The 4 Biggest Caricatures of Protestantism

[@Ståhlman101]

This channel is going to become more and more important as orthodox and Catholic apologists become more popular on KZbin

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Jim, hope it will be productive in our conversations, and useful to those examining their beliefs.

[@michaeljennings8221]

Agreed!

[@alpha4IV]

You explained some of these matters much better than James White, Allen Parr, or Mike Winger have. When I’ve gone to their channels for this information I myself going “well I guess the Catholic/Orthodox position is the only reasonable one”. I’m very grateful for finding this channel, between you and Mat Whitman the way Catholics view most protestant apologetics will have to change.

[@X_mano]

I think the same way

[@jotink1]

This channel for me is now the go to place to bring different traditions together and discuss our differences yet defend and show why we are Protestants.

[@josueinhan8436]

Concordo, também penso a mesma coisa.

[@TruthUnites]

So glad you find value in my approach, thanks for saying that!

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

Agreed 💯 - this non-confrontational way is required these days as a sign of validity. These days we can all tell who's really insecure by their approach

[@jotink1]

@@WilliamFAlmeida Exactly, know your stuff and argue your case without seeing your opponents as antichrist. Catholicism and Orthodox have a long proud for them history, it is the water they swim in. Our goal isn't to drown them but to show them that they are drowning which can be difficult if they think they are floating on a cruise liner.

[@frankperrella1202]

So many people are leaving prostantism for Catholic Church & E-Orthrodox Cause people want tradition 🙏🛐📖🛡️⚔️📿🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic

[@jmschmitten]

In case you don’t hear this enough from us: let me arrogantly thank you on behalf of Roman Catholics. You have been such a rich and beautiful addition to the theological tapestry on the KZbins and your dedication or irenicism has personally made many of my days more enjoyable and me wiser! (I mean, I still can’t believe you’re not on the boat with baptismal regeneration in particular!) But each of your uploads is a great pleasure for us!

[@TruthUnites]

Thank you so much. Those kind words mean a great deal to me.

[@derekmchardy8730]

Thanks Gavin. Informative as always. In 43 years since becoming a Christian from an atheist background I have remained a Protestant ( Baptist) but have profited enormously from input from writers and from individual brothers & sisters from other traditions. Thankyou Gavin for your scholarship which is strong empirical evidence against Cardinal Newman's ' To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.' God bless you and those of your viewers who believe that by remaining Protestant we are in serious error or worse....

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Derek, I really appreciate the kind feedback!

[@Aaryq]

Hey, brother. I'm a Reformed Baptist. I was really really close to converting to Orthodoxy. I can't talk to my pastor anymore about ecumenical theology and the issues, questions, and concerns raised from other denominations/traditions because he just starts to get angry and irrational. Your content, the books & theologians you reference, and your approach has really helped me look at some issues from a different perspective. I don't know exactly what I'm doing yet, but you've been helpful in helping me figure things out. Thank you.

[@TruthUnites]

So thrilled to hear that! Thanks for letting me know. May God direct and guide you.

[@rylanmayea55]

I’m in the exact same boat as you, I’m just trying to find Christ that’s it , if it’s orthodox I’ll go orthodox but if it’s not then I will be whatever Christ wants me to be. But I do believe Christ will reveal the path he wants me to go down.

[@Aaryq]

@@rylanmayea55 My journey started when the man that led me to Christ went apostate and it was a bit of a shake up for me. I was deceived into believing things that were false and I started questioning everything except the Holy Trinity and the Resurrection. Those are absolutely unshakable...but everything else...I'm going to keep asking questions. The problem with theology though, is every single thing is connected to a thousand others which is overwhelming.

[@yeshuaki2125]

@@Aaryq Im going through a simillar situation you do, though my shake up was learning more about calvinism and through that learning there are a lot more views about christendom then id like.. i wonder how your journey is going now

[@Aaryq]

​@@yeshuaki2125 I've had a lot of really good and productive conversations with my pastor. I'm enrolled in a theology program at a Christian college which means a lot of reading and a lot of writing. It's been useful in helping me discuss some of those ideas. I think once he realized I wasn't converting to orthodoxy and just trying to get a good grasp on why other types of Christians do what they do it he was less defensive. As things go right now, I still have about another year or year and a half of school, then it's off to seminary or something else. My original plan to join the military as a Baptist chaplain was just taken off the table due to recent medical complications so a lot of plans are being re-assessed.

[@joebeloved2878]

This channel has quickly become one of my favourite channels. God bless the Truth Unites!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks very much! So glad it's been useful to you!

[@inspectortelford]

Very good! Screwtape on the diabolical uses of the ignorance that produces divisive caricature: "it isn’t the doctrines on which we chiefly depend for producing malice. The real fun is working up hatred between those who say 'mass' and those who say 'holy communion' when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker’s doctrine and Thomas Aquinas’, in any form which would hold water for five minutes."

[@TruthUnites]

Fantastic quote from Lewis! He was such a genius.

[@Summer-sc1ph]

I'm a relatively new believer and so there is still much I don't know. Many of these caricatures are what I thought about my own protestant tradition without realizing that they were inaccurate. Thank you so much for this and your other videos defending Protestantism.

[@englishlearningcenter1470]

As a Catholic I really appreciate your videos. God bless you

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks a lot! God bless you as well.

[@billc8462]

I hope that you enjoy reading “the Geometry of Love: Space, Time, Mystery and Meaning in an Ordinary Church”. With Baptist, Lutheran, Holiness and Catholic grandparents, I really appreciate your irenic approach. Deus Caritas Est!

[@TruthUnites]

got it -- thanks a lot!

[@DrBob-gr5ru]

Very good presentation, Dr. O. I hope for more substantive discussions with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in the future. The issues I see with our side (i.e. Protestants) are the assumptions we have on ecclesiology as the historic majority Christian group in the U.S that are often sub-biblical and pragmatic. The issue on the other side I see is the triumphalism and arrogance the "high" churches have toward those who reject their particular ecclesiastical claims.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for the feedback -- as always, I appreciate your thoughtful input!

[@duckymomo7935]

One problem while churches today are more pragmatic on Christianity (because I do believe that living out the faith, applications of scriptures and Christianity into your life) There’s 2000 years of Christendom to sift through that church pragmatism does overlook church history. That said the existence of caricatures come from the fundamentalists that twisted every original belief into “solo scriptura” or kjv only, etc

[@0004voltz]

The channel is very young but it has quickly risen to favorite channels list, not just that but it's #1.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks, I really appreciate this kind feedback!

[@kaiseruhl]

Great video! Look forward to the next one!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks so much Allan! Very kind of you to say.

[@ChristiansColloquy]

Thank you for making videos like these. You succinctly addressed the caricatures that often bog down most of my conversations with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends. Also, I love that you mentioned Perkins, definitely a theologian that many Protestants would do well to read and learn from.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks a lot, so glad it was useful! Yes, Perkins is great.

[@DouglasHorch]

this is clarifying, and exciting.

[@bakhtior2589]

I am so glad I found your channel. I first heart about you from your debate with Dr. Ramsey, and loved your reasonableness and humility. As a protestant exploring church history and orthodoxy, I look forward to learning more from you. I do wonder how far ecumenism can take us... *Subscribe*

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks, so glad to be connected!

[@vngelicath1580]

I love how the Faith--Love/Works debate shows how much we talk past each other. Papal Christians see Faith as primarily intellectual ascent that needs to be made active through Love (and Hope). Protestants see a Faith that lacks Love (and Hope) to be a substantially different kind of Faith than a saving Faith. It's really a matter of definition, Catholics only have the Jamian definition of Faith (which leads to issues in seeing Love/Hope/Faith as three-part equal causes of Justification), whereas Protestants have two categories of Faith: Pauline and Jamian. As a sidenote** Contemporary Catholic theologians tend to say that Justification is not primarily a "process" that occurs within us. But rather, Justification is Christ's finished work of redeeming salvation for us that we are incorporated INTO _by_ faith and MAINTAINED _within by_ our works/penance. Thus, it is not the case that Christ gives us the power by His grace for us to earn our own salvations... (which was the articulation at one point). Instead, Christ gives to us our salvation freely and fully, however, in order to stay connected to Christ to continue to receive access to this great gift, it is necessary that we increase in Sanctification (which Catholics also call "justification", hence the lingering confusion) and not fall into Mortal Sin (which cuts us off from Christ; and thus our salvation). This articulation is extremely close to the historic Protestant framing. We still quibble over whether "increase in works causing our salvation to be maintained" is a helpful/pastoral way of speaking but still.

[@michaelmoreno5038]

Hey Dr. Gavin! Just finished reading the first part of Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals and tpart of his video was a great summary of it. Thanks for sharing and commiting to being a voice of conversation, respect, meditation, valoration of other traditions and truth. Keep it up, cheers from Chile! 😀

[@richardbeall9174]

I always look forward to your videos Gavin, and I am never disappointed - and this one is no exception. Your content continues to be an enormous encouragement and help in my personal faith journey. God bless you. your family and your ministry, Richard.

[@TruthUnites]

Thank you so much Richard! I am so glad they are an encouragement to you!

[@SCOTTISHSOULFOOD1]

Excellent. These principles should also apply to how we as Protestant critique and describe other Protestant traditions . Thanks for the time you take to make this content

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks James! And right on the money about how we critique others.

[@SCOTTISHSOULFOOD1]

@@TruthUnites I'm a Scottish Arminian much of the first part of my theological education was fighting caricature of what I believe. Roger Olson is excellent on this

[@beowulf.reborn]

Only 8 minutes in, but already I can tell I needed to watch this video. Thank you so much.

[@TruthUnites]

Great to hear, hope it helps!

[@josueinhan8436]

Respectful, honest, rich in primary sources and very enlightening video. Congratulations, brother Dr. Ortlund! We learned a lot here with your video. God bless you, dear one!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks so much, so glad it was useful for you Josue!

[@davidpinckney5430]

Your presentation is so needed and helpful! Thanks for using your talented mind and generous spirit.

[@TruthUnites]

So glad it was helpful!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Looking forward to this!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks, hope it’s helpful!

[@michaeljennings8221]

Looking forward to his debate with Capturing Christianity

[@bakhtior2589]

No way? When is this?

[@susanthgeorgethomas7942]

When is that!!!!!??

[@michaeljennings8221]

@@bakhtior2589 August 5th. If you go to Capturing Christianity, you will see that he is scheduled to debate a Catholic apologist on the papacy.

[@michaeljennings8221]

@@susanthgeorgethomas7942 August 5th. Capturing Christianity is hosting his debate against a Catholic apologist on the papacy.

[@Carramrod324]

I just have to say I am glad I have came across your page. I was really wrestling with Catholicism I got very close to converting a lot what they had to say especially when it came to history made a lot of sense to me. But finding you and Austin’s Chanel with gospel simplicity and even Dr. Jordan B Cooper has really helped me understand more of the Protestant faith and the history and theology of the reformation! So I thank you for helping me come to a conclusion on where to take myself and my family spiritually. In all the research I have done I do have a tremendous respect for our catholic brothers and sisters! God bless and keep up the great work

[@TruthUnites]

so glad its been helpful!

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Excellent presentation!

[@fredericthieltges6853]

Loved this and learned a lot!

[@TruthUnites]

So glad to hear that!

[@christologisch]

Thank you

[@axolotl5327]

The treatment of faith and works was especially helpful.

[@afieds6845]

The Protestant error is philosophical. It is rationalism and the idea that I think , therefore I am. My acceptance of Christ, my reading of the scriptures, my faith. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have it the other way around . Christ accepts me, Christ gives me faith , Christ is the logos.

[@phishphan6596]

Gavin --- I find your spirit, demeanor and approach quite refreshing. I wish that some Protestant and Catholic apologists would adopt this cordial and engaging approach. A "cradle Catholic" --- I "left" the Catholic Church for 11 years --- and embraced the Biblical Fundamentalism of Churches of Christ for those years ---- fully drinking from the firehose for 8 of those 11 years). To cut the story short, I returned to a very active practice of the Catholic Faith. I have a few points of disagreements (gentle differences in points of view). I believe your characterizations of Points #2 and #3 mostly reflect your personal experiences and more "ecumenically-minded" Protestant groups. If you include Churches of Christ (and other more radical forms of Restoration groups) --- they DO see sacraments as "merely figurative" (they don't even acknowledge sacraments). They have radical (and unsubstantiated views of SS) ---- even adopting mechanical-dictation views of transmission. Finally, Churches of Christ themselves cannot figure out where they stand on your Point #1 --- most of them hold that the Church DID fall away ---- either FULLY or the "church" went SO UNDERGROUND as to be undetectable for 1700 years ---- until THEIR restoration movement slowly brought it back. Continue your work --- continue to consider the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church (and yes, I mean the Church led by the successor of Peter) ---- and thank you for your kind demeanor.

[@gmacdonald87]

Great channel here. Thank you for your work. I am interested in historical theology, I have some familiarity, but I want to go deeper. What are the top three books you would recommend on the theologies of the patristic era? The top three books on the theologies of the Middle ages era? Same question for the Reformation and Enlightenment eras? Thank you.

[@jadtucker1972]

At 20:55 mark, Gavin states, "You're not getting to heaven without works"? How can this be reconciled with Ephesians 2:8? What does it mean to be "saved" if it doesn't mean getting to heaven? Did Gavin misspeak hear as a Baptist? I've never heard a Baptist say you can't get to heaven without works. I've always thought of good works as a byproduct of the virtues Christians grow in, e.g. good fruit.

[@ewene2656]

Your's and others' KZbin channels have inspired me to consider joining this growing KZbin community as a content creator. I don't have a PhD in theology to my name, but I would like to approach these and similar topics from a lay perspective as a passionate, thinking Christian. I currently work full-time in Christian education, so my channel would start small and slow, but I want to contribute to these discussions as I believe they are so important and interesting. I would really appreciate if you could give me some advice and suggestions.

[@TruthUnites]

KZbin is a great place to connect and engage! I wish you the best!

[@zekdom]

Time-stamp 21:10 - Martin Luther on justification

[@marcuswilliams7448]

Part of me thinks that many modern day Protestants *are* actually some of these caricatures because they are ignorant of any of the Reformers. In turn, when RCs and EOs criticize Protestants, they are responding to many caricatures that Protestants themselves show forth.

[@TruthUnites]

I agree. Modern day Protestants often don't know much about historic Protestant views.

[@frankperrella1202]

The Roman Catholic church & E-Orthrodox we are coming back to one soon" we have the Bible & Church Father's" While Look how the Methodist just split & many Prostestants are leaving to Go to Tradition & the Sacraments in the Roman Catholic & E-Orthrodox Christian faith & even the Anglicans believe in the Sacraments & Bishop's & the Pope Aka Simon Peter & the Apostles" The Bible Canons came from the Church Father's Catholic answers has good Books on it & Reason & Theology on KZbin 🛐🛡️⚔️📖📿🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic

[@frankperrella1202]

@Christos Kyrios Google Prostestants leaving for the Roman Catholic church & few go to the E-Orthrodox it's 📰🗞️

[@frankperrella1202]

@Christos Kyrios & Methodist that are Lgbtq Woman pastors

[@frankperrella1202]

@Christos Kyrios The Prostestant Sect's people are Mass leaving heck all the Apologists at Catholic answers are ex Prostestants & a few ex Orthodox

[@aaronwolf4211]

Former protestant from conservative and fundamentalist circles here and I can absolutely vouch for #2 as more than simply a caricature. Overwhelmingly in my experience, I have rarely encountered Protestants who view either baptism and/or communion as more than just symbolic or representative processes (or as they are more euphemistically called in those sects “professions of faith”), especially the latter. This is ultimately why both Catholics and Orthodox cannot consider Protestants as in the Church or part of the same body. These are fundamental views that cannot be overlooked for the sake of unity.

[@X_mano]

Most of the catholics around me worship Mary as though she is a goddess, does that mean catholism teach this???? Absolutely not. Catholism teaches to asked the holy mother for prayers not pray to her. I believe you don't understand his point. Some reformed protestants think that if they simply say they are "Reborn" they are safe. No, that's not how the reformed view of being reborn works. Just like that, some protestants don't really understand their own faith and proclaim the holy eucharist to be mere symbols, which is absolutely false.

[@HearGodsWord]

I don't know any Conservative Protestants who view Baptism as merely symbolic. Same with what you call Communion. Both are sacraments.

[@aaronwolf4211]

@@HearGodsWord Many Protestants might not view baptism as strictly symbolic, however, they also do not view it as something truly mystical and spiritual in and of itself. More often than not, if they don't view it as merely symbolic, they view it as merely a commandment to act on purely out of obedience. It is symbolic. It is a sign. It is an act of obedience. It is all these things. But most importantly, it is a mystical event which serves as the initiation of the believer into the Church, both physically and spiritually. To ignore the mystic element of this event and to dismiss it as essential to salvation is to miss the entire point of baptism in the first place. And this is precisely the view of baptism that most Protestants hold overwhelmingly with few exceptions.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@aaronwolf4211 many and most Protestants? I'm doubting it.

[@aaronwolf4211]

@@HearGodsWord Throughout my life, I've been a member of multiple denominations - mainline, evangelical, and non-denominational - across multiple states. I've visited dozens of churches and know many people from across the entire protestant world. This has always been my experience. Any Protestants who view baptism as anything more than symbolic and/or an act of obedience are in a very small minority. The very fact that most Protestants wholesale reject infant baptism and only accept "believer's baptism" further validates this point.

[@TheForbiddenLean]

6:54 "The early Protestants were saying, the true Church has not died; Christ has upheld and sustained the Church for every nanosecond of Church history, however, there are errors and idols that have come in, and we're trying to remove and redress the errors and the idols" Yes! Thank you Calvin, Luther and others for removing yourself.

[@TheologiaEvangelica]

I regularly remind questioners that Sola Scriptura is the principle operative for the Church, as opposed to individuals per se. The individual can not oppose the Church en toto upon the basis of Scripture without upholding the epistemic utility of the Church in making known the gospel and the very Scriptures themselves, atleast instrumentally. There is a Protestant view of assent to the Church's teaching authority, but the Church does not teach by mere fiat. Perhaps it is helpful to ask, not what is authoritative for the Protestant, but what may be grounds for dissent? Here, Protestants share something in common with Catholic theology -- where the Church teaches fallibly, dissent is permissible though always in humility and with both ears to the wisdom of the Church. But like Thomas Aquinas, the role of the dissenter can be used by God to reform the institution, and this point is affirmed by Avery Dulles in his 'Models of the Church'. In essence the Church-present can only be corrected by appealing to the Church-past, ie., the foundation and this kind of dissent is nothing other than a faithfulness to the Church herself. Schismaticism on the other hand seeks to dissent in clear opposition to the Church's foundation, and may even reinterpret the Church-past in order to justify an errant Church-present.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for this. "Sola Scriptura is the principle operative for the Church, as opposed to individuals per se" -- I like that way of putting it.

[@toddvoss52]

I agree with you. But most times, the caricature is unintentional on both sides- though there is an obligation to at least do some study of what the other side understands as its teaching if one is going to say "this is what they teach.". And even folks who have made the effort to be relatively well informed on what the "other side" teaches can be unintentionally caricaturing (even you have briefly lapsed here or there- clearly in good faith. I know I have myself. I know I had a somewhat caricatured view of Calvinism for example- and still would caveat anything I said about it). So it is a work in progress. Part of the problem is that time is a limited resource, and, for example, I would think that as a Baptist theologian and pastor of a Church, you have an obligation to prioritize knowing your own Church's teachings in all its nuance and depth first. There is only so much time you can dedicate to the nuances of say Coptic Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. All we can do is take the irenic approach you are taking and caveat with the disclaimer that "I don't know what I don't know" and "please correct me if I am not accurately representing your views". But on the whole, your channel is a "go to" for me for such discussions. Oh and I forgot to mention I also love Peter Kreft. Thanks for mentioning his book.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for the comment Todd! Yeah, I really think the process of unlearning caricatures is to some degree a lifelong journey!

[@toddvoss52]

Thanks Dr Ortlund ! Since you are interested in the history of theology have you ever watched the videos of Ryan Reeves? He is reformed and I must say he was incredibly fair in his Reformation videos. And they strike a great balance between Academic depth and the broader swath needed for teaching at a more popular level. I think you could confidently refer your flock to these but naturally you would have to be the judge of that .

[@TruthUnites]

@@toddvoss52 Great recommendation! I know of Ryan and think highly of him but for some reason haven’t gotten around to his videos yet. This is a good reminder….

[@DouglasHorch]

I would love to hear an orthodox response to these points. Would they disagree with that meaning of sola scriptura? They might disagree just because it wasn't their idea first.

[@TruthUnites]

I’d be curious to find out!

[@he7230]

@ Douglas Horch , I think sola scripura was their idea originally: “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC) "Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327). "We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

[@DouglasHorch]

@@he7230 thanks for this.

[@he7230]

@ Douglas Horch, you're welcome, here's some more: “What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC). “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.) "It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2

[@DouglasHorch]

@@he7230 so based these references it's obvious there has always been the utmost priority placed on scripture...so Gavins description of Sola Scriptura seems an unarguable truth. Is it safe to say that there is no meaningful differance between this protestant understanding of sola scriptura and orthodoxy?

[@chuckhough]

Gavin. Would you agree this hinges on ecumenical councils infallibility? If Orthodoxy has the correct position that the Holy Spirit is guiding the councils like it did Holy Scripture authors...well then what's the point in arguing over which Father was correct about which issue when the Councils have already done that for us? I think a talk about this would be very fruitful. I'm assuming Protestants don't accept this position. And if so, why not? If God entrusted the early Church to collect or "discover" the New Testament, why doesn't it guide the guide the Church in the same way in its Ecumenical Councils? I suppose you could say Ecumenical Councils arent Biblical, but if we're examing history are there any Church Fathers that denied the Holy Spirit being present in council decisions? Thanks for the amazing work!

[@ChristopherWentling]

Catholics are not pelagians . The initial grace of salvation is not earned. This is obvious in the baptism of infants where indeed, absolutely nothing is required of the infant yet it still regenerates.

[@Ericviking2019]

I love your videos Dr Ortlund. But, I cannot tell the difference in the sola scriptura you just described and prima scriptura as Catholics describe. It appears to my uneducated eyes, that when the caricatures are stripped away, there is very little difference between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants on the major points. It almost seems like more language barriers than anything else? Obviously the papacy is a different matter. Maybe I’m too simple to get it.

[@abbyschubert5637]

Hey Eric, you said what was on my mind! And I’m kind of finding that a lot… it seems that when I recover a more robust understanding of my Protestant doctrine (on some of these foundational issues) I can’t actually see much if any difference from the Catholic doctrine, except maybe some inconsequential differences in vocabulary (each side is always hesitant to use certain words), and maybe small differences in where they put the stress in the sentence, so to speak (so maybe intending to highlight a certain point, but still saying the same thing). Of course like you said, there are other things too, like the papacy, but when it comes to a lot of our core theological framework… if we Protestants get our feet under us there, like Dr. Ortlund does, I’m not sure we’re always saying something any different

[@abbyschubert5637]

And Dr. Ortlund, I REALLY appreciate your videos! But something I think you might miss because you have such a strong understanding of historical theology (actually no, you don’t miss it because that’s the whole point of your theological retrieval book-which I’ve bought but have not yet read!) is that… these things ARE what I’ve been taught in non-denominational evangelicalism. I WAS taught when I was baptized that it was merely a symbol, honestly just kinda a PSA that I’m a Christian! And I was told by the deacon preaching just last Sunday, several times, that I would NOT be judged by my works on judgment day (granted, he’s not a pastor, but he is a faithful member of and leader in the church, delivering the message). So… oftentimes, at least in low-Church Protestantism (my lifelong experience), this IS our theology. Hence your book, I suppose, haha… But my point is, some of these caricatures are false ONLY for those like yourself who have really dived in more than most, and thus you can see how disorienting it is for someone like me to then find that the truest expressions of the Protestant faith, often do line up pretty closely with the theology expressed in Catholicism. Thank you as always!

[@TruthUnites]

@@abbyschubert5637 great point, these views are definitely common at the popular-level, though not the historic Protestant views. Thanks for the feedback ... let me know what you think of the book!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks eric! It seems to me that at Vatican 2 the RCC affirms Scripture, sacred tradition, and the teaching authority of the church as three sources standing alongside one another, in a way Protestants deny. Hope this helps!

[@bjw8806]

I would say on point 2, what you read is still sacramental. For it is an outward sign of an inward grace. That is the basis of a sacrament. How one defines its afterwards depends on the tradition. I would say most Protestants still believe in sacraments whether they know or admit that or not. Again based on the definition

[@Leonardo7772012]

Muito obrigado!

[@Jokl92]

I've said it before, but salvation is such a broad term that I'd say no, I don't believe in the neccesity of works and yes I do believe in the necessity of works! With a broad term like this it is very easy to be misunderstood and to strawmen people.

[@shooterdownunder]

There was one of the more radical Roman Catholics who went as far as to call the Protestant reformers as Judaizers, I'm not joking.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

With respect to the Roman Catholic church and what Luther had to say about it one needs to be aware that Luther made a distinction between the invisible and visible church. So one should understand that when he said that the Roman church is holy he was referring to the fact that the true Church (i.e the invisible Church composed only of those with true faith) existed within the visible institution of the RC church. He held that the papists in denying justification through faith alone were apostates, and were a false church. So there are two distinct entities within the RC church. A large false church deceived by the Papacy (which Luther correctly identified as the Antichrist) which is leading people to hell, and a much smaller true Church which is kept in the true faith by God despite the fact that false doctrine is being taught by the bishops and clergy. This false doctrine is damning to those who are deceived by it, but those who are Christians are maintained in the true faith and kept by the Holy Spirit from being inwardly deceived. If the Church is identified with the teaching of Roman Catholicism then of course it would have died out since the latter teaches a works-righteous scheme of salvation which is contrary to the truth that we're righteous through faith alone. But of course the true Church isn't synonymous with Roman Catholicism and has continued through history within the RC church even though the official teaching is heretical. With respect to the Augsburg Confession stating that their churches dissented from no article of faith held by the Catholic church this has reference to the articles of faith contained in the Christian creeds, but from that one shouldn't conclude that the early Lutherans were only in minor disagreement with the teaching of the popes and bishops. On the contrary they regarded the popes and bishops as wolves in sheep's clothing who were leading people to hell through their false teaching.

[@michaelharrington6698]

As a protestant who is converting to Catholicism, I felt after I read church history that I either had to believe the church was apostate immediately after the apostles or become Catholic.

[@TruthUnites]

interesting perspective! Would be curious to learn more why you felt that way sometime.

[@michaelharrington6698]

@@TruthUnites Sure, I would love to share!

[@michaelharrington6698]

@Christos Kyrios They don't have to. Not all mormons make the claim that the church went apostate immediately after the apostles but they have to believe that to reconcile their Mormonism and church history. Reading church history made me feel like a mormon, and wrestling with Catholicism directly made me feel like an atheist.

[@michaelharrington6698]

@Christos Kyrios I understand that but I don't know how I can personally reconcile that view.

[@nickswoboda6647]

@Michael Harrington. The opposite happened to me when studying church history Sir. It’s easy to see how the Fathers are not modern Protestants, but it’s equally as easy to see, (at least for me), how they are also not modern Roman Catholics.

[@78LedHead]

Just to add, you don't just blindly obey your government. If your government becomes wicked and corrupt, such as praising abortion, you don't just sit and go along with it. You stand up. P.S. if your performance is what decides salvation, we're all in bad trouble. Yes, the Holy Spirit will change you, but that's not always an overnight thing. It's a process. God knows whose heart is genuine and whose isn't. I don't worship Calvin or Luther, I worship the Most High.

[@mac3441]

I really appreciate your approach and your heart for ecumenical dialogue, Dr. Ortland. You should be Catholic 😀 Joking aside, I do appreciate this very much, though it’s still perplexed by a lot of these things, as a Catholic. I don’t fully understand how it can be said that the true Church was never lost or never died if the Protestant breaking away was basically necessary. Would this argument stand or fall on the understanding of what the Church is (I.e. visible vs. more or less the collection of believers)? Like, is the true Church just those who profess faith in Christ, or is it something more concrete, something which conforms orthodoxy and corrects errors? I hope that’s a clear delineation. If it’s the former, I guess I understand it but disagree, but if it’s the latter, I don’t know how to make sense of the claim that the Church never died on the Protestant view. Next, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this, but it seems to me that if the Church formed the canon of Scripture, then does the authority of Scripture subordinate to the authority of the Church, and not the other way around? Put another, perhaps reductive way, is Sacred Scripture also a tradition of the Church, just one that happens to exist in codified and written form? Last, I think the other points can be taken together, that the sacraments aren’t just symbols and good works are necessary, I feel like your comments here that some Protestants might think those things but it doesn’t describe Protestantism per se is kind of a moving target. The diversity of thought within Protestantism makes it such that of course those comments can’t be applied univocally, but they certainly do apply to certain groups. Like my MIL whose apparently proud of the fact she’s been “baptized” several times and has chastised me for thinking good works are important, but then claims that “communion” is supposed to be reverent while holding to the fact that it’s just a symbol or representation. While some Protestants might quarrel with that, and rightly so in my opinion, that’s still not an uncommon Protestant claim in some circles. I understand the point that to assume everyone thinks that way is an over-generalization, but it’s certainly based in experience. I’d say the same critique could be taken against Catholics who are maybe overly pious in devotion to a saint or something-in that it doesn’t describe all Catholics-but the visibility of the Church and it’s doctrines makes it a bit easier to point to Catholicism and say that’s what it teaches, the same of which is much harder to say about Protestantism, to the point where you can’t really talk about Protestantism per se. maybe that’s your point, but perhaps it’s over-broad as a defense of critiques to Protestantism as we find it in the world around us. Again, I appreciate this video. I certainly have work to do in better loving my Protestant brothers and sisters, so thank you for your efforts. I’m a proud subscriber. Would love a dialogue with you and Trent Horn or Matt Fradd or someone soon! Apologies for any typos or weird autocorrect things. Written from my phone.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for this comment! I do believe in a visible church, but I don't see why the death of that church, rather than errors/idolatry, would be the only reason for separation. Perhaps you can elaborate. I've addressed the church's role in the canon in my "Sola Scriptura Defended" video. I think it is fair that these caricatures are indeed representative of many Prots -- I just feel that we also have to look at the historical and official Protestant views. And thanks for the kind words! I do hope to engage Catholics more -- I think dialogues with both Trent and Jimmy Akin are in the works. God bless!

[@mac3441]

@@TruthUnites great to hear, I look forward to those. I guess my first two points are sort of linked. Like if Scripture can be seen as subordinate to the authority of the true Church, which in turn derives its authority from Christ, then developments of doctrine which might not explicitly found in Scripture, but don’t contradict it-as I’d argue some Catholic doctrines probably fall in to(edit: I know that’s sort of what’s up for argument, I’d say the Catechism is heavily annotated to Scripture, not a knockdown argument but I think worth saying)-are not errors per se in my opinion, but are proper developments of sacred tradition and should be taken in with humble submission to the Church’s authority. So breaking away from that relationship seems to me to be placing something else ahead of the Church-whether that’s a very good thing like Scripture or something less authoritative like one’s own personal opinion-is disrupting the proper ordering of authority by claiming the Church is something that should be left, when maybe it’s more proper to say “how might I be wrong or how might I humbly work to affect change within the Church, rather than outside of it?” I guess it’s the inside/outside distinction for me, it’s how can someone who put themselves outside of the Church claim that the church they broke away from is still the True Church. It’s seems contradictory to me. I’ll refresh on your sola scriptura video, though I’m sure I’d still quarrel with the claim because I’m more of the mind of Scripture and Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church, of course. Really appreciate the response and hopefully I’ve made myself a little more clear.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

Also, would you agree that, in a way, it falls on deaf ears when you say "People need to look at official statements, etc.," when, in fact, a lot of Protestants have *no* Confessions. We Lutherans have the 1580 Book of Concord and, especially in the LCMS, it is a normed norm, a standard, that a Lutheran pastor's teaching and preaching is to be in conformity with. How many Protestant denominations have something similar?

[@TruthUnites]

I wouldn't say that is really unique to Lutheranism -- Anglicans have 39 Articles, Presbyterians have WCF, Baptists have 1689 London, etc. Perhaps its a point of distinction between historic Protestant traditions and some contemporary nondenominational churches (though they typically have a statement of faith, rather than a confession). I think the originating concern is still valid that we cite our sources when speaking of "Protestantism."

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@@TruthUnites I realize this to be the case historically. And I realize this is anecdotal, but the SBC Baptist pastors I've interacted with either don't know of their historic Confession or they've not read it and it doesn't seem to function as a standard. Does the SBC subscribe to some type of Historic Confession in a way that is actually binding? I.e., Do pastors make any promise in their ordination vows to teach in accord with this standard?

[@TruthUnites]

@@marcuswilliams7448 yeah, that may be true for lots of SBC pastors; my goal in this video is just to show it's not "Protestantism." IOW, the goal is to retrieve our heritage, not abandon it for a non-Protestant tradition.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@@TruthUnites Yes. I think it is a commendable goal. At the end of the day, of course, I'd like all non-Roman Catholics and non-EOs to become Confessional Lutherans. But, it'd at least be nice to see other Protestants have an anchor.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@Christos Kyrios What Protestant groups who descend from the Confessions you listed actually abide by them? Or which of those Confessions actually have authority amongst them? I know of very few, if any. *Maybe* the Westminster Confession. The Book of Concord remains an authoritative Confession of many Lutherans. All pastors in the LCMS must vow a *quia* (Latin for "because") subscription to the Book of Concord; i.e., vow to teach according to it *because* it is the correct exposition of Holy Scripture. Do the other Confessions you list hold a similar place? If not, they simply become interesting historical relics, but nothing more.

[@paveli1181]

The re-introduction of dialectics caused many problems as Satan was loosened. Nevertheless, it is amazing that we retained a basic understanding of the Trinity. The truth of unity with order and distinctions. But that truth is not only for the understanding God and His nature, but also for the understanding of the truth that he caused and the natural order that He created. Despite Satan's best efforts, 3 strands of Christianity exist. Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants. We should maintain those distinctions but be united in our service to God and man. But Satan is not done yet.

[@wingedlion17]

I've never thought faith only chrisitianity made much sense to actual practice. However this is what many evangelicals claim. But at the same time they say you can't do (long list of things)... When Paul talked about works not giving salvation he was specifically talking about the Torah laws. Where I disagree with you is that James and Paul were in the same page. James seems to me and other secular scholars, a Jewish Christian, advocating keeping the Torah and being circumcised. The epistle of James may not be by him but it contains some aspects of his theology as shown in Galatians and whatever truth we can glean from acts.

[@michaelalexander3001]

I agree that these caricatures misrepresent Protestantism, but I also think (as you do, probably) they arise from real circumstances. So, they're not made to criticize "Protestant Doctrine" but rather the fruits of those doctrines or how they are conveyed. I could have derived "Easy Believism" from any of the five churches I attended in my first 20 years of life. And the caricatures crystalize where those experiences persist. It's like saying from experience that "Eastern Orthodoxy is all about being mean online." It's true that Orthos have a terrible online reputation, but everyone knows that's not the whole story. And still, it's likely a real problem that Orthodox should nip in the bud.

[@TruthUnites]

Interesting point. Will think on this….

[@fabriziom9]

Solo scriptura has been the way the Bible was read in any church i assisted of evangelical mainstream christianity... Until ive reached 20 hears old i didnt know anything about the reformation and not many evangelicals know about it, its sad to say it...

[@michaelalexander3001]

​@@TruthUnites Great video as always - thanks for your work!

[@toddvoss52]

Mikaelex - good points. I hear you .

[@arminius504]

@@fabriziom9 in a church? So you didn’t have a pastor and elders and theological boundaries? That is just crazy! Wow! Usually there some form of Creed in my experience in most evangelical churches and some form of catechism. In a Eastern Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church you also read the scriptures on your own and there are crazy interpretations and most people don’t have a clue but then you have the creeds and councils which set the theological boundaries (recorded in the catechism).

[@abbyschubert5637]

Dr. Ortlund, do you think that the whole debate between the Protestant view that works are NOT part of salvation (only a necessary outworking, for sanctification) and the Catholic view that works DO play a role in salvation (though a particular primacy to faith, in my understanding), all merely has do with our different views on “salvation”? For Protestantism, salvation is a one-and-done, and it’s often believed that you cannot lose it. So of course that’s faith. Your salvation is sealed, righteousness imputed. The rest of your walk is follow-up to that one-and-done deal; works and sanctification. In Catholicism, from what I’m understanding, salvation is more about being in a “state of grace”. You can be in, fall out (you CAN lose your “salvation”), and be restored. Your salvation then is inseparably linked to your walk with the Lord-your life, your works. Thus, it kind of just makes sense that your works have to do with salvation-not that you earn it by works in the way we usually think of it, but that you are saved by *walking with the Lord*. And correspondingly of course, infused righteousness-enabling you to walk with the Lord and actually making you righteous. I had a professor who made the point that BOTH imputed and infused righteousness are present in Paul and are part of the picture-and this only makes sense because the New Covenant precisely promised (1) full forgiveness (imputed) and (2) transformation of the heart (infused)! So I don’t know how the Catholic Church really feels about imputed R, but I kind of see it that we first enter into salvation by R that is not our own, imputed by Christ; following, he infuses us with R that we may continue to walk with him in salvation. And what is earned by righteousness? Salvation! Just as Jesus’ righteousness imputed first earned salvation for us, should not the righteousness he infuses in US earn salvation? That’s how I see the often confused phrase of “meriting” salvation!… Sorry for the ramble!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for this Abby! I am going to do more on justification in the future so hopefully I can address this more then!

[@abbyschubert5637]

@@TruthUnites Thank you for taking the time to read and respond!! :D I look forward to it!

[@FalconOfStorms]

I'm sorry for changing the number of likes from 311 to 312.

[@shawnbenson7696]

Church of Christ have a veiw that faith expressed at the occasion of baptism is salvific.

[@tbojai]

A puzzling exposition of 1 Kings 18. Dr. Ortlund says that Ahab had "...all of that, worshipping at the temple, sitting on the throne...". I'm not sure what this means, as Ahab, the king of Israel, not Judah, did not worship at the Temple in Jerusalem, or sit on the Throne of David. He did worship at the pagan temples of Samaria, and sit on the throne of his father Omri, but this hardly qualifies as a source of legitimacy in the sense of the Covenant or the Law. Not sure what this specific argument is trying to prove.

[@TruthUnites]

Hey Taylor! Just in town from a trip to Yosemite and saw this ... hope you guys are well. That's a fair pushback. The basic idea is that Ahab could claim institutional primacy over Elijah, but you are right that he would not have worshipped at the temple in Jerusalem, as this was after the split between Israel and Judah. I was speaking too generally there, my mistake. The larger point, however, is that Israel was still the people of God, and Ahab was the King of Israel, and as such could claim inheritance of the promises of God to his people. Hopefully the basic caricature I am trying to protect against, in terms of Protestants believing in a death of the church, was clear enough. Thanks for the engagement, and blessings to you guys.

[@tbojai]

@@TruthUnites Hey Gavin, welcome back. Lindsey and I have enjoyed following your channel (videos & comments!) over the last year. Congratulations on all your success. Yes, the point I commented on was rather banal in the context of the whole presentation, but I know that 1 Kings 16-19 is like pretty much your favorite OT spot, so I broke my blanket social media rule of non-engagement to query you. Thanks for the clarifying response. Hope to see you around soon.

[@TruthUnites]

@@tbojai Thanks! Yes, you know I love that part of I Kings lol. Take care!

[@brunoabreu6547]

most of these caricatures hold true for Anabaptists. Maybe Catholics and Orthodox might have, perhaps inadvertently, portrayed all Protestants just like the Anabaptists

[@cooperthatguy1271]

For real

[@ReformedR]

Calvin believed that the church was formless and whilst he still held to the sacraments he was against the real presence and the papacy which Rome considers anathema. He never thought the Roman Catholic religion was an actual church and as Galatians 1:8-9 states those who preach another gospel let them be anathema so Rome is anathema we cannot unify ecumenism is fruitless they need the gospel

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Actually it would probably take me hours to discuss all of them especially towards "Calvinism".

[@actsapologist1991]

Hmmm... with two of those I think there is a mote of truth worth pointing out. With all of these, it largely depends on the individual whom you are speaking to. With the first one, it is fair to say that all of Protestantism holds that by the 1500's the Church had gone into some serious errors - not just in regard to corruption of the men staffing various offices - but in doctrine and specifically in the articulation of the Gospel. It is not rare at all to find people saying that Martin Luther "rediscovered" the Gospel - as if the thing had been lost. So while I agree that so-called "Great Apostacy" theories are reserved to the Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons, and they alone are the ones who assert that the Church died.... it is nonetheless true that many Protestants hold that by the 1500's it was barely alive, and no long articulating the Gospel through the official hierarchy. On the third one; it's one thing to say that Sola Scriptura is supposed to work a certain way. It's another thing to point out what happens in practice. The engineers who designed the Tacoma Narrows bridge envisioned a structure which would stand tall for generations, but that is of little importance compared to what actually happened with that bridge. In regard to Sola Scriptura, most Protestants who articulate some version of the doctrine will say that Councils, Creeds, and Church Fathers are authorities. But they'll say that the texts of Scripture is the only infallible authority given to us by God. In practice, that means Scripture is the only source of theology which is completely rock solid - the only thing which cannot be doubted. Once that principle is in place, dialogue between disagreeing parties very quickly in to debating the proper exegesis of Biblical texts. Because if any other lesser authority is brought up, a person can always say, "That council/exegete/creed/consensus can be wrong - so I need to appeal to God's Word."

[@TruthUnites]

I think we must agree to disagree on this one, friend, but I appreciate the feedback!

[@Coastie4]

Lots of work to be done! Heck yeah...get those clicks, that's a mighty ambitious business plan.

[@nateperez6587]

You mean catholics caricatures Protestants too????

[@mtnshow1]

But let's be honest here. If Christendom was a rodeo, American White Protestant Evangelical Christianity is the rodeo clown.

[@alexjurado6029]

In regards to the question about how we discern the Church, the answer was given by Ignatius of Antioch in the beginning of the second century. He tells us that the true Church of Christ is visible and can be identified wherever there is a validly ordained Bishop. I’m sorry, but not a single Protestant denomination has a valid Bishop. No true Bishop, no true Church. I don’t mean to offend, but this comes from an apostolic Father, a student of the Apostle John. It’s plain and simple.

[@TruthUnites]

hey Alex, for a Protestant response to Ignatius, you might be interested in my debate with Patrick Ramsey -- see the end of my opening speech, and then also my first rebuttal.

[@alexjurado6029]

@@TruthUnites thank you for directing me to that, kind sir. I appreciate it! I will definitely give that debate a listen!

[@TruthUnites]

@@alexjurado6029 hope it useful!

[@alexjurado6029]

@Christos Kyrios The terms “Bishop” and “Presbyter” being used interchangeably is a non-issue. I’m very surprised that Protestants always pose this as a serious problem, when it isn’t one at all. Dr. Ortlund actually unknowingly gave the solution to this supposed issue in his debate with Eastern Orthodox priest Patrick Ramsey. Dr. Ortlund said that, in the New Testament and other first century writings, the terms Bishop and Presbyter are used interchangeably in such a way that the higher office (Bishop) includes the lower office (Presbyter), but not vice versa. And that’s the key to this non-issue! All Bishops are Presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops. So it’s totally fine to call a Bishop a Presbyter, because that’s what a Bishop is - a Presbyter with an office - or as Father Patrick put it in the debate with Dr. Ortulund, an “arch-Presbyter.” It’s also incorrect to say that there wasn’t a Bishop in Rome in the first century. We know that Peter and Paul both died in Rome in the first century, and, they were, of course, both Apostles. And the Apostles were the original Bishops. We also have a complete list of the bishops of Rome, beginning with Peter, and we know that his first 3 successors (Linus, Cletus and Clement) all served as Bishops of Rome within the first century. Also, this list extends without any breaks to the present day, all the way from Peter to the current Bishop of Rome. In regards to the Protestant so-called bishops - and I mean this with all due respect - Protestant “bishops” are not true bishops. A true Bishop can trace his succession of office all the way back to one of the Apostles and ultimately to Jesus Christ. Protestants simply can’t make this claim since they can only be traced as far back as the 16th century, and not all the way back to Apostolic times. Just because someone calls himself a Bishop doesn’t make him a Bishop. Only a Presbyter who’s ordination by the laying on of hands that is traced back to Christ can succeed to the office of Bishop. You also contradicted yourself in your third and final point. First you said that the Catholic Church only counts Apostolic succession for those churches that are in communion with Rome (which is completely false, by the way) but then you give a list of all of the Churches that are not in communion with Rome, and you say that Rome recognizes their apostolic succession. So you’ve made two contradictory statements. So let me clarify…. Rome does indeed recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church as having valid and true Apostolic Succession. It also always recognized the Apostolic Succession of the Church of the East, even before that Church came back into communion with Rome. However, apostolic succession alone doesn’t make a Church part of the true Church. The other necessary marker is, as you’ve already pointed out by quoting Augustine, true doctrine. That’s why whenever an Eastern Christian Church wants to come back into communion with Rome, such as the 23 churches that have done so since the East/West schism, each Church has to submit a statement of faith to the Pope, which then has to be approved as orthodox by the magisterium in order for said church to be accepted back into communion with Rome. So valid apostolic succession and true doctrine are both essential. You can’t have one without the other and be part of the true, universal Church.

[@alexjurado6029]

@Christos Kyrios Good, I’m glad we’re getting somewhere. You have no response to most of the points that I’ve made. I’m glad we’re narrowing it down. In regards to the monarchical episcopacy in Rome, the key word you used in your statement is “develop.” There is a difference between developing and not existing at all. And I have read the scholarship on the issue, as well as all of the refutations of it. I can provide some links if you’d like. And I did go back and re-read your comment, and you’re right; you didn’t contradict yourself - you were just pointing out what seemed to you like an apparent contradiction made by Rome. I see that now, and I apologize. It wasn’t clear in your original response, but I see it now that you’ve pointed it out. So now let me respond to that… The Catholic Church actually did recognize the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church after it had initially separated from Rome under Henry VIII. After all, they were all Catholic Bishops, Priests and Deacons one day, and were suddenly Anglican the next. So they did have valid apostolic succession. However, a problem arose not long after the schism from Rome, when the Puritans (who were Calvinist in belief) gained power in the state and began to change certain things in the Anglican Church. In particular, they started tampering with the Sacraments, including the Sacrament of Holy Orders. In order for a Sacrament to be valid, there must be 3 qualifications present: proper form, proper matter, and proper intent. It was the form that the Puritans changed, which made their rite of ordination to the Priesthood invalid. So all of the Anglican priests who were ordained using this new form were not valid priests at all. Only a validly ordained Priest can succeed to the office of Bishop. So eventually all of the Bishops who had been validly ordained as Priests died, leaving only the “priests” who were not really priests, therefore losing the apostolic succession of the Anglican Communion. So no, the Catholic Church doesn’t reject the apostolic succession of the Anglicans because of Protestant prejudice; Rome recognized it until the Anglicans lost it themselves because they stopped doing valid ordinations. This also invalidated all of their other sacraments, with the exception of the sacrament of baptism.

[@markrome9702]

You are going to make a great Catholic apologist one day.

[@arminius504]

Bodily assumption, immaculate conception, papacy? Highly unlikely.

[@RussianBot4Christ]

Protestantism in Nicene Catholicism

[@david_porthouse]

When I think of Protestants, I think of the Orange Order marching through a Catholic housing estate singing songs like It's a terror to them papish boys, the sash my father wore. What's the point of complaining about being caricatured if you behave like this? We know with hindsight that the Orangemen would have done better to stop at home, read Humanae Vitae, and then get on with making babies. Even I can find "The Old Orange Flute" to be amusing, by the way. However, your irenic efforts have quite a big hurdle to overcome.

[@HearGodsWord]

Likewise for the Catholics. It works both ways, even if you want to ignore it to make a caricature which doesn't apply to over 99% of Protestants

[@david_porthouse]

@@HearGodsWord Well I go on KZbin and see a lot of vicious Catholic-hating stuff made by Protestants, and correlate it with what I have seen of Protestants prior to the Internet. Dr Ortlund may be trying to play by a better set of rules, but he is still obsessed with his own views and not seeing anything from the opposite point of view.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@david_porthouse no Catholic hating here so a moot point really.

[@david_porthouse]

@@HearGodsWord You may need to work a bit harder to make it clear where you stand. All these debates or discussions are conducted in the English language but England itself is something of a battleground. I was born in Newcastle upon Tyne and my nearest big cathedral is in Durham, which I perceive to be under Protestant occupation. If a homosexual union is blessed in that Cathedral, then it's a desecration. Do I have any right to be consulted on this?

[@HearGodsWord]

@@david_porthouse where I stand on what? That' irrelevant to your moaning. You're now just projecting.

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

One thing I've found that my RC brothers seem to struggle with in Protestantism is that because we don't have a 1:1 correlation in authority, then that must equal complete chaos.

[@MrPeach1]

You guys throw rocks at us because we are a solid church so it's a real target. We have trouble debating the large array of theological spaghetti that is protestantism. Doesn't seem like a fair fight to me.

[@MrPeach1]

@ktownbball ktownbball uh we have a catechism. So you can read it and know all the teachings. We can even get a straight answer on how to define sola scriptura from protestants

[@frederickanderson1860]

No such things as othodox or unorthodox. Isaiah 40v13& 55: 8-9. Our mortal minds cant grasp god's mind. Ecclesiastes 7v16.beware many destroy themselves by these posts.

[@conantheseptuagenarian3824]

TL/DR - clinton smoked the pot but he didn't inhale.

[@afieds6845]

You do a good job at Protestant apologetics but you use purely Catholic and Orthodox talking points. Points that Protestants don’t even think about, especially Baptists. Baptists want to continually “ feel” saved. They go so far as to coerce God into saving them for ever by saying the magic spell “ I accept Jesus as my God and saviour” This now is supposed to force God into having to keep them “ saved” forever

[@punishedgoy9131]

Come home to Rome

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Ironically, the 2 major articles of Protestantism, are Scripture alone, and faith alone, both of which are not found in Holy Scripture! These are found in every Protestant denomination, no caricature! Yet, not practiced, as the interpretations of each Protestant Pastor takes precedence above Holy Scripture! Martin Luther, taught Mary was free from sin and Queen Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ, and ever virgin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@junkim5853]

I don't get why you keep coming here posting the same rhetoric over and over again. They are not fruitful and honestly terrible arguments. Just because you say you don't engage in caricature doesn't mean that is true. Your arguments had been properly addressed yet you keep engaging in hateful anti protestant rhetoric. It's like people are talking to a brick wall with you. Instead of using your time bashing Protestantism why don't you take a close look at yourself in the mirror and examine your own self? Pride is a sin. Let's not get too prideful of traditions that we become blinded to see the truth!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Christos Kyrios I totally agree, as faith alone and Scripture alone, are traditions of men! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@junkim5853 Not hateful as you bear false witness, but accurate! I am simply telling the Truth that, Scripture alone and faith alone, are not found in Holy Scripture or the Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon. These 2 articles found among all Protestant denominations, are not caricatures, but reality. Taught, but not practices, as Holy Scripture takes second place to the interpretations of each Protestant Pastor. You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@junkim5853]

@@matthewbroderick6287 these 2 articles are not going to be found in all protestant denominations and theology varies from one protestant to another. It's undeniable that most protestant strayed off completely from the reformers and the Church we have today barely resembles anything from the reformation. Faith alone and scripture alone is found in scripture and an argument can be made that its found in tradition as well. You do have hatred in protestantism and you keep antagonizing protestants. Trust me go ask God if what you are doing is right because I don't think you are. You are shoving down your beliefs down protestants throats and refuse to listen and understand protestants.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@junkim5853 You bear false witness that I have hated for Protestantantism! Refuting error is not hatred! Unless of course you also teach Paul hated the circumcised party for refuting their errors! Thankfully God shall judge the heart of each, and not you! "It is by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24)., for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, it is useless, ( 1 Corinthians 13:2). Holy Scripture itself, which came way after the Church authority was established by Jesus Christ, and 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! Yes, those 2 articles are found in All Protestant churches. Name one please that does not! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@david_porthouse]

As of today, 24th September 2022, the Protestant Church teaches that the King can be an adulterer but not a Roman Catholic. Hard to see why you are complaining about caricatures when it's like this.

[@HearGodsWord]

You've added a 5th caricature. 🤣

[@quantumcomputist8572]

One wonders why the holy spirit does not lead his followers to unison. Perhaps, more evidence that God does not exist.