Century on Theology: The Philokalia: the Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodemus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth, Vol. 2

[@George-ur8ow]

@Brian Farley You immediately discredit yourself by saying that "Orthodoxy didn't exist before Catholicism". A majority of Roman Catholic Scholars don't even agree with that statement. The question as to who separated from who is very difficult to answer, though, in my opinion, later-admitted Papal forgeries such as the "Donation of Constantine" (first used in 1054 a.d., the year of the Great Schism) used to "prove" papal supremacy rather than historical primacy give us a good indication as to who separated from who. To cast such a dispositive statement (amongst the multitide of your other dispositive statements) without qualification shows how little you know of the very subject you are discussing.

[@George-ur8ow]

@Brian Farley LOL, nice copy and paste job from some outside source. You ask me to show that Orthodoxy existed before the second Millenium? Orthodoxy is unchanged, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church. It was developments in the West that are foreign to the Church, namely, of course, the role of the Pope. I would challenge you to show Papal Supremacy and Infallability in the first Millenium - and good luck with that. The Pope himself had to resort to later admitted forgeries to display his claimed "Supremacy".

[@zaczietlow6277]

Jerome literally wrote a prologue to the book of Judith in which he said the book was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures." Talk about two birds with one stone.

[@masterchief8179]

Just a small ‘correction’ if I may. About the OT deuterocanon, the true fact is that St Jerome was submitted to the authority of the Church and it is clear to me (and Catholic scholars, I guess) that he fully accepted the decision of the Church of Rome in Pope St Damasus about the Biblical canon despite his consolidated previous theological orientation. I sincerely can't understand how a claim as strong as "Jerome rejected the OT deuterocanonical books", without further explanations and qualifications, can be so diffuse not only inside the Internet blogosphere but among serious Protestant theologians and historians. The simple fact is that after the definition of the Canon in the (regional) Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope St Damasus (366-384) - please notice that pope Damasus was EXACTLY the pope that comissioned Jerome as his auxiliar and entrusted him with the translation of the "Vulgata" -, Jerome submitted to it entirely and never questioned the papal authority in its decrees, which would be even unthinkable to him. There is no evidence for this position, like he supposedly rejected, let me say, that the book of Judith or First Maccabees should be in the Bible despite Pope Damasus and his successors. The "Vulgata" Bible was completed around 404-405 after Damasus' death and, as we must notice, WITH (not without) the Deuterocanonical books just as decided in the Council of Rome (382), enforced by Damasus' post-counciliar decree and later reafirmed in the Council of Carthage (397), a North African regional council in full communion with Rome (not a Donatist council). By the way, St Jerome's ecclesiology was so extremely clear about how he understood authority that one can hardly push this kind of argumentation. He NEVER dared (which, according to his strong personality, says a great deal on how to understand the primatial role of the Roman Church) to defy Pope Damasus and his successors’ authoritative teaching decrees: __________________ *St Jerome (347 AD - 420 AD)* _”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that _*_GATHERS NOT WITH YOU SCATTERS_*_ (Matthew 12:30); he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_ . (Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2). __________________ About Pope St Gregory the Great, his ONLY writing about the canonicity used to "favor" the Protestant position about the Bible canon was reflexive of the EXACT position endorsed by St Jerome and simply references it, in which he explains there were two categories of books according to that Doctor of the Church: i) canonical books and ii) ecclesiastical books, being the first "inspired" and the latter "inspiring" (more or less this analogy fits). Of course it is debatable if the canon affirmed the Council of Rome (382) was defined to the whole universal church as a definitive teaching, because things weren't as clear in ecclesiastical affairs in a period of history were communications were harsh, distances were enormous and cultural divergences were strong, specially if we envision that the decrees of Pope St Damasus were lost at his time and only during the papacy of Pope St Gelasius (492-496) they were revealed in a compendium as the Decretals of Damasus. Even for scholars who questions if the compendium known as the _Decretum Gelasianum_ was truly written by Pope Gelasius himself (and it has PRECISELY the same canon of the Catholic Church, for instance, albeit some diverge even here), at the very least and in worst scenario the Decretum of Gelasius was written in the sixth century (prior to Pope Gregory I) and was undoubted accepted as an ecclesiastical document referential to what the Church already believed to be the scriptural canon. This argument about Pope St Gregory the Great arguably rejecting the deuterocanonical books comes pretty much from William Webster, when he qutoes (really, it is the ONLY argument he poses for it) the 'theolegoumena' Pope St Gregory made as a private theologian, not as the Bishop of Rome. And surprisingly he achieves the conclusion that is contrary to what the text truly and actually says. It is EXACTLY this very passage: __________________ *Pope St Gregory (540-604 AD)* _“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are _*_COUNTED BY ST JEROME OUT of the canonical books,_*_ and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. _*_NOW, ACCORDING TO HIS JUDGEMENT,_*_ in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) ARE _*_NOT_*_ CANONICAL, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. _*_YET, THEY MAY BE CALLED CANONICAL,_*_ that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being _*_RECEIVED AND AUTHORISED IN THE CANON OF THE BIBLE_*_ for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage”_ . (Gregory, In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also Cosin’s A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.) __________________ This means Pope St Gregory was making one of his famous theological commentaries about the historical books of the Bible - at this very part, he issued the "scholarly" position of St Jerome about the theme. William Webster's strong Protestant and anti-Catholic position about the canon became so famous among Protestant scholars that it is simply assumed as a fact, just as he depicts it, that not only Jerome (!) but also pope Gregory (!!) rejected the deuterocanonicals as canonical books of Scripture. If that was true, we would have documents and specially letters of Pope Gregory I (there are TONS of letters he addressed to other bishops, even Eastern ones, about a myriad of themes) concerning the very theme of which books shouldn't be read in the liturgy, specially because the canonicty of a book, for Catholics, is entirely connected to the condition of being readable at the first part of the Holy Mass, which we call nowadays the "Litugy of the Word" (and at that time was called the "Mass of the Catechumens"). In that Pope Gregory the Great even says to reconcile St Jerome with St Augustine, one of the pillars of the provincial Council of Carthage, never to take the deuterocanonical books out of the Bible canon. It was just the exact opposite. It is important to NOT replicate historical anti-Catholic misinformation. Please check the quotations I give and you'll find out Webster's stance on the Internet. Truth must be investigated in all seriousness. Just Google "Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious" and "Webster" and check for yourselves. God bless!

[@ajmeier8114]

So does Dr. Svigel just think the Bible was magically put together? I'm confused by his assertation that there is no evidence of the canon being decided by a council

[@jotunman627]

The books of the bible was complied by thin air...they will never admit to anything.....

[@Jim-Mc]

I think he was saying the library of texts that became the Bible were mostly accepted before the councils, and so the councils mainly affirmed what people had already believed for hundreds of years.

[@thejusticeavengers1]

@@Jim-Mc Precisely, the councils simply affirmed what the people already believed

[@TyroneBeiron]

It gets comical when Protestant theologians/historians apply the lens of Reformation thought on the first millennium of Church history, at which time one 'cannot' refer to that community of churches as 'Roman Catholic' as that would be anachronistic, and false. The Catholic Church then comprised various rites and churches all in communion with the See of Rome. Anyone studying in-depth the Fililoque (of the Franks, the Western Church and the Gallican Sacramentary vs the Greeks) would know that the 11th Century schism was fundamentally politically motivated and unfortunately developed into the deep bias between Orthodox and Catholics today. I don't think it helps when historians don't use the appropriate terminology to describe the identities of the historical entities, because it exposes the anachronistic bias from which events are being commented on. (Then there would be a separate discussion to justify Reformation theology being Patristic in origin. Haha. Good luck with all this Revisionism.) 🥃🥃 We can then enjoy where all this 'ends up'. 🤣 May be this is a slight refutation of John Henry Newman's dictum about being 'deep in history'? PS: Medieval Christian history in Europe isn't one homogeneous stack, btw. Eamon Duffy and many medievalist historians are fighting the modern revisionist idea of referring to that period as 'Dark Ages', a term infused into our usage by modern revisionism. You can't find this term being used in historical references. One can research on the many pluses of that age and I don't mean Aquinas alone. How can a historian honestly say the Church didn't teach about grace when there is a mass of medieval material simply being ignored by them to arrive at that statement. PSS: The statement that apostolic succession does not flow uninterrupted through time from Jesus appointing his apostles to the present time is a 'nuance' (GS) that contradicts what Jesus intended and the work of the Spirit to justify the Reformation origin proposition. Wow. I can see this is not a 'myth-busting' video as much as it is aimed at propagating a specific justification for a Protestant view of history, mixed with theological bias. (Oops, but this is actually theological history, not 'history' of the church per se.) Unfortunately, there was a time when Christians believed in a Parousia that can be fulfilled with a utopian Kingdom of God on earth, and this drew together a great deal of influences related to power tied with ecclesiology.

[@domidumdum4051]

I haven't watched the video, but reading Your comment assured me it would be the waste of time.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

So, where is this one true church in the book Revelation ? John talks about churches not about a single monolithic church.

[@TyroneBeiron]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Good question. He's referring to the churches in various locations but they are all under the same jurisdiction. (Rev 1:5-6)

[@F2222m]

Hey Austin, I know that I ask this once a month and it’s probably weird coming from a Catholic but did Father Spyridon ever respond to your message? I would love to see him on your show!

[@GospelSimplicity]

He did not

[@F2222m]

@@GospelSimplicity huh interesting I wonder why

[@flisom]

@@F2222m he’s not an ecumenist.

[@thekingofsomewhere]

@@flisom Talking to people about your faith is not ecumenism. Y'all call _everything_ ecumenism.

[@Subeffulgent]

I am Catholic and I would love to see him on your show as well. I so much love listening to the truth that pours out of that man.

[@jterrellielli7058]

Hey, it’s a varsity-level Protestant. Thanks for not badgering us with yet another JV lineup. Enjoyed this, even if it was a selective and heavily spiced Prot stew.

[@jterrellielli7058]

His apostolic succession bit where he negates apostolic succession as a fifth century innovations is garbage. Thanks for making him clarify if not retract this.

[@TruthUnites]

looking forward to this!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hope you enjoy it!

[@kevinezema6159]

Why do people quote Jerome as not including the deuteronomicals in the old testament. Remember people can change their opinions. Jerome included those books in his translations.

[@custisstandish1961]

I listened to this on my podcast player. Enjoyed it much. And, while not agreeing 100% with you or your guest I feel you and he were more than fair, presented facts, and explained events quite well. Though in the end, Dr. Svigel was correct it all boils down to approach and interpretation. And there is where, most of the time, folks disagree.

[@alexschexnayder8624]

I do want to add. The orthodox claims in regards to being The Church, are not just involved in apostolic succession, this is an inaccurate representation of the position. Likewise, I'm not in favor of what this gentleman is doing relative to his treatment of oral tradition, as the apostles themselves, and Paul especially, did have the expectation that their followers would maintain their teachings, whether by written letter, or by spoken word. Likewise, the 2nd temple jews, where the Christian faith is rooted in terms of praxis and historical occurrence, also placed weight on oral traditions and non scriptural traditions (some of these are cited in the new testament, such as the stone following the israelites through the desert in exodus, which based on my limited memory memory, is not noted in the old testament proper).

[@nathanhornok]

To me the definitive historical proof that early Christians accepted some oral tradition/practice as authoritative can be found in Basil's "on the holy spirit" chapter 27. Many Prots won't accept this because its from around 375, but they should since Saint Basil is clearly explaining why the Church holds many traditions and practices that aren't written down. He even makes it clear that some of the most profound pillars of faith were not written down on purpose.

[@alexschexnayder8624]

@@nathanhornok its just a continual witness of whats seen in new testament epistles where the apostles express the desire that those they've taught ought to maintain the teachings they've received from the apostles.

[@nathanhornok]

@Alex Shexnayder Right. He also confuses Apostolic Succession as a "necessary" condition of a mark of the one true church, as being a "sufficient" condition. But this is incorrect. No early church Father would have thought that just because Arius was an ordained bishop, they had to accept his heresy.

[@alexschexnayder8624]

@@nathanhornok correct. Actually, Arius is a funny character. He was defrocked, then reinstated, then St. Alexander of Alexandria presided as Alexandrian pope over another synod pertaining to Arius, where he was defrocked again. And all this happened before Nicea.

[@Holypurity1928]

Austin, do you think you’ll ever have Dr. Scott Hahn on the show?

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'd love to have him on!

[@kragar4]

@@GospelSimplicity just invite him😁. I am sure he would love to talk with you and your audience.

[@jonathansoko5368]

I predict this video will be highly contested in the comment section

[@oppressedaussiebattler3561]

Why is that mate ?

[@MrKneeV]

I would be inclined to agree.

[@OrthobroLocal1]

Because this guys gonna do mental gymnastics around his cognitive dissonance

[@ktex4873]

I learn the most in comments of videos that people disagree with. Hoping for some good discourse here.

[@mushroom8710]

The fact my uncle is on the internet is just 👏🏻

[@actsapologist1991]

So, I'm probably a bit late to the game on this one, but I'd like to share a couple thoughts. First, regarding the establishment of the Canon. I don't know anyone who argues that prior to Church synods and councils, everyone was clueless about what the Scriptures were and there were hundreds of equally plausible candidates. Rather, when folks make a point about the Canon, there are usually two arguments being made: 1) The Canon is not known through scripture itself. This fact invalidate most formulations of Sola Scriptura, which assert that the Scriptures are sufficient to establish all doctrines which Christians need for the practice of their faith. As soon as you realize the Canon itself is an extra-Biblical tradition, those "sufficiency" versions of Sola Scriptura have to be scrapped. 2. That Church authority was necessary to turn the Canon into a proper doctrine. One can admit that early Christians had a good idea of what was to be regarded as Scripture, but the question still needs to be asked about how this makes the transition from a received understanding upon which people may licitly disagree... to a doctrine which cannot be challenged by faithful Christians. For instance, what prevents me from concluding that a given book is not inspired and remove it from my Bible? What authority prevents me from doing that? For lack of an appeal to ecclesial authority which discerned and put a fence around the true contents of the canon, I think this cannot be done. The second subject I wanted to address is apostolic succession. As that part of the discussion progressed, I kept asking, "Are we talking about Apostolic Succession being a necessary or sufficient condition?" That Catholic and Orthodox position would never be that succession is a sufficient condition, as we both are aware that bishops have gone astray and heresies have arisen from the clergy. So attacking that position would be straw man. The real argument is that Apostolic succession is necessary condition for the identification of the Church. It means the Church SHOULD have apostolic succession, and a communion which lacks it is lacking something essential. But that doesn't mean that every communion which has it is therefore right as rain.

[@Steve-wg3cr]

You seem to be churning out these interviews more quickly than ever. Appears to be new one every week.

[@GospelSimplicity]

There has been one every week since I started doing interviews :)

[@MycoKing]

Thanks for another great interview, Austin and Dr. Michael!

[@homedogtwo8820]

I actually never heard of Orthodox involved in killing non believers, am I missing something?? Is there info on this? Very curious.

[@borneandayak6725]

Irony. There is no Protestanism in Church History prior to Martin Luther.

[@eldruidacosmico]

Yes there was, the church battled very influential heresies constantly (gnosticism, arrianism, nestorianism, etc), we also had the Miaphysitists breaking away from the church after the ecumenical council of Chalcedon (451 AD) and then the separation of the Patriarchate of Rome in 1054 AD.

[@eldruidacosmico]

@Brian Farley I just did, myaphysites (oriental) and roman catholics, all of them broke appart from the Catholic Apostolic Church. And if you start looking into the particulars of protestant sects, you will find the repetition of old heresies that had already been resolved in ecumenical councils a millenia ago, for example, the judeizing heresy, iconoclasm, arrianism, monothelism etc.

[@eldruidacosmico]

@Brian Farley How do 4 patriarchates (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, break apart from one patriarchate (Rome) and we still say it is them who moved out and not just Rome? That sounds like a family where he big brother goes his way and then blames the family for abandoning him.

[@TyroneBeiron]

Love your IP handle! Brought me straight back to Sabah and Sarawak, one of the most Christian places in Asia! 🍀

[@jg7923]

Wrong. John Wycliff in the 1300's and other groups before that.

[@stephencuskley5251]

You GOTTA WATCH "Reasons You've Never Heard on Why Protestantism is WRONG" by Timothy J. Gordon on KZbin. He's a brilliant orthodox Catholic podcaster who is an Aristotelian/Thomistic philosopher, author, teacher and an attorney (but we forgive him for being an attorney). How could you possibly NOT watch a video with a title like that? AND GOD BLESS YOU! By the way, the scary looking sign behind him that says "Rules For Retrogrades" is the name of his podcast and the title of one of his books. The book contains tactics to ethically oppose the left, and was named to counter Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. And "Retrogrades" are people who harken back to the tried-and-true moral principles passed down through history.

[@joecardone4887]

Hey Austin please consider doing an interview with Father Mark Goring of Father Mike Schmitz. I think Father Mark Goring would be excellent! I believe he’d be the perfect guest to have an interview about finding God in nature or how to make small steps towards holiness!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the recommendation! I'm familiar with Fr. Schmitz but not Fr. Goring. I'll try to look into him when I get a chance

[@culturecoroner]

@@GospelSimplicity he’s very earnest and childlike in a beautiful way.

[@George-ur8ow]

@@GospelSimplicity I'm Orthodox and listen to Fr. Goring quite a bit. Usually has a positive short video message (3 minutes) most mornings. He's a Charismatic Catholic. Though I disagree with some points of his theology, there is little question that he's a good man with a kind spirit and heart. He'd be great to have on. In fact, the more I think of it...the more I see how similar both of your constitutions/personalities might be!

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

@@GospelSimplicity Fr Goring has a real zeal for evangelism that reminds me of the Protestant church I grew up in.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

There's definitely value in this. I do think it belies a certain epistemology (namely a pretty rationalist epistemology). Intellectual certainty is...not gonna happen. It just isn't. Like they say, people who devote their lives to this disagree and then the "scholarly consensus" changes next decade. How are we lay people supposed to figure that out? I'm pretty sure there is a big part of prayer, fasting, and following the leading of the Spirit. Truth, ultimately, is recognized, not strictly from study. (Not saying study is bad, it isn't! It just can't stand alone.)

[@josephconder9074]

"Greek Orthodox". Unless you're talking about specific jurisdictions, just say "Orthodox". It's one church.

[@triscat]

We're not great at marketing. ;)

[@Valthegal04]

@Brian Farley lmao what? All canonical jurisdictions have the same creed and confession, we also don’t believe in schism as black and white as Catholics do, they aren’t in schism and no one can schism without a formal synod being held.

[@muffinman145]

@Brian Farley rekt

[@ukerkater]

@Brian Farley The validity of the Universal Church is not determined by how many councils or synods are held. Synods are held in the Orthodox church to determine temporal or local issues. Decisions are slow and measured because the conciliatory process, led by the Holy Spirit requires patience in order to avoid temporal errors. The 7 Ecumenical Councils already ensured the soundness and validity of the Doctrine and correct worship accepted by the Universal Orthodox Church. Doctrinal disagreements have not emerged in the Eastern Church, as they have in the west and perhaps this is due to the cautious, patient and conciliatory approach to decision making. As for church divisions, the Western church has experienced traumatic divisions as evidenced by history. It is naive to say that even today there is full, blissful unity. It is also true that disagreements are present in the Orthodox Church, but these are not on doctrinal issues or overall issues of the ecclesiastical model. They exist due to human sinfulness and pride. Neither the Orthodox Church not the RC church is perfect, and certainly more councils or synods do not ensure this. Eastern Orthodox Doctrine and Theology are valid, appropriately articulated and contribute to the stability of the Church.

[@zealousideal]

Right!

[@grantbenson7458]

The gaping problem with Dr. Svigel's view is that the standard for what books go into the Bible would simply be another fallible tradition, no? Jesus never said anything about a New Testament being written and the authors of the New Testament never settled what the canon would be, so it is by definition a tradition coming from men.

[@grantbenson7458]

@Justin Right, I've also gotten responses very similar to that. The response ultimately begs the question as to how exactly God revealed that to his people. The way I like to get past nebulous rationalizations of how we might have gotten the canon is by asking if the Marcionite canon, the first proposed list of NT books, is indeed the correct NT canon. It only has 11 books, and the Protestant will obviously answer no. If it's not that canon, then which canon is it? The Protestant at this point has two options, either to be willfully ignorant, or concede authority to sacred tradition by pointing to 4th century fathers as well as the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage where we first see a canon that matches what we have now.

[@grantbenson7458]

@Justin Another response to "the Holy Spirit gave the Scriptures to his people" is simply pointing to the Torah and Ten Commandments. You can say the same thing about those, the Holy Spirit gave the knowledge of the Torah and Ten Commandments to his people, and the MEANS that God used to do that was Moses on Mount Sinai. In the same way, the Holy Spirit, God, gave the knowledge of the canon to his people, through the means of sacred tradition. The Protestant affirms the former statement about Moses, but refuses to accept the latter about sacred tradition, which results in the question begging fallacy. Not much more to say at that point.

[@josegeda7807]

Good interview. Well balanced and informative. Keep up the good work!👍🏾

[@josephconder9074]

35:50 Hello, Iraenaus of Lyons? Ignatius of Antioch?

[@josephconder9074]

Ok, he does try to address Irenaeus. I don't see the logic of saying that length of time nullifies apostolic succession.

[@helenoce5007]

Acts 20:28-30. 2Tesalonians 2:3,4 -12 1Thimoty 3-10 2Timothy 3:1-5 2Peter 2:1-3

[@roseg1333]

As a Catholic I’m sorry but I could not finish this.

[@traceyedson9652]

I realize that in accepting the Orthodox Church I not only accepted Her approach to & teaching of Scripture where it was authoritative but also of Her own life & journey in communion. So that an academic study is not the end of the matter with history just as with Scripture and the Faith itself. This still leaves plenty of room for research, debate, scholarship, etc.

[@eldruidacosmico]

Nice haircut Austin :-) it suits you man, God Bless You!

[@marymcandrew947]

Nt was officallly promulgatded in the local councils and approved by rome , most especially by Pope Boniface in 419, an offical statement

[@shuai83]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the evidence of the great apostasy of Platonism/ Hellenistic thought being a MAJOR real factor in the radical decline of biblical Christianity.

[@shuai83]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJype6l7qa5kjas

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

Most prots are platonists.

[@rn8349]

I struggle a lot with this because I want to follow Christ the right way but there are a million different sources and theologians who each have a different argument defending their tradition. I'm not a theologian or historian. Why does Christ say we have to be like little children if we have to meticulously study 2000 years of history to be able to understand how he wants us to worship and follow him? Not everybody has the knowledge and skills to do this. It just seems like I'm digging through a never ending hole :(

[@zealousideal]

As an Orthodox, I agree with you to a degree. (I hope to help explain this….but keep in mind some, if not many, orthodox may disagree with me here. But I don’t care…bcz I KNOW CHRIST and have walked very close to him all of my Life) But that’s also exactly why I believe we are ALL Christians at the end of the day! it IS about relationship with God. It IS very simple (even as an Orthodox) . But there is also lots of history and more to it if you want that too. Yes, The REAL and original form of Christianity is much different and not what is being practiced today. (But, In it’s basic nutshell it is!) NOW, at the same time, do I really think God will hold that against you!? Absolutely not! God doesn’t expect us to know and understand all of that. He didn’t call us to be Theologians in order to be “saved”. For example, Millions of people (and Christians) haven’t even heard of orthodoxy. Or don’t have the opportunity to even attend or go to an Orthodox Church. So will God send them to hell Bcz of that!? Heck no! Many don’t even have the time or opportunity or even theological mindset to study and learn all of this and figure it out. AND..At the end of the day the point of ALL our Christian faiths is to KNOW GOD and live for Him! So then just do that! If you are Protestant or Evangelical and you are faithful to God the best way you know how and you are comfortable with it. Then serve him there! I personally just could no longer stay there learning what I learned. AND I wasn’t ever comfortable and never fully agreed with it even after decades as a pastor. I knew something was missing and I was totally Correct! So For me, it was a no brainer, and I was elated and happy to finally find such a jewel. But for some like you, they may see it as a Negative or something that is spiritually unhealthy or even maybe “wrong”. But if you are truly seeking God with a pure heart and really want to find the truth and are patient and let God and the Holy Spirit lead you, Then He Definitely will! He will show you the way. But either way, just FOLLOW CHRIST and besides, He is the one that will give you salvation anyway…Not a specific church. I also don’t believe For one second I was “hell bound” before becoming orthodox just because I was an Evangelical. That is just silly. Lol. The way I look at it or explain it is Protestantism is elementary school and Orthodoxy is college. Orthodoxy is a deeper more complete level of understanding, knowing, experiencing God, which leads to deeper relationship with Him as well. But you can absolutely still have that as a Protestant, charismatic, Evangelical or Catholic as I did too. I hope this helps. Blessings..

[@rn8349]

@@zealousideal thank you so much for your encouraging words! Right now I'm not sure exactly what I would consider myself. I find so much convincing, and inspiring theology in Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Catholicism. The Orthodox view of God, the afterlife, and the resurrection is beautiful. I truly believe that as you said the most important thing is to be humble and want to know God and TRUST in him. Not surprisingly, when I get these thoughts it makes me stray further from God because I start to feel hopeless and scared of Him, and we know that our true enemy wants to keep us from trusting God and experiencing his love. I will continue on this journey and remind myself to rely on God. Thank you again!

[@ronfeledichuk531]

As an Orthodox, I didn't find anything earth shattering to the faith as all his points are easily explained.

[@zealousideal]

Agreed! Couldn’t listen to it after a few Minutes anymore because it was such a huge train wreck. He’s using rationalism and scholastic protestant logic to spin it through their lens. He obviously completely doesn’t understand it. When you read it on the surface level of course we all said those things. You have to dig deeper and connect all the dots and have the mind of the church and follow everything in context and correctly to see things fully and correctly.

[@helenoce5007]

1Corinthians 3:18-20

[@helenoce5007]

Matthew 7:3-5,6👀👀👀📖this is what Jesus said about those who twist the holy Word, great apostasy, greatest sin , understand if you can what it says in Matthew 7:6. The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church if you don't like it ask God to give you yours how you want it that way is made according to what you like,

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

One problem with the intro, we all believe life is not guaranteed and Hell exists. Everyone really should be spending a large amount of time working this out and your decision matters. If Catholicism is true, one has rejected the Church and is likely damned. Same with Orthodoxy. Did Jesus give those who rejected him 5 years of careful consideration? They often only got a few days. Would we say this to atheists? “Take your time atheist and make sure you really read everything. Spend 5 years and you won’t even have the basics of how to find the true church. Don’t worry, spend a lifetime researching but don’t make a decision to hastily. It’s no big deal.”

[@palaciosfamily316]

I’m wondering why Peter accused the religious leaders for killing Jesus , not the civil authorities.

[@SamuelCBuhler]

Hey brother, I appreciate what you do a lot. I just wanted to let you know that the link to your Patreon pulls up as an error for me. I am not sure if it is just on my end but I wanted to let you know. Blessings!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the heads up! I'll fix that now

[@garrett2514]

Did he really just skip over that the first NT canon was made by the gnostic Marcion? I think that shows the discussion was a little more complicated than he let on.

[@seekingjesusmeditation642]

Awesome channel Austin, haircut looks good man! Thanks for sharing all your wisdom! God bless you!😁🙏

[@volnadr]

Unbroken succession means unbroken dogmatic beliefs, the apostolic succession in Eastern Orthodox Church it is so easily trackable from historic perspective ( the geographic concentration of Orthodox Church also helped this preservation). I do appreciate the hypotheses made in this video but the anointment of bishops in the east it is extremely well documented, plus there was not one evidence of deviation from canonical writings throughout the history of Orthodox Church. I make this statement purely objectively without trying to express my faith or creed.

[@volnadr]

@Brian Farley I was not referring to civil matters as much as I was referring to dogmatic elements, which truly have not changed and preserved , some would say “stubbornly” well and the apostolic succession it is very well documented within the writings of the eastern church. In terms of divorce all I can say that this is not accepted in the Orthodox Church. There are however some type of religious ceremonies held on re-marriage, but this is not widely accepted and it is not the actual marriage ceremony in its pure sense. However what you pointed on, it’s indeed some of the so called “adaptations” that Churches throughout the world have done to keep the community attached to the Church. From what I learned and experience so far is that marriage is deemed one of the greatest means for someone’s personal salvation in the Orthodox Church.

[@ukerkater]

@Brian Farley Marriage is a sacrament in the Orthodox Church. On occasion, where a marriage is so damaged as to result in physical, emotional or spiritual damage to the involved individuals, Economia is practiced. The dissolution of a marriage is seen as a tragedy and not granted lightly. As God is infinitely merciful and caring of His children, the Church mirrors this mercy by acknowledging human sinfulness and allowing a merciful path to salvation. The Orthodox Church is not legalistic but more concerned about the salvation of Her people. This is called Economia. Also, in terms of divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church, Byzantine Catholics ( in communion with Rome) follow the same practice as the Eastern Orthodox. So there is not monumental consistency on this issue within Catholicism.

[@homedogtwo8820]

I'm loving this, thank you both

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@wakiidude]

New subscriber here from Toronto . Thank you for this beautiful conversation. 🤗

[@GospelSimplicity]

Welcome to the channel!

[@sanjuanrizal]

How come no mention of Septuagint on bible canon ? Also the Bishop of Rome with regards to apostolic succession ? - Rey

[@helenoce5007]

Catholics help them not to condemn themselves by giving what belongs to the body of Christ(the church) Twisting truth for lies exactly what their Father Luther did stealing and changing the word of God, leave them alone if they want to stay lost just pray for them to find the way. They only mock Jesus Church, and they stumble on the Rock Luke 6:39,46

[@Jonny50ist]

Anyone know of a catholic or orthodox masters program that’s as rigorous as DTS?

[@GospelSimplicity]

CUA and Notre Dame would both probably more rigorous than DTS, certainly harder to get accepted to at least

[@sinfulyetsaved]

Every Protestant has their own version of church history.

[@ajmeier8114]

I don't understand why it should matter if you are a generation removed or 1k years removed in regards to succession. I think you guys are confusing succession and developed doctrine

[@biblealone9201]

right proties setting the record straight and pigs fly😁😁

[@mikeryan3701]

Could Dr Svigel give any examples of 'influential, perfectly orthodox' late medieval theologians who did not regard the seven deutero-canonical books as being part of the Old Testament? Perhaps Dr Svigel is inventing a Church history myth of his own.

[@davidwatson9064]

Literally reading his book rn.

[@sanjuanrizal]

If you can add also Fr. Mitch Pacwa to be invited on the same subject. I am interested what he will tell us. - Rey

[@nathanhornok]

Church and State union may never end well, but how is the State untethered from the church working out? The States have a body count in the 20th century that looks to me like the worst arrangement possible.

[@EpoRose1]

I think the State is *becoming* the Church…

[@biblealone9201]

where does the bible say its infallible and list those infallible doctrines🤦‍♂️

[@ajmeier8114]

When talking about Irenaeus, you mention a lot of heresies and false teachings being spread around. By what authority can you claim those were false teachings?

[@ajmeier8114]

@@GS-cj7rf wow...no offense, but TL/DR. I did read the first few paragraphs and basically came away with the standard protestant answer....our authority is Jesus and the Bible. That is a weak answer...not because it isn't true, but because that still leaves man to decipher the truths that are in scripture. 1,000 men can read the bible and come away with 1,000 different interpretations. That is why there were so many heresies in the early Church. And the CHurch needed the God given authority to sift through these and proclaim the faith authentically and divinely.

[@ajmeier8114]

@@GS-cj7rf "You also seem to be suggesting that God needs man in order to maintain His authority and effect" Quite the opposite actually. But man needs man as a vessel of God's authority. We see over and over again in scripture itself when man goes against God. The OT is full of God using man to fulfill that authority. Abraham had authority. Moses had authority. Jacob, joseph, david, saul...etc all had authority over israel. And they had this authority to accomplish God's Will. Because God knows that if left to our own humanly faculties, we would go astray. Simply put, a King needs a minister to fulfill the King's will when he is gone until he returns.

[@ajmeier8114]

@@GS-cj7rf Absent from what and in what way?

[@MGR1900]

“Church history” from a Protestant perspective or “Church history” from a Catholic perspective? They don’t even agree what the word “Church” means. That needs to be defined first.

[@jotunman627]

they can't mention the word Catholic....there was a "church" obviously

[@TyroneBeiron]

Dr Timothy Flanders might be a good candidate for an interview with GS.

[@ajmeier8114]

I also take issue with the discussion on apostolic succession. Of course it is a development of official doctrine. (not to bring up that the entire protestant religion is a development of doctrine so I'm not sure what he is getting at). But this believe is in Jesus' words that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Also, protestants CANNOT show apostolic succession going "all the way back".

[@anneoutarsingh3966]

Why should I listen to Dr Speigel when I have the writings throughout history of the Bishops

[@matthewtipton7387]

While I agree with him on a lot of topics he's not entirely correct on the succession of bishops Ignatius of Antioch talks of it

[@arttyree4504]

Thanks for getting the haircut.

[@jaybig360]

This guy is taking like there were many different denominations in the early church.

[@helenoce5007]

2Peter 3: 16, 17 You are not right you are wrong, wrong teaching, when did Jesus established your churches??? He said only one church.

[@josephwalsh7546]

The problem with these Gospel Simplicity videos is the intros are always too long.

[@micahmatthew7104]

Dr. Svigel’s theology 101 tweets are the best

[@GospelSimplicity]

That's how I came across him!

[@cb738]

That's very uncharitable for you to not name these Church or Churches that you think are Christian but Ecclesiastically doing wrong.

[@Alexander-Herman]

Obviously prejudice point of view

[@F2222m]

Me throughout the entire interview: “🧢 🧢 🧢 🧢 🧢”

[@nathanmagnuson2589]

I think he was pretty fair through most of the interview

[@nathanmagnuson2589]

Except when he discusses apostolic succession, totally drops the ball on that imo and misrepresents/caricatures the doctrine in an attempt to remove it from Ignatius

[@F2222m]

He was alright I have read the primary sources and have an IQ of 125. All I heard was cope and 🧢.

[@TheLadyPlantagenet]

Austin what happened to your hair??

[@franka2743]

I would assume he cut it? That would be my guess. And good for him--with the hair cut and facial hair he looks like an adult male now.

[@franka2743]

@@ora_et_labora1095 You're very welcome. Pre-haircut/ facial hair he looked like one of my neighbor's nieces, literally. Have a nice day.

[@helenoce5007]

You are asking history of 2000 to who do not belong to the church of Jesus , who holds this history that you teach.??? You need the true wisdom of God to teach

[@jaybig360]

This guy thinks he knows more than aquí as😂😂

[@guscostakispaoadopoulos5749]

I absolutely love your videos and feel you are a great impartial, respectful and very objective host. Many of your guests bring up some very interesting and insightful ideas which are provocative and keeps you listening; however l have to say this guest is not only full of non sense, but clearly unscholarly and to put it simply, idiotic.

[@davidwatson9064]

People in these comments are really grumpy...