Thinking about leaving Protestantism? Consider these things first (w/ Matthew E. Ferris)

[@joecardone4887]

The title of this at least is ironic because the early Christians literally used tradition and scripture to practice the sacraments. The Church teaches that they compliment each other.

[@Burberryharry]

I was thinking the same thing

[@mrniceguy3006]

I liked your comment, question By the church you mean Orthodox?

[@grantguikema9821]

@@mrniceguy3006 there was only one church for the first 1000 years.

[@BaseCampWV]

spot on.

[@mrniceguy3006]

@@grantguikema9821 I think that’s what I’m learning. I’m a Protestant but was and still am a bit ignorant of church history, up until maybe the last year and a half or so. I’m guessing you guys are referring to the Orthodox Church, since the Orthodox Church or the church teaches sacraments and scripture.

[@TheCatholicSamurai]

"We don't have hierarchy or structure. We don't have an earthly headquarters." Exactly why I am leaving Protestantism.

[@Apriluser]

Yes. My husband and I are Anglicans after he was an evangelical pastor and now an Anglican priest. We are so “at home” and feel like we have experienced a deeper conversion.

[@thejohn17project15]

I never understand comments like this. Where in scripture is a hierarchy, specific institutional structure, or earthy headquarters (other then Jerusalem) ever commanded or modeled. All of the early fellowships had elders and deacons with specific spiritual gifts. Each church was specific to the city it was in and that's about it. I say this as someone who no longer calls myself protestant.

[@TheCatholicSamurai]

@@thejohn17project15 What you described in the second part of your reply is a hierarchy. Each city had a Church that would've spiritually gifted and approved leadership. it is confusing to contradict the testimony of people that were tutored by the Apostles and within 50 years were making sure things were formed into a leadership structure that would last. This is all prefigured in the OT and in the life of Jesus. Look up connections between Matt. 16 and Isaiah 22 and Ex. and the priesthood. Study Hebrews again, it is one of our most neglected treasures. Jesus set up an extremely pronounced hierarchy of Himself, Peter, James and John, the 12, the 70, the masses. In Acts and the rest of the NT and all of Christian history is no different.

[@crobeastness]

lol

[@crobeastness]

@@thejohn17project15 letters from peter and paul with instructions and whatnot. i don't see protestants emailing each other on how they are pastoring their flock and keeping in union with one another. i don't see non denominational "born again" protestants that have deacons and elders in their communities. so what are you? you don't sound catholic, east orthodox, or oriental orthodox.

[@charleskramer8995]

The Bible is actually the lectionary of the church. The church and her worship precede the Bible not the reverse.

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@MrMfloor]

Lol

[@j.g.4942]

However Christ (Word of God) precedes the church; as His Body (the Church) affirms, The Bible is the primary place we hear Him.

[@charleskramer8995]

@@j.g.4942 No. We hear Christ through the deposit of Revelation which was given to the disciples and which they passed on to those, they in turn, made disciples of. As St. Paul told the Thessalonians, we are to hold to hold fast to the traditions handed on to us whether by letter or work of mouth.

[@j.g.4942]

@@charleskramer8995 traditions such as, communion of infants, married parish priests, communal confession, and Presbyterial ordination? None of these practices passed on by Paul and the apostles survived into the medieval western church, other practices supplanted them however Scripture remains a relatively unchanged authority (only few individual books shifted or edited from the 0090s on). In every serious church tradition the Scriptures are seen in common as the faithful written witness of God's Word and Work.

[@ahbeng888]

This is an interesting video to watch. I had a 13 year long journey from evangelical Methodism/Anglicanism to Reformed, back to evangelical Methodism/Anglicanism to Anglo-Catholicism which ended up in a major internal struggle about remaining within Protestantism as a confessional and magisterial Protestant which had a sacramentalist strain within it (either as an Anglo-Catholic or confessional Lutheran) or becoming Orthodox or becoming a Roman Catholic. Scripture for me was not opposite to sacramentalism (and vice versa) in my search, but both were (and needed to be) in balance with each other. Long story short, it was a lot of prayer and studying of Scripture, theology, tradition and church history (in that order) which eventually led me to being received into Holy Mother Church as a Catholic (via the ordinariates set up for those of Anglican heritage).

[@danielwey]

Welcome home :-)

[@ahbeng888]

@@danielwey, been home now for a few years now :)

[@1Hope4All]

@@ahbeng888 We still say, Welcome Home if we just found out no matter how long it's been. 😇🙏🏽

[@augustinian2018]

Though I’m a Lutheran heading into Anglicanism largely as a result of the new perspective on Paul (helps that I live in commuting distance of an Anglo-Catholic seminary, I suppose), would you have any book or author recommendations that might help me to see what led you to Roman Catholicism? (I do have Robert Koons’s book A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism on my reading list already along with a couple by Brant Pitre, and naturally I’m working my way through the Fathers as time allows, but any other authors/books you or anyone would recommend would be appreciated. I’m always trying to better understand others’ perspectives and try to keep myself open to correction.) (I rephrased a bit of my question just now as I realized it might have come off as antagonistic-not my intent. As a lover of Christian philosophy, I have tremendous respect for Roman Catholicism, be it classical Thomism or analytic tradition-tinged thinkers like Alasdair MacIntyre-in many ways it was MacIntyre who taught me how to admit when I’m wrong.)

[@ahbeng888]

@@augustinian2018, hey there. Welcome to your journey. That one you have from Robert Koons was seminal for me in terms of that “doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls” (ie justification). I have to say that in the final two years of my journey, Confessional Lutheranism was also in my radar as well. Francis Beckwith’s apologia “Return to Rome” was also on my reading list too. Others were John R Willis’ “The Teachings of the Church Fathers, Luigi Gambero’s “Mary and the Fathers of the Church”, Scott Hahn’s “Rome Sweet Home”, Frederick Bauerschmidt’s “Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St Thomas Aquinas”, the IVP Academic Five Views volume on Justification, William Mattison’s “Introducing Moral Theology”, “Journeys of Faith: Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Anglicanism” by a few authors (published by Zondervan), James O’Connor’s “The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist [2nd ed]”, GK Chesterton’s “The Catholic Church and Conversion”, Ronald Knox’s “The Belief of Catholics”. Those were some books that I was reading during the course of my crossing the Tiber (and at the time I was in between Aldersgate, Canterbury, Wittenberg and the Bosphorus as well).

[@GospelSimplicity]

A lot of you are, fairly, asking about the thumbnail. It comes from the subtitle of his book which reads "Supplanting Scripture with Sacramentalism." My first substantive question of the interview is to define this divide, followed by a question about whether sacramentalism could describe high church Protestants. So, patience, my friends. You'll hear his answers in due time (or you know, now if you become a Patron).

[@siegeheavenly3601]

Thanks for putting this here. The thumbnail alone is something that is bound to start up a comment war with the Trad Caths and Orthobros on one side and the Protestants on the other.

[@grantguikema9821]

@@siegeheavenly3601 sola thumbnail

[@helenkamenos8563]

@YAJUN YUAN For the Orthodox, the Eucharist is one of the most important fundamental doctrines, other than the Trinity and Christology. Read John 6:43-70. How many times does Christ repeat this teaching: "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life."

[@ANGAR0NE]

Is sad for me when I hear some said the Eucharist is something like a memory or symbolic. Please take the time and read slowly John 6:30-ff the opposite of symbolic is Truly read what Jesus said also look at this verse from Paul... 1 Corinthians 11:29 [29]because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. ... how can lose heaven for eat bread or wine? Read also slowly Asking the Holy Spirit to guide you 1 Corinthians 11 and don't be unbelievers but believe (Jn20:27)

[@bradleyperry1735]

@YAJUN YUAN The Eucharist is the center of the Faith. It is where we experience Christ as fully as possible in this life.

[@1Hope4All]

"Sacramentalism" (not a word) *is* Scriptural. 🙏🏽 Jesus established Seven Sacraments; one of them being Himself in the Eucharist for Holy Communion! ✝️🙏🏽✝️🙏🏽✝️

[@tynytian]

Exactly! Its obviously a false dichotemy because the sacraments are taught in scripture. Baptism, eucharist, even the priesthood are all biblical.

[@carolinaoliveros6933]

Agree

[@zarnoffa]

Marriage existed before Jesus’ ministry.

[@iamdigory]

It's a word if the person saying it and the person hearing it know what it means

[@1Hope4All]

@@zarnoffa Natural law marriage existed, surely. But Jesus exalted "marriage" into Holy Matrimony when He attended the wedding at Cana. " *Holy Matrimony* "is the name of the Sacrament, not "marriage." Natural law marriage, between two non-Catholic Christian people outside the Catholic Church would be considered a valid marriage if they both became Catholic. Or even if one of them became Catholic. I believe that if only one became Catholic and not the other, they may have to get their marriage, at least blessed by a Catholic priest. But not sure on that. It may be that no blessing is needed. All I know is that the Catholic Church recognizes a non-Catholic Christian marriage as valid. Just like the Church would recognize a Protestant baptism, so long as it's done in the Trinitarian manner; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 🙏🏽 As far as the non-Catholic Christian valid marriage, that's because the couple themselves are the ministers of the Sacrament, not a Catholic priest. Now, if a Catholic person is to be married to a non-Catholic Christian, they would *have to* get married in the Catholic Church if they want their marriage to be valid. And they would have to agree to raise their children Catholic.

[@Thomasfboyle]

What he says at the end is exactly what Catholics and Orthodox say, we don’t define Truth we merely define what we have received to be true as best as we collectively can agree upon in light of Christ’s church.

[@davidu8226]

Thank you both for having the conversation. It is hard to listen to someone who so misunderstands the gift that is the Church (with a capital C). It difficult because I want him to know this act of love and receive it.

[@emad982]

The idea that Christianity deviated from early centuries - Constantine - all the way until the reformation in the 16th century is too much to handle. It is disturbing to think that God would allow such a thing.

[@jotunman627]

True, God will not allow that to happen, there is still only one true Christian Church, a church who's doctrines on faith and morals have not changed due to pressures from the secular world. ".....the gates of hell will never prevail" - find a church that does not sell themselves to the "modern world" and you will find Christ there. "........surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its, people who belong to the world hate this church"

[@HJabroni]

His example of disunity in the Catholic Church is a misunderstanding of the critique of disunity among Protestant churches (not individual members) that result from "Sola Scriptura". Whether a member's beliefs align with their church's teaching (Protestant or Catholic) or not, is not the issue of "disunity". You have thousands of different Protestant and evangelical churches that come to significantly different conclusions and teachings, whether many or few. But the Catholic Church, (and not just the Roman rite) is unified in its teaching, and those that understand them and deny them are no longer technically Catholic. It's that simple.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

From the perspective of someone currently leaving evangelicalism for the Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod ,the problem evangelicals face is that any pre reformation history is generally ignored in most of their churches. Then, when a more intellectual or academically minded evangelical reads the fathers and any ancient Christian history, they are blind sided, because the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church absolutely more closely resembles what one reads in the fathers and the practice one finds in the historic church. Although it is an oversimplification, they feel that their choices are to remain in the historically adrift evangelical world, or go to Catholicism/Orthodoxy. My suggestions for evangelical congregations would be: 1. Drop the dispensationalism, which is absolutely a 19th century invention (sorry Austin, I know you’re at Moody), and associated obsessions over figuring out which current event of the day is in revelation. 2. Adopt a historic Protestant confession. Most congregations would probably be 85-90% comfortable with at least a few of them as is, and if not, they could modify as required. 3. Stop actively pursuing casualness in worship, and “liturgize” to some extent. If a congregation believes that being low church is more welcoming, then fine, but the pendulum has generally swung from loosening up and being less rigid to treating casualness as a virtue. Stop drinking coffee during worship and installing stadium seating and constantly upgrading lighting, and sing a hymn every now and again. Remind congregants that a fear of God and reverence is appropriate.

[@crobeastness]

why be a lutheran? that church started in 1521 and doesn't claim to be an infallible teaching authority.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@@crobeastness it doesn’t claim to be an infallible authority because it isn’t, nor is any other church.

[@crobeastness]

@@AmillennialMillenial the catholic, eastern orthodox, and oriental orthodox churches claim to be infallible. Since you follow sola scriptura, where does it say in scripture the Church Jesus Christ established is not infallible? These Churches also claim that too btw. Why would I be a Lutheran if they don't even claim their interpretation of scripture is infallible? Doesn't make any sense? Also, why would I join a church established 1500 years after the resurrection? Makes less sense. I might as well be Muslim. They came 900 years earlier.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@@crobeastness I think saying that you might as well be Muslim is a bit of a stretch. If one believes in the Trinity, Incarnation, and Resurrection, then obviously Islam is not in the same ballpark as the Lutheran Church. Claiming infallibility doesn’t not equal actual infallibility. If all three of those churches claim infallibility, then at least two of them are wrong by definition and the fact that they each teach different things. The claim of infallibility is a positive claim on which the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It is unreasonable to assert something and then put the burden of proof on the person who asks to see the case for it. Obviously everything that isn’t part of Christianity isn’t listed in the Bible. That said, I think the case for an infallible tradition and a teaching office makes sense in a lot of ways, and I also think the burden or proof, given the weight of history, is on me to be Protestant rather than default to Carholic or orthodox. However, I haven’t been adequately convinced that Unam Sanctum and the Catechism’s current teaching on salvation outside the Church can be squared with each other and papal infallibility. Given the nature of infallibility one example of fallibility is enough to undermine it. Similarly, if a strong case could be made for near universal belief among Christians within the first 3 centuries in Purgatory, the bodily assumption of Mary, the treasury of merits, indulgences, I’d probably be Catholic, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence that those doctrines were widely held in the earliest centuries, and we are to believe that this was passed down orally in a direct line from the apostles, but did not surface in any writings or theology until, as in the case of purgatory or papal infallibility over one thousand years later.

[@crobeastness]

@@AmillennialMillenial ok fine. I suppose I was being hyperbolic bringing in Islam. Claiming infallibility does not equal actual infallibility. This is true. However, not claiming infallibility at all definitely equals fallibility. No investigation is even required. The 3 churches that claim it are the ones in need of investigation. They mostly only separated from one another due to politics rather than faith. Most of the teachings are the same. The main difference is the papacy on the catholic side while the other 2 don't and the west Vs east versions of the filioque. And the way the mass is performed is slightly different. Like for example the orthodox churches don't believe in the name purgatory but they believe in purification state in the afterlife. They don't believe I the term transubstantiation but they believe in the real presence of Christ in communion. The burden of proof does lie on the claimant, but claiming a negative still requires a burden of proof. The atheist claims a negative. They have a burden of proof as well. You aren't claiming the catholic church is not infallible (well you are claiming that too), but you are also claiming the Lutheran church fallible which the opposition agrees with you. No need to even play the burden of proof game. That's like me going to an atheist and say "I believe in God" and him saying "ya, same". (Again, hyperbole) Of everything part of Christianity isn't part of the Bible, where is it's totality? If you are saying the current teaching of salvation outside the church has changed at Vatican II and therefore proving pope's fallibility considering it was different before, I would disagree. Vatican II made a clarification that there those outside the church who can possibly be saved if they cooperate with the grace of God. However, if someone knows the Church to have the fullness of faith and still rejects her then they cannot be saved. This is because we are bound by the sacraments, but the Holy Spirit is not. All those things were taught within the first 5 centuries on paper but were clarified, developed over the centuries. The church lives. She isn't on pause like the ones in the east. Papal infallibility was not first mentioned 1300 years later. The apostles were given the keys to bind and loose primarily St. Peter and the doctrine has been developed from there until it has been completely defined at Vatican I. A key word to note here is develop. It is not to be confused with change. A drawing of a mountain can develop into a painting of the mountain. It cannot change into a painting of a jungle. As for the Church itself being infallible, well that's because Jesus gave us a Church and I believe in a visible Church. The concept that some protestants have adopted for less than 100 years of an invisible Church makes no sense. There has to be a visible church (not to be confused with a physical building) otherwise "tell it to the Church" makes no sense if it's invisible without a magisterium. So that Church that Christ gave us has to be on earth until the end of time.

[@clairebrainard9707]

I had never heard of people wanting to become Catholic or Orthodox because they thought that these were the ancient or original churches until I moved to China and Japan. The people who were using this argument were converts and catechumens who came from the Evangelical tradition. I see it as an argument for desiring tradition and ritual but I could be way off on this. The comments about icons was uninformed. Icons have been in existence since the 2nd century. Icons needed to be in existence for Iconoclasm to happen for the 7th Ecumenical Council to reinstate them.

[@СаваСтанковић-с7к]

Icons are there in the OT, the Ark of the Covenant had them, the Tent had them, the Temple as well. Of angels mostly, but our idea of saints (in the Orthodox Church) is that saints are people who have joined the angelic ranks, which, safe a certain number of exceptions, most notably Elijah, was made possible by Our Lord's trampling of death by death, and opening a path to His Heavenly Kingdom. Of course different styles of icons are going to exist in different cultures, even different colours have different meanings in different cultures, and the local iconography will reflect that.

[@timmantei2445]

Be patient, folks. As much as I have listened to Austin, I am sure that he is going to ask the right questions and give plenty of time and grace to the answers.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I really appreciate your faith in me as an interviewer. That means a lot

[@l21n18]

It’s unfortunate to have such a title though

[@hazelofbasilton4890]

@@l21n18 I also feel like the titles of this channel are very triggery, especially for Catholics. Is that intentional?

[@l21n18]

@@hazelofbasilton4890 probably

[@rosiegirl2485]

@@hazelofbasilton4890 I am Catholic and think that it is good to have a snappy title....it really inspires people to watch! I also have enough faith in my Church, the one our Lord put in place for us,thar it can be defended! God bless! ⚘️

[@Thomasfboyle]

The early Fathers can really only support Catholics or Orthodoxy (or Arianism or whatever but let’s stick to active Christian communities). Anything else requires a revisionist history. Not that revision is necessarily bad, but if you’re claiming to know what Christ said without connection of authority to what Christ said and who he spoke with, that seems like a pretty big hurdle to jump. I think this guy’s arguments could be applied just as well to justifying gnostic Christianity as much as Protestantism…not to demean either group, love all you guys. But Church history leads everybody I’ve met down either the Orthodox or Catholic roads.

[@JonathanChua]

I agree. Or, you have to do some Olympics-level mental gymnastics to claim that Hillsong and the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom/Basil the Great are preaching exactly the same gospel. One is a pop concert with a sprinkling of Jesus. The other is the legitimate continuation and fulfillment of second temple Judaism.

[@Thomasfboyle]

Watching this because “Iron sharpens iron” and even though I know I’m in good hands seeking the sacraments of Christ’s fullest Church, I don’t entirely know exactly why so I’m welcome to hearing a devil’s advocate in good faith. Keep up the quality content Austin, have a happy Easter season

[@EpoRose1]

Same.

[@thomasfolio7931]

My first question to Mr. Ferris would be regarding the Canon. As there was in antiquity multiple canonical lists, some which omitted books found in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Bibles. Martin Luther at one point removed seven books from the NT, which he replaced when his fellow reformers rejected what he had done. The Shepard of Hermas, and Epistles of Clement were placed on some lists as Scripture, so what criteria do you use for establishing the Canon? Must each of us do so ourselves, or is there an authority you can provide? Sacraments, at least from the Catholic position are the actions of Christ, through which He gives us grace. St. Peter tells us that the waters of the Flood, symbolize the water of Baptism, which now saves us. Jesus tell His Apostles to go out to the ends of the earth preaching and baptizing. He does not say, write a book, and use it as the only source of doctrine. So if Jesus commanded Baptism, and Peter said that baptism now saves us, how does it now become something unessential. The Catechism is a very good overview of Catholic teaching and replete with Scripture. A quick look at the footnotes shows how much Scripture is relied upon. What the Catechism is, however is not what it appears Mr. Ferris wants it to be. It is not a comprehensive or full treaties of Catholic Theology. It is more a Cliff notes on the subject. If you limit yourself to the Catechism, you will fail to understand what the Catholic Church teaches. Just on the subject of Baptism, the Catholic Church holds that there is water baptism, baptism of blood (one who has not been born of water as the Apostles tell us of water baptism) but one who is martyred before he can be baptized is considered a baptized person. Then there is Baptism of Desire, which is one who believes and desires baptism, but dies before he can be baptized. The Catholic Church believes that ordinarily we are saved through our submitting ourselves to Christ's command that we be baptized. We are accountable to what the NT tells us Jesus commanded. However from the Catholic position, God can work outside of the commands He has made. So do we (tongue in cheek) toss the baby out with the baptismal water, or do we comply with what Jesus said, and when it cannot be done, trust in God's mercy. As far as history. Absence of evidence does not prove something did not exist. The Conciliar statements on Icons in the 6th Century became an issue because of the Iconoclastic heresies which became an issue with the rise of Islam. Just as the Apostles and Early Church was seen at first as simply a new sect of Jews, Islam was billed as a newer Christian sect, it looked to the Torah and Haftorah as authoritative, it accepted Jesus as a Prophet, it appeared as if an early form of Protestantism. One of the major influences of Islam on the Christian East was the forbidding of all images. Icons were destroyed by the Iconoclasts who were influenced by Islam at this time. Prior to this there was not an issue with Images among Christians in the east or west. There was no need to condemn Iconoclasm or uphold the correctness of the use of images before the Council, because it was a non-issue, it was an accepted practice. An example from a non-theological issue is Gravity. If as you Mr. Ferris want to impose on your listeners and readers that the proper use of Icons did not occur until the 7th Century so they were not venerated prior, or they would have been written about... Gravity was defined by the Protestant Theologian and Scientist Isaac Newton is credited with the discovery of Gravity. Based on your suppositions with Icons, are we to be compelled to believe that Gravity did not exist prior to Newton? There are other issues that you say which do not make sense to me, but for now, before everyone falls asleep due to the length of my epistle, I'll stop here.

[@timrichardson4018]

As a protestant who has learned a lot about Catholicism and still searching and listening, one of the best arguments for the authority of the Church in my mind is the fact that Jesus did not write a book, nor did he tell his disciples to write books. He gave them authority to preach the gospel, make disciples, and perform miracles. The documents of the new testament are products of that, products that were and are recognized as divinely inspired and inerrant in their teachings. But what is compelling to me is that apostolic authority came first, and it was by apostolic authority that Holy Scripture was identified.

[@kazager11]

@@timrichardson4018 You do have Peter referring to Paul's letters as scripture, so there is that. The question with scripture and whether something truly is scripture, it has to be determined to be "God breathed". The apocryphal books are excluded for no less than 2 reasons, known errors, which God would not "breath", and that they were written during a "silent period" where there was acknowledged to be no Prophets in Israel. How does God speak, through Prophets.

[@bluebear7061]

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, it is the Eucharist, the Eucharist, the Eucharist. That’s sets us apart.

[@dave1370]

That assumes that only you have the Eucharist though. That is part of the whole debate.

[@amandarobertson3772]

I could be off, but don’t orthodox and/or Lutherans have the eurcharist?

[@jnorm888]

He's using some of the talking points of a Protestant Restorationist. He's basically saying believe me over anything Saints Athanasius or John Chrysostom says about the issue. No thanks! I would rather believe them over this guy any day.

[@vivekapihl5179]

12 years ago I got absolutely mindblowing revelation of God through scripture. I still have special relationship with the scripture, though, I had already been introduced to God "in person", in prayer and liturgy. The Scripture revelation was like I finally heard the true voice of my love I had seen from far away. The Sacraments are hugging my love.

[@rsnowden]

2 Thessalians 2:14-15 "To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. "

[@NoeticInsight]

I'm a former Evangelical that left and joined the Orthodox Church via Holy Baptism. It was the single GREATEST decision I have ever made and I can never look back. I can't even begin to express the grace and joy and hope you receive when one finally enters the Orthodox Church and participates in all the rich services throughout the year. I had so many questions, so many doubts, so many discomforts as an Evangelical...now FINALLY I have peace and complete conviction and faith in my "religion". I have never had a stronger relationship with Jesus Christ, never have I loved God more than now as an Orthodox, never have I committed myself to God and following His way more than now as an Orthodox. The Orthodox Church has completely changed my life and transformed my soul in ways that are inexplicable. I urge all Evangelicals/Protestants to truly seek the Early Church with a sincere and open heart, and with complete humility ready to accept that almost everything you knew has been wrong/delusion. When you seek with a true humble heart, God WILL give you grace! He will help you and guide you to the truth of Orthodoxy. "A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise." - Psalm 50. This is what is needed to approach God and ask Him to help you to the Truth of Christ and His Church. A complete emptying of one's own desires and own understanding. I beg you brothers and sisters, be humble and look into the Early Church...God will comfort you and you will see the beauty and spiritual wealth of Orthodoxy.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@Robert-ie8eb Is this pope infallible, honestly?

[@Thomasfboyle]

His argument that “Scripture refers to earlier Scripture” does not deny that there were custodial authorities for canon tied in lineage-based communities to the people who God directly inspired. There is no Old Testament without Levites preserving the scrolls, today it’s not a birth-class of priests, but we still have lineage through apostolic succession.

[@nathanmelton827]

Oh man, that was painful to watch. ☦️ But… I surprisingly kept my peace and at least the hour wasn’t a total waste, as it reminded me what a joy and a treasure it is to have left the thirsty “land of shallow wells” and be Orthodox. Christ is Risen!!!

[@Bakarost]

Indeed He is Risen

[@darthbigred22]

1917-1991 was painful to watch as a Protestant luckily we had nukes and held off until the majority of the Orthodox could be free again. More than Rome ever did for you in centuries

[@richardbenitez1282]

Thanks. This really well said. My thoughts exactly but not as succinct.

[@Golfinthefamily]

how condescending.

[@nathanmelton827]

didn’t mean to be.

[@Jaseph2]

There is so much I could say, but I will just make a few observations. 1) The Church is hierarchical because Christ made it so. He chose 12 Apostles. Mathew says there’s no pristine church because already in the New Testament, heresies were sprouting up. He completely ignores how the early church addressed those problems. They were addressed by the Apostles, or in other words by the hierarchy of New Testament times. We see the first council of the Church in Acts 15 with the Council of Jerusalem. Obviously there needed to be authority to address the problem. To think that after the Apostles died there would be no more need for the authority to address future problems seems like a very naive view of things. No central authority invites the kind of chaos that exists in Protestantism. He also completely ignores the fact the Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Could it be that Nestorius or Arius or Pelagius were right? No because the Church is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. And in terms of history, we see consistency throughout history. The Church was always hierarchical and sacramental. The Church itself is a sacrament because it is the Body of Christ. Mathew several times talks about the simplicity of the Orthodox or Catholic view, but I found his view incredibly simplistic and illogical. For example, there were already heresies in the New Testament time so therefore there’s no true form of Christianity. I could go on, but I will just say that I appreciate Mathew’s zeal for the scripture and the truth, I found his arguments far from compelling.

[@philmattox8500]

As an Eastern Orthodox communicate who was raised and baptized a Southern Baptist, was Roman Catholic in college before I came to Orthodoxy I am very interested in seeing this episode. In my Parish of Saint Justin Martyr in Jacksonville Florida we are used to seeing catechumens who are either currently unchurched or Evangelicals. I enjoy talking to them about their journey in comparing it with mine. My advice to all that I have talked to is that they take their time to become confident that Orthodoxy is the expression of Christianity through which they can experience God's love most completely. Though, in my opinion, most Christian communities are fairly close when it comes to the essentials of faith. I am thinking about the Nicene Creed as a basic barometer. From my experience as a Southern Baptist and a Roman Catholic it expresses the fundamentals of our Christian faith. Looking forward to the episode which looks like it will come just after Pascha this year which is the Orthodox Easter.

[@kellyanna94]

I agree! It took me 10 years myself - it really is SUCH a huge change from Protestantism, and it's painful, but the second those blinders come off...it is like you can't imagine wanting anything else. I can drink and drink and the well will always be deeper still. My biggest stumbling block was constant internet misinformation from Protestants not really understanding what Orthodoxy is, and operating out of that limited and often incorrect perception. Thankfully found some resources from former Protestants (who are Orthodox) that were able to "speak my language" and the rest was history. Getting chrismated this Saturday on our Paschal Vigil. Thanks be to God!

[@nicemarmot3902]

Recently baptized and it has been an amazing journey.

[@Thomasfboyle]

What’s ironic is your Orthodox church is on a road named after my Catholic diocese, just saying we were here first :) All love though, I know the Orthodox community is expanding while ours contracts so I just hope we all meet each other on the other side

[@Thomasfboyle]

@Nestorian Calvin I literally cannot see any difference between our two traditions that makes any difference to me as a lay person. It’s moreso out of “when in Rome” that I’m a Catholic and not Orthodox, if I moved to western Russia or something I would have no qualms about participating in the Orthodox tradition.

[@Thomasfboyle]

Protestants: “we still have a tradition of scripture” Ignatius of Antioch: obey the one, catholic and apostolic Church because she is a gift from Christ Protestants: “No, NO, not THAT tradition from The people who actually wrote and spread the Scriptures before canon was even established. “

[@tylerhare]

While many Protestants often have a view of tradition that is too low, I think putting scripture above tradition is a fair hierarchy. Scripture could be inerrant while the people who wrote it were not perfect.

[@tylerhare]

So, the argument that the Catholic Church assembled the scriptures and should be inerrant as well isn’t a solid argument to me

[@pete3397]

Too bad Rome gave up following the one, catholic apostolic faith otherwise there wouldn't be Protestants. Moreover, is Tradition the Church or the teachings of Scripture? Because they are not the same thing. So which Tradition do you follow: that of Scripture, or that of men under the auspices of Rome?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@pete3397 I follow the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! Faith alone and Scripture alone, are man made traditions! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@consideringorthodoxy5495]

@@pete3397 I think it’s worth noting that Rome is not the only church with tradition and apostolic succession. So it’s not scripture versus “men under the auspices of Rome”. The Orthodox and Catholics both place Scripture as authoritative, but because scripture doesn’t just appear and compile itself, it’s clear that there are other parts of the church. This is the “hold fast to the traditions of the church” (teachings passed on) 2 Thessalonians 2:15. We don’t have to find a rubric of the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom or Gregory the Great in the Bible in order for it to be derived from scriptures.

[@truthbetold7444]

I approached this with interest and the expectation that I would get a sharp and challenging presentation. Instead there seems to be too many straw men being used. For example, in the conversation on Apostolic Succession he talks about bishops/elders and deacons, rightly so. But he missed the elephant in the room, the succession of the Apostles themselves! Also, that the Scriptures are "self authenticating" is the the most illogical claim I have ever heard. Also, the Scriptures do not teach Sola Scriptura.

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@vngelicath1580]

Evangelicalism and Protestantism shouldn't be confused. That has led to a whole host of issues in historic Protestants (especially liturgical/sacramental ones, but frankly any magisterial reformed) having to differentiate ourselves from pop-Evangelicalism when engaging Catholic/Orthodox interlocutors. Lutheranism for example has always insisted (in the Augsburg Confession) that "Baptism is necessary (though not absolutely) for salvation"... The concern that sacramentalism becomes problematic when the 'means of grace' are actually taken as _mediators_ of grace, is nullified when/if we realize that these means were instituted by Christ Himself (not invented by the Church) and that He binds Himself exclusively to these rites by giving no such promise elsewhere (sorry enthusiasts). Of course we should find Christ and our salvation through Him in our baptisms (administered by the church) -- that's what Scripture itself tells us. Lutherans put a firm wedge between ourselves and the kind of 'sacramentarianism' implicit in the language of: "sacraments are important but not salvation-impacting."

[@T-Cranmer]

Thank you for this response. Very helpful to this discussion. I was struck when he said his impression was that Lutherans and Anglicans would not consider the Sacraments as necessary for salvation. I am afraid that is just not accurate in any respect. In addition to your context on Lutheranism, the catechism used by the Anglican Church of North America refers to Eucharist and Baptism as generally necessary to salvation, instituted by Christ in Scripture as a means of grace. From my understanding, the speaker is coming from a more restorationist perspective which largely rejects tradition in favor of Scripture as the only means of authority. This is not reflective of the classical Protestants and large Protestant groups like Lutherans and Anglicans who understood tradition as an authority but one that cannot supersede Scripture. I think this is really a key distinction for the discussion of evangelicals looking to go to Rome. There are Protestant groups that still hold Protestant convictions of the primacy of Scripture while holding to the authority of tradition all while continuing in the faith once delivered to the saints. Rome and Orthodoxy aren’t the only ones who believe in and practice efficacious sacraments!

[@ChristopherWentling]

@@T-Cranmer the problem with discussion is: what Protestantism is he talking about. On almost any point of doctrine I could probably find a Protestant group that holds to it and others that don’t. It’s funny that many times all these groups will be accepted as brother Protestants and condemn the Catholics for the very same beliefs.

[@vngelicath1580]

@@ChristopherWentling "Protestant" has become a pointless catchall and it's a shame, because it used to have such a rich meaning. I think classical Reformation groups need to reclaim it

[@crobeastness]

evangelicals are protestants. they are low church protestants while the other earlier protestants are high church protestants.

[@krimbii]

Jesus is the King. Mary is the Queen. The Catholic Church is His kingdom.

[@1Hope4All]

Amen! Amen! 🙏🏽✝️❤️

[@davidreads2985]

I think the Church is an aspect of his kingdom, but the kingdom of God is much bigger.

[@krimbii]

@@davidreads2985 Other groups of Christians may love the King, but only if you belong to the Catholic Church are you fully under His jurisdiction.

[@marionopisso212]

@@krimbii "Other groups of Christians" ?? That is divisive talk. We are all God's children, He loves us all, and died for all reconciling all there is to Himself in Christ. You are still at the narrow tribal level of religion - us versus them, which sadly enough all religions preach, each one thinking that their group has the "real truth". That's the ego talking, with complete lack of humility to acknowledge that "His ways are not our ways" and that much of God remains a mystery. We humans need our boxes and labels, but God will have none of it.

[@krimbii]

@@marionopisso212 There are factually other groups of Christians. They're called denominations. I didn't create them, so don't accuse me of being divisive.

[@Yallquietendown]

So glad I left the Baptist for Greek Orthodox but I still have good memories from them and they raised me on the King James Bible and I’m ever thankful for that !!!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you can still appreciate your background while loving where you're currently at

[@ThruTheUnknown]

I think Matthew Ferris really summed the issue of contention with the quote from Cyprian, if you don't have the church as your mother you are an authority unto yourself

[@andrewselbyphotography]

So if the early church had no chance of getting it right even with direct teachings from the apostles, what hope do we have 2000 years removed and with only a few letters?

[@sheylamercado9801]

Excellent point

[@annmary6974]

Maybe one should stop believing in Christ too as he couldn't get it right with the 12 apostles...Judas was chosen by Christ himself!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I don't think he'd say they had "no chance"

[@andrewselbyphotography]

@@GospelSimplicity That's fair, it just seems he would disagree with a lot of the practices that we see in the early church

[@moiseybeliy5458]

What? Modern-day Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic dogma are littered with _major_ innovations that would have been entirely foreign to the apostles. To say that they had "no chance of getting it right" is to falsely assert that rejecting modern, innovated EO/RC doctrines is to reject the early church, who neither believed nor practiced a great number of central, _dogmatic_ traditions of men conjured up by handfuls of bishops over the centuries.

[@marlamay]

I'm a former Baptist preacher's daughter who converted to Orthodoxy 5 yrs ago at age 52. The Divine Liturgy that I experienced felt like the first time I had ever really been to church, even though I grew up in church.

[@Thomasfboyle]

“When Bishop Newman is going back through history” he is going with a direct lineage to Christ himself, hand to head to hand to head to now. Who better to know history than somebody integrally tied to the organization that has most widely and forever preserved Christ’s history? Not that age or numbers of a religion make it true, but consistency and community consensus do count for a lot.

[@Xenotypic]

This may sound like a barb, and I really don't mean it how it may come across, but Christ was often preaching against what was effectively "community consensus".

[@Thomasfboyle]

@@Xenotypic You’re all good. He was preaching against how they acted, not what they were teaching about the law. If we want to say many Catholics are immoral, hypocritical, devolving into a den of vipers…fair enough. But to say Catholics, who make up historically and presently most Christians, don’t posses the truth of Christ is another thing which has a much higher burden of proof. Not all popes are saints, not all of the apostles made it to heaven, but Christ still picked specifically those 12 men to be his Church’s community authority structure even though he knew he would be betrayed at times by them.

[@Xenotypic]

@@Thomasfboyle Yes they acted by forming an erroneus consensus and then continuing on in error. There were times when Christ pointed to the scripture in opposition to the rabbi's teaching which was heavily tradition based. Nah that's not really what I'm saying at all, I think rule by consensus opens up the door to fallible human nature, which is where you come along to say the Spirit guided the church and that could never happen, and then I say we'll just have to agree to disagree there. I'm not implying that Catholics aren't saved or anything like that, and never would, that's God's to issue to go through and not mine. I'm also not saying they're immoral, Catholicism indeed teaches morality and many practice. Really though Jesus knew who Judas would be from the start so he's not really an apostle like the other 11, who almost certainly made it. I wasn't going to go there with the pope scandals, although they certainly raise questions. I feel like it's low hanging fruit or a cheap shot or something when talking to Catholics at this point. Many people far smarter than me have dealt with that for hundreds of years.

[@prolifefilm8127]

Catholic dissenters are Protestant. The Church does not force anyone to believe. The Church gives firm guidance. Logic clearly asserts that it is NOT possible to dismiss the authority that God intended. Official teaching is clear. People don’t get “kicked out”. People choose to go another way - that is, to no longer be Catholic. It is a struggle to be a faithful Catholic but it is well worth the struggle.

[@jaidathompson7089]

These interview answers are one, big, gigantic, strawman. Even Austin seems to notice and calls it out in 48:00.

[@prolelog]

Ortlund did it better. This guy is still stuck in a very Protestant mentality and doesn’t seem to really understand.

[@actsapologist1991]

Alrighty... three things to address. First, the sources of truth: One of the points your guest makes is that antiquity should not be mistaken for veracity. There were scandals and errors even in the New Testament era. In saying this, he calls into question the value of tradition as a source of truth. He also makes the point (repeatedly) that the findings of councils should not be treated as evidence. With that in mind let's look at the Canon. He brings up the fact that the Church does not make the books inspired. This is true... but it is a (common) distraction from the real issue. The real question is: How do you know what the true canon is? One could appeal to the consensus of early Christians. But that would be an appeal to unanimity and antiquity.... which he already said is unreliable. One could appeal to Church councils, but he said we can't use that as evidence either. So what is left? It would seem the only option left is to say that the Canon is something which the Holy Spirit reveals to every individual Christian. But that is demonstrably untrue, because the Canon was still being debated three centuries into Christian history. After dismissing tradition and magesterium as valid sources of Christian data, and then speaking about the Canon, I get the image of Wiley Coyote having run off a cliff, standing mid-air upon nothing. The truth is, if you don't acknowledge Church authority, you cannot have the Canon as a firm, fixed list with clear boundaries. If you don't treat tradition as a source, you can't have the Bible at all. Now let's talk about unity. Austin, you bring up the problem of exegetical anarchy. He retorts that the Catholic world isn't any better off because there's so much dissention on the ground. This has a kernal of truth, but is likewise not the real issue. The real issue is what happens when you say that tradition and magisterium are no longer reliable authorites, and pit them against the authority of Scripture. What happens is you lose the ability for the Church to settle controversies over doctrine and teach authoritatively. The proof in the pudding is just to ask: What is the Protestant position on whether you can lose salvation, whether baptism saves, or whether women can be ordained. There is no answer, because Protestantism produced a church which cannot speak with one voice. He says that Protestants aren't guilty of "solo scriptura" because they learn to interpret the Bible in a community. This might be true.... but each Protestant gets to choose his community. So in the end, the higher interpretive authority is still oneself. Catholics are a confused and rebellious lot. But that doesn't mean we're no better off. We're better off because the Church can still settle controversies and teach with one voice. You guest notes that this authority clearly doesn't work, because of the disunity. However, this proves way too much. People rebel against the authority of God... does that mean God's authority is effete? The real question should be whether an authority is valid - not whether it is listened to. And from the Catholic point of view, we cannot choose our own community because only one has the historical pedigree of continuity back to the Apostles. Which brings us to the third point: Succession. I don't have the scholarly chops to sort out the mono-episcopate. However, I can note that he conflates two things. He says that the mono-episcopate isn't original to Christianity, therefore succession is a bust. That doesn't follow. The Biblical data still shows that authority flows from one man to the next by the laying on of hands. Even if these people rule as a group, they still derive their authority by apostolic succession. So simply disproving the mono-episcopate doesn't get you to the ecclesiology he wants. You still have to deal with succession. And I suppose that covers the major points.

[@JakobNHansen]

Excellent summary!

[@jamestrotter3162]

And the Spirit said to Phillip, " Go over and join this chariot." So Phillip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked," Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me? And he invited Phillip to come up and sit with him.-Acts 8:29-31.

[@Xenotypic]

To be fair, considering that it was the book of Isaiah, and the guy had not heard about Christ yet, I think that's a bit of a different situation than reading something like the gospels/New Testament, which clearly lay out the story.

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@Xenotypic My point is that, since this was during the beginning stages of the church, the Holy Spirit was already bestowing the gift of teaching to certain ones in the church, because He knew there would be a need to guide those into the truth who were coming into the church so that they could understand the Scriptures and grow in the faith. There is still a need for Holy Spirit gifted teachers of the word.

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

@@Xenotypic Peter himself says Paul is hard to understand. The perspicuity of Scripture is not something the Bible claims about itself. Quite the opposite.

[@Xenotypic]

@@Vaughndaleoulaw I'm not claiming ever single bit is understandable in a common sense way, I agree that one needs to look deeper than that for sure. but what I'm saying is a common sense interpretation of the basics, which is certainly possible.

[@jeremiahong248]

I am a bit puzzled by the using the word "Sacramemtalism" to represent Catholicsm / Orthodoxy. Don't many mainline Protestant denominations have a few sacraments as well (even if they don't have the entire 7?)

[@GospelSimplicity]

That's my very first question of the interview :)

[@tamilislam8815]

They have ex baptisem . For other sacriments like Euchrist the Priest need to be blessed through lay on hands by other appostalic succession bishop/Priest . So protestants dont have valid sacriments only Priest can perform

[@jotunman627]

@@tamilislam8815 Baptism is required to enter heaven....for others, baptism is not a prerequisite for heaven...The Sacrament of Reconciliation, reunites us with God when we do fall into sin. The bottom line is: the straight and narrow road that leads to heaven is not an easy road to begin with. But without the sacraments Christ has provided as a means for our sanctification, it is even more difficult. They have the obvious advantages for the overcoming of the “sin which can easily temp us”, which Catholics enjoy in the sacraments. A big difference....Without the divine grace from the sacraments it is almost impossible to survive the onslaught of Satan in today's secular world, we would easily fail like a raft in the face of a hurricane - I would understand the feeling of helplessness (the impossibility of holiness, but with God it is possible) of people who do not have a resource from the sacraments. Sr. Lucia: "If men only know what awaits them in eternity, they would do everything in their power to amend their lives"

[@Thomasfboyle]

The “separated brothers” versus “heretics” thing is discussing a change in time and context not a change in principle. Before to be a Protestant in Europe you had to decide to leave the Catholic Church. Now, most Protestants are born to Protestants or convert from other non-universal communities…that is to say they never left the Catholic Church, they just never really knew her so they are separated not being rebellious. Apparent contradiction, resolved.

[@bmide1110]

Except that there were generations of people over hundreds of years born Protestants before the church reversed its stance on them and stopped referring to them as heretics.

[@peaceandjoy2568]

I'm a Catholic and I'd like to say that the Sacraments do not make interaction with Our Lord difficult. On the contrary when we receive the Sacraments we are literally going directly to Jesus because it is Jesus Himself Who comes to us. Nowhere is this more true than in the Holy Eucharist. There is no mediation that comes between Christ and the person who receives the Eucharist. The priest is the one who officiates but it is Jesus Himself truly present Whom we receive on our tongue and into our hearts literally in the accidents of Bread and Wine in the most intimate union. Far from making Jesus difficult to reach the Sacraments were instituted by Our Lord in order that the baptized whether worthy or unworthy, literate or not, can all have direct access to Him. This is why the Eucharist is sometimes referred to as "Heaven on earth." In His mercy Our Lord instituted His Sacraments so that all who desire may approach and touch Him and be united with Him. When reading the Scriptures and in prayer we meet Jesus. But at times we are in spiritual dryness and we aren't sure if our prayer is efficacious when we cannot pray well or when the dark night of the soul make it difficult to read the Holy Scriptures. In the Eucharist we have the guarantee from Our Lord that He is truly present and unites with us everytime we receive the Eucharist even if we are in spiritual dryness or if we are tempted to doubt. All He requires of us is to repent of past sins and an act of the will to believe. If Christ is the omnipotent and merciful God ( and I believe He is) it makes sense that He would make a way to be with us and He would institute the Sacraments. He promised in the Gospels "I will be with you always even unto the end of the world." The Blessed Sacrament is His Real Presence on earth.

[@kansashoneybadger7899]

Protestatism defies definition. Perhaps you could rely on the "five solas" but Protestants are not necessarily consistent about those. Which Protestant group are we talking about? Moving from the UMC the "United" "Methodist" "Church" which is now torn in two, to Orthodoxy I realized what I was missing: (1) the pinnacle of the life of the spirit: the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (2) the absolutely necessary cleansing of the soul: confession to a successor of an Apostle (3) the value of the organzied church year with varying spiritual seasons (4) the supreme gift of fasting regularly (5) the celebration of all twelve of the Great Feasts of the Church (5) the teachings and example of monastic saints (6) the preservation of church history through remembering and honoring the lives of the saints.(7) and more and more and more. I have never heard a good Protestant explanation of John 20:23. How do you ignore Christ speaking directly to his Apostles and granting them the power to accept a confession? How? Serious and respectful question.

[@austinsarabia4726]

The Sacraments and Scripture are within Catholicism and walk hand-in-hand together…odd title card.

[@adjandbo]

Wow, great interview! I really appreciate it, as the reformed tradition in my experience, does not discuss these issues enough in- depth.

[@Thomasfboyle]

If you have no magisterium, why does it matter if you have a history of evidence? If nobody can declare definitively what’s true, why bother studying and commenting and debating the Scripture? I guess if somebody could help me understand why Protestantism doesn’t necessarily devolve into relativistic solipsism that would help me understand them.

[@helenkamenos8563]

By the way, Protestants have their own traditions based on their own favorites: Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli etc... The teachings of these teachers become the Protestant church fathers. Their teachings have become as revered as Holy Scripture. The only difference is that not all the 30,000 or so Protestant denominations agree with all of them.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

Individuals within all sorts of groups have particular beliefs and traditions, but that is not the same as the official stances on such things. None of those groups officially hold to the idea that their founders opinions are on par with scripture.

[@helenkamenos8563]

@@georgechristiansen6785 True, but the founders of the Orthodox church were Christ and the Apostles, so of course they are on par with the scriptures. In addition, the saints who came after the Apostles were their disciples. For example, St. Ignatius was one of the little children that sat on Christ's lap. He and St. Polycarp both followed St. John the Evangelist!

[@georgechristiansen6785]

@@helenkamenos8563 Suuure they were.

[@helenkamenos8563]

@@georgechristiansen6785 You of little faith! 😊 Research it. Seek and you shall find!

[@CatholicsForTrump]

@@helenkamenos8563 Correction: The founders of the Catholic Church were Christ and the apostles, the orthodox split from the Catholic Church!

[@Xenotypic]

Wow, it seems that this channel has pretty much a catholic/orthodox only audience now compared to the last time I was here. They are not taking this video well.

[@jambangoni]

Thanks for having him on

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@AmillennialMillenial]

I’ve been an evangelical (southern baptist) almost my whole life and I’ve largely decided to move to the Lutheran Church (LCMS). History is a big part of why, and I think confessional Lutheranism walks the correct balance of recognizing the weight of history, and letting it cut both ways. Both ways in that “historical accretions” (as Gavin Ortlund calls them) can be seen developing in the Catholic Church, but also that the sheer novelty of American evangelicalism can also be seen. I think the role of history in determining doctrine is basically that of determining the burden of proof. Certainly, just because something was done or believed does not mean it was correct. But if faithful Christians over the first 1000-1500 years speak in near unison on the sacraments, the overwhelming burden of proof is on the evangelical to show that the Ancient Church was in error. Otherwise the “remnant” mentality is strong, and indeed it is in the US. The danger of the remnant mentality can be seen with the development of the pseudo Christian churches such as Mormon and JW. I know this will upset almost everyone in the comment thread lol.

[@a.kamileon]

this is on point

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@Aish Kamil thank you

[@cyriljorge986]

Once I realized Protestantism is just men arguing with other men (result being a sick parody of Christian practice, multiplied by 50,000 denominations or whatnot), disconnected from the living tradition that has been followed since the Apostles, I realized I would never give Protestantism a moment's thought ever again. The Holy Spirit is bringing people to Orthodoxy from all over the world, teaching them about the true church, and helping them cast away sin and seek theosis. Miracles are abound, both the ones that dazzle and the ones that blend beautifully into the live God gave us. Santo Dios, Santo Poderoso, Santo Inmortal, ten piedad de nosotros.

[@deborah5763]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of division in Orthodoxy too.

[@Xenotypic]

I think you have a bit of a caricature of Protestantism in your mind. Also, the 50,000 is not accurate in real world practice, the amount of substantial denominations is far fewer than that.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

What type of protestant were you?

[@Xenotypic]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Baptist

[@cyriljorge986]

@@Xenotypic No, I don't have a caricature of Protestantism in my mind. Oh, but thanks for telling me that 50,000 is not accurate in real world practice. What number should I use?

[@thyikmnnnn]

12:30 This is false. The Anglican position is that Baptism and communion are 'generally necessary to salvation' . This is found in the catechism.

[@gwendolynnorton6329]

Oh dear! I haven’t commented in a very long time. I’ll have to echo other commenters in a couple of regards. Firstly, thank you for your podcast Austin! Also, echoing other commenters to this episode; I have to agree this one was, at times, extremely difficult to listen to. I just wanted to be in the same room with this guy so that I could have a conversation with him. He needs to understand, first of all, that people aren’t “mining” the church fathers. Reading them objectively, warts and all, will lead one to Catholicism. I found this particularly ironic because growing up evangelical “mining” is precisely what is done to the scriptures in evangelicalism. At eight years old, I had a Bible camp counselor tell me that at one point when faced with a cross road in her life and unsure of which direction to go she just opened the Bible randomly and began to read and based upon something she’d gleaned through this process she made her decision. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back moment for me. I’d heard such stories relayed over and over and over. I decided I wouldn’t read the Bible again because this seemed so incredibly wrong. I didn’t until I was 17 years old. We were going through yet another lecture series on the end times and I was dubious to say the least. I decided I’d read the book of revelation. I did that very afternoon. Admittedly at that point, I couldn’t make much sense of it; I did walk away believing however, that the author was, most certainly Catholic. I believed this because of the obvious reverence he had for Mary, and that he saw her role as extremely important in the lives of all Christians. Unfortunately my public school education didn’t teach reasoning skills or much history. ( it wasn’t me; I promise, I always got As in history) anyway, the point is; at that time, I couldn’t put together the ramifications of the author of revelation being a Catholic. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Historically speaking, Justin Martyr’s letter is huge in my mind. He was born before the death of the last apostle, he describes the mass so clearly that any 5 or 6 year old child who attends mass even semi regularly would instantly know what he is describing. On the other hand an evangelical child would have absolutely no idea. Also, he was very clear about the Eucharist being the literal body and blood. That is enormous to me. Certainly there have been church fathers who have done bad things and even believed error. Priests have sinned, popes have sinned, ALL have sinned and fallen short. That is the whole point. Yet, through all of that, while official teachings have been amplified and sometimes the way something is observed looks different outwardly, at the core, the essence of belief and practice of the Church has never changed. Jesus said it would not. Evangelicals have an incredibly difficult time dealing with sin. When a teacher or leader is in obvious sin it ALWAYS creates yet another fracture. Why, because they tend to believe that one “gets saved” and then they don’t sin, or at least not seriously. They have two categories of people; Christians and the unsaved in need of redemption. I cannot begin to count the number of times I’ve heard “so and so isn’t a REAL Christian”. This is said to indicate that the person once thought to be a Christian has done something so obviously sinful that it becomes clear they were never actually saved. It is impossible for Christians in these communities to feel that they can go to Jesus and receive redemption. We all sin, a cursory reading of the New Testament will show that the apostles sinned, sometimes a lot or very seriously. Scripture is good and necessary, but it does not put you into relationship with God. The sacraments of His church do. Who says so? Jesus, very clearly in the gospels. I’ll just end with this, I don’t have a relationship with my neighbor because I believe he exists, or because I see him get in his car and drive to work everyday or because we wave and say hello when we pass each other in the produce isle of the neighborhood market. If I want to have a relationship with my neighbor I have to get to know him. I’m not going to do that by ignoring what he says is important in having a relationship with him. Why would I ignore what Jesus says is important in having a relationship with Him; in other words the sacraments.

[@immaculateheart1267]

Wow. I liked what you wrote but didnt finish, too long. Maybe separate with paragraph breaks.

[@tomreichardt6044]

Protestant Christianity is kinda like Rabbinical Judaism and Sacramental Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox) is kinda like Temple Judaism. Rabbinical Judaism flowered most when or where temple worship was unavailable.

[@Thomasfboyle]

“Scripture itself is a self-authenticating authority.” No, sir. Hate to disagree, but you’re just wrong here and reading Scripture it would become more evident. Christ himself is the authentic authority for the Scriptures and the Church. Jesus is the Logos, the Word and the scriptures are but an inspired human murmur of the real Truth of God. This guy puts Scripture and God in the same category which is why most of the Christians in the world view Protestantism (loving) as a heresy. At least a well meaning heresy, and no disrespect to call out this falsehood, we all need Christ more than we need to win online arguments.

[@pete3397]

Scripture, being breathed out by God the Holy Spirit, does have authority in and of itself. It is in fact the chosen primary means God has given for humans to understand Him and His will. Therefore anything that attempts to move away from Scripture towards some sort of extra-biblical revelation end up being the actual heresies.

[@Thomasfboyle]

@@pete3397 So if I find a book that says “Inspired Scripture” on the cover then it is necessarily from God? I think the context of a religious community claiming to share in real presence with God is more important than words on a scroll, the first Christians were saved by God…not by papers that document God. Still today, Catholics and Orthodox meet God in the flesh, yes validating the beauty and truth of scripture but importantly seeing that meeting God’s own flesh is more important than other people’s stories about God.

[@andys3035]

@@pete3397 the canon took almost 600 years to finalize. What did the church have during that time? Tradition, which is the lifeblood of the church through the Holy Spirit.

[@jaim0368]

Please please please have Paul VanderKlay on. He's an amazing ecumenical Protestant!

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@JohnVianneyPatron]

Scripture itself is a product of tradition! "Self-authenticating Authority" seems to be a gentle synonym for "circular referencing argument".

[@moiseybeliy5458]

Read the writings of the early Christians. References to Scripture being authoritative itself, _over the authority of bishops, etc,_ is ubiquitous.

[@JohnVianneyPatron]

@@moiseybeliy5458 I'd love to. Could you name a Church father or a Doctor of the Church who believed that Scripture trumps the authority to the institutional Church, I'd be happy to read them. Please let me know which one wrote on this and which book, so I can read it myself.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

The title, at least, sets up a False Dichotomy, even within Confessions that are considered to be Protestant, like the 1580 Book of Concord. But, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say.

[@GospelSimplicity]

That's the very first question I pose in the interview. The thumbnail comes from the subtitle of his book

[@roddumlauf9241]

@@GospelSimplicity I'm glad that you asked him that, Austin. I look forward to seeing his answer. Because, the reason I left Protestantism is because-- the deeper I dove into Scripture the more Sacramental I became. Therefore, finally, I left the "Evangelical /Protestant" church and became a vowed Franciscan thru an Anglo-Catholic body. I'm agreeing with those who have commented regarding, your title, "Scripture vs. Sacramentalism " because it is very wrong . Sacramentalism is to be deep into Scripture.

[@pete3397]

​@@roddumlauf9241 The deeper I dove into Church history and the Fathers the more it confirmed that Lutheranism was the most correct expression of the Christian faith.

[@carlosojeda7257]

Hi Austin. I studied to be a priest with a Catholic congregation that was hit by scandal and abuse . My experience was amazing but I know of people ( Catholics and protestants alike) that really struggle believing in Jesus or the Church due to the sins of their leaders. I'd be amazing if you could interview a priest member of the congregation I was with, Legion of Christ, and get a take of the repercussions of scandals and their effects in the priests , and the people trying to get closer to Christ

[@GospelSimplicity]

That could be interesting!

[@matthewbroderick6287]

"Baptism now saves you "( 1 Peter 3:21). "UNLESS YOU EAT OF THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU ", ( John 6:53-55). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@a.kamileon]

what about Baptism of the Holy Spirit which scripture says is distinct from water baptism?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@a.kamileon actually, Jesus Christ teaches one is born again of BOTH water and Spirit, ( John 3:5). "Arise and wash away your sins, be baptized ", ( Acts 22:16), "as baptism now saves you", ( Peter 3:21). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Golfinthefamily]

Still think the pope is infallible?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@Golfinthefamily You don't believe God can speak His infallible Truth through sinners? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@matthewbroderick6287 You didn't answer my question. I know... you can't honestly.

[@gregw8976]

Really enjoyed this discussion. As a Protestant which partakes in the sacraments, I really enjoyed listening to the Evangelical perspective. I found myself agreeing with much of what he was saying.

[@helenkamenos8563]

I think you will find it interesting that Jaroslav Pelikan converted to Orthodoxy in 1989, after his book on the "Christian Tradition." I guess he changed his mind on the value of the writings of the church fathers. After all, the writings of the church fathers are accepted because they agree with scripture and church tradition. We are all children which must be taught by men of God and the Holy Spirit. See Acts 8:26-40, especially Acts 8:30-31 "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaiah, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?" Acts 8:31 "And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."

[@GospelSimplicity]

I love Pelikan's work

[@MrJMB122]

@@GospelSimplicity Oh my God hes such a great read!

[@diegobarragan4904]

Very weird title

[@GospelSimplicity]

It comes from his book

[@roddumlauf9241]

@@GospelSimplicity Is it a very weird book ?

[@dakotastrasinger1]

I can't WAIT until this video comes out

[@AmillennialMillenial]

What about sacramental Protestant traditions, such as Lutheran?

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@cmac369]

He's taking the Bereans out of context- They didn't doubt the authority of the apostles they simply searched to see if whether the Apostle Paul was telling the truth. Once they came to the conclusion he was telling the truth they accepted the gospel. It doesn't say anything about the Bereans not believing in apostles' authority. Once you realize there's a true church with authority you need not consult the scripture but only obey.

[@jambangoni]

Good nuance I didn’t catch

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@DanielMartin-om1qp]

I think a lot of Reformed Christians impacted by George Lindbeck's work (Stanley Hauerwas' as well) might note that all knowledge is mediated. We are communicate via words either written or spoken or through expressions/art/... etc. If humans receive insight through mediated communication, I think it is fair to say humans are the sorts of beings that require mediated communication. That is not a limitation on God but just an observation about the sort of creatures humans are. The big question to me is not that grace is mediated to humans, but I think the question is are there people/institutions that have a say in when and how grace is mediated. I think all branches of Christianity could benefit in engaging in an exploration of how grace is mediated. For the record, I am Roman Catholic. I studied with many Reformed Christians who were impacted by the linguistic turn.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Now we're getting to some things that I would love to talk about, but alas, probably over a good cup of black coffee rather than on the channel as it is a bit in the weeds.

[@alpha4IV]

I’m half way through and this wasn’t helpful, some of these statements are easily torn apart by atheists, let alone by believing Catholics or Orthodox in good standing. Cherry picking history, and using counter narratives don’t change the facts on the ground. For example, he over generalizes to make a point, he says that consensus doesn’t work because we can find a church father(s) who disagree with this or that statement. BUT. Consensus does not imply unanimity, and most secular scholars would argue that absolute uniformity would imply forgery or falsehood. To use bret wienstien’s line, orthodoxy and its definitions come from the genetic evolution of faith, our (Christians) pronouncing of heresies and anathemas are the Church’s Body’s natural immune system working and to work it must first have a foreign body, heterodox infection to form against. For this gentleman’s theory to work, the way he presents it in the 1st 30 minutes of this vid, the bible would have have to have always existed in some tangible (consumable) form. But then what of those who wrote the writings he is referencing. If you remove the Catholic argument, you still have the same problem. Were the people who wrote the new testament not Christan just because they wrote before the Bible and its individual text existed. And what about the Christians who lived and worshiped in the period between Jesus’s death and the writing of the 1st epistle, or more difficult if we go with the secular academic dating of gospels, you’d have no real Christians for 100 years, if the cannon must be completed and close maybe longer depending on how you date revelation. This seems anti-historical not simply anti-sacramental or anti-liturgical to me.

[@emsdiy6857]

Praise God thank you so much Austin for this video it was a prayer answered

[@thunderousooner527]

Gospel simplicity i would like to see Trent Horn or a catholic apologist vs Ray comfort on your stream for a debate.

[@sheylamercado9801]

Me too. That would be awesome to watch

[@mrmcface713]

Yesssss

[@jeandoten1510]

I am listening to the description of sacramentalism as I write this, and this guest is making a point that the sacraments of the church are an intermediate step between God and man, essentially a "barrier" between faith and grace (I paraphrase--he did not in fact use those words, although he did use the world "barrier.") I have heard this argument many times from Protestants both personally and in my reading, and unfortunately I have also come across pious writings and homilies from Catholic authors, priests, theologians, and laypeople who speak in a similar way about the sacraments. Sometimes the speakers are merely being imprecise, but sometimes, alas, there seems to be a true misrepresentation--by Catholic voices--of Catholic teaching on the sacraments. Part of the problem is that Catholic teachings on most of the important aspects of faith do not lend themselves well to sound bites or simple declarative sentences. But I will try this to explain where Mr. Ferris has erred. (pardon my use of screamers for emphasis) From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 1131, (a summary of the first part of the chapter on the sacraments): "The sacraments are efficatious SIGNS of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us." Let's look at this because it seems contradictory--sacraments are both "signs of grace" and the means through which "divine life is dispensed to us." But in the Catholic church both can be true, because the Catholic teaching does NOT, as Mr. Ferris states, require partaking in the sacraments in order to receive grace, rather that the sacraments are in fact the ORDINARY source and sign of grace. In Paragraph 1130 the Catechism refers to Thomas Aquinas's summary "Therefore a sacrament is a SIGN that commemorates what precedes it--Christ's passion; demonstrates what is accomplished in us through Christ's Passion--grace . . . " God does not require the sacraments to impart grace into our souls! Rather Christ, whose passion is the source of all grace to His church on earth, instituted the sacraments for the church as a physical sign of a spiritual action, because we are, here on earth, physical as well as spiritual beings. Every single sacrament i.e. sign of grace, involves physical "matter" that interacts with our human physical bodies. (water, bread, oil, our bodies) However--The Catholic church recognizes that sacramental grace is available to those who ask for it in good faith without participating in the rituals of the Church. Any good catechist and/or confessor will tell you about the baptism of desire, spiritual communion, and perfect contrition, all of which are valid without any ritual, priest, or physical action. And, BTW, the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church is performed by the husband and wife--the priest merely provides a blessing. The reason for an official "church" wedding is to have a formal record, important for both legal and spiritual reasons. Sorry for the length folks, but I felt the need to clarify.

[@menotworking]

@9:30 - 2 mistakes already. The Church doesn't define the sacraments, the Church received the sacraments from Jesus. Also, while certain sacraments, especially baptism, are normally required for salvation, the Church admits exceptions to this requirement..

[@lmkdr777]

This is really painful to watch the more I watch the worst it gets😳

[@sheylamercado9801]

I agree. I couldn’t watch it all, I kept cringing

[@RoyCarter]

Leave quick, time's running out. Mother Church is the only safe haven, but you still gotta keep your eyes open

[@saravanorden8847]

But I appreciate the nice interaction in the interview, very well done.

[@TheCatholicSamurai]

Peter himself apostatized, that is not an argument against Catholicism that withstands any criticism: just like every single other critique of the True Church!

[@Hadrianus01]

I'm 5 minutes in, and already struggling to find this guy (Ferris) worth listening to....................Help me God to power through!

[@meusisto]

Still struggling after 2 weeks?

[@Jim-Mc]

My struggle as a primitive congregationalist is if the practices of the 2nd or 3rd century church are not prescriptive, as he says, then couldn't an argument be made that the church failed outright? The idea of mass apostasy is very problematic and I've never heard it properly addressed by those that affirm it.

[@anthonymiller4175]

no, he answers that toward the end. The church is made of those who believe the gospel. Ecclesiological problems does not equal apostasy

[@anthonymiller4175]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6eTaaWwmtydkLs

[@Jordan-1999]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but surely there is nothing to consider. I mean Protestantism is false, I left Protestantism and I would never go back. Why would you try and convince people to stay in a false church/churches?

[@1Hope4All]

Exactly! 🎯 I love Austin but he's only confusing himself and other Protestants looking into the Catholic Church. Pray for Austin and all who will watch this video. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@ilovechrist914]

Except they should come orthodox. Not catholic added way to many man made things to there religion

[@Jordan-1999]

@@1Hope4All Dont get me wrong, when I was a Protestant I could never fault anyone personally, everybody was nice; it reminded me of a video I watched recently, where the guy was saying, yeah a lot of Protestants are nice people, but you could say the same for muslims or Jews etc.. I guarantee a Protestant wouldn't consider their views on God valid or true. If I'm going to be completely honest, most if not all Protestants mean well, but meaning to do well isn't going to help anyone if what you're preaching is false teachings/doctrines, with little to no valid sacraments.

[@WilliamMoses355]

"I guarantee a Protestant wouldn't consider their beliefs on God valid or true." That's not how beliefs work! Speaking as a Protestant recently considering converting, I was quite confident for several decades that my beliefs were, while probably wrong at some unknown and minor points, adequate and probably closer than any alternative. Regarding comparing Protestants to Muslims and Jews, I would suggest that being in the church that Jesus founded doesn't seem to have done any salvific favors for Ananias and Sapphira. Maybe we should leave judging our neighbors up to God?

[@Jordan-1999]

@@WilliamMoses355 I don't believe you understood me properly. My simple point is being friendly isn't enough nor does it equal to truth. I don't see Protestants as true believers in God even though most of them are friendly people, likewise a Protestant would say the same regarding that of the Muslims and Jews for their rejection of Christ as God in the flesh and Saviour of man, despite many themselves being friendly. This wasn't meant to be a point of deep thought but a simple point. Furthermore my friend, just because you are apart of the Church that Christ founded doesn't mean you are saved necessarily, if you commit grave sin like Ananias and Sapphria had done, as they lied to the Holy Spirit and they paid the price of death. If we are not willing to put to death the passions of our flesh, then we are not worthy to follow Christ, and He will not grant to us His mercy and grace; salvation will be lost to us and forevermore if we do not repent before passing from this life to the next. I will not judge unjustly, I will speak the truth and if someone doesn't like the truth that's fine.. my heart is unchanging, always onwards looking towards God. Be well my friend.

[@briandillon8041]

Sacramentalism? Really? The title is derogatory. Perhaps we can do a similar video called Heretic versus the Church. Thinking about leaving the Chuy church? Watch this first.

[@Thomasfboyle]

The Church is absolutely the conduit of salvation because the people of the church are the bride of Christ. Yes, we are together as church /because/ we are saved, but importantly when defining casaulity…nobody is saved without the church unless Christ knocks you off your horse personally like Saul which is not an ordinary means of salvation, much more ordinary is evangelization of the Spirit through previous members of the Church. Maybe we’re getting semantic. But Christ says “Go, baptize!” Obviously it’s God that is doing the saving, but his Church is doing the baptizing…nobody’s baptized into salvation without a church and receiving the Gospels from people who already met God. Christ chose to come from Mary, but remember Mary also had to choose to allow Christ into humanity. Mary is the conduit for incarnation, and that by no means degrades the power of God.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

When talking about Sola scriptura he says we have no other source of truth.... except the church is the pillar and foundation of truth by the help of the Holy Spirit and Christ's promise that the gates of hades shall not prevail against her. So we would say the ideas and doctrines that survived only did so by the help of the Holy Spirit, and our councils, modeled after the council of Jerusalem, are led by the Holy Spirit to lead us in all things to truth. He mentions later the Hebrew people received the OT texts and passed those along, but then goes on to say we don't need an organization to tell us what truth is. We need an organization to receive the NT faith and texts and pass those along since the church is more than one people group now. The church takes over the role the jews previously had of taking things from God and preserving them for future generations. You can't have that without an organization that will continue on like a unified people group with their descendents or a church with structure and succesion

[@jeremiahong248]

It is true that old doesn't mean right. However, it tells you what the orginator really said and if subsequent interpretations adhere to the originator's meaning and intent.

[@richardbenitez1282]

This guy is ignorant of god’s deep love for his human creatures. God so loved that he gave his only son. To whom? To humans. The people of god is Jesus Christ on earth. Christ loves deeply to live within and among his human creatures. This guy writes this off as just an institutional body somehow opposed to free Christian’s. That Christ is his Christian’s is a gift of love. God’s son took on a human body and redeemed sinners for the purpose of living in and among all of us. Thank God, Catholics and orthodox understand this about as much as humans can.

[@Jordan-1999]

Hello Austin, would you be willing to interview Seraphim Hamilton, Brother Augustine, Fr. Deacon Ananias and David Patrick Harry, if their up for it?

[@GospelSimplicity]

I've heard of all of them but the last gentleman. I haven't watched any of their stuff though so I can't really say one way or the other right now

[@Jordan-1999]

@@GospelSimplicity That's ok. The last guy's channel is called, Church of the Eternal Logos. Seraphim Hamilton is around the same age as us give or take a couple of years, really knowledgable on the Holy Scriptures. Also do you plan on visiting any Orthodox Monasteries with the intention of interviewing a Monastic if possible. e.g. Greek, Russian or Antiochian?

[@taswuf1]

Some off the cuff remarks from a Protestant who became Orthodox after living in the Middle East: The historical nature of the OC is important, but it is far from the deciding factor. Tradition is a living thing that connects us with Christians of all times. Protestantism seems more like an ideology than a lifestyle. The "heroes" of Protestantism seem to be more often theologians than saints. Orthodoxy has a more contemplative approach and learns a lot from its saints. There is a physical nature in OC sacraments prayer, feasts and fasts. (perhaps the physicality isin historical defense from Gnosticism.) Orthodoxy's calendar makes the seasons virtual teaching elements as various annual events reflect different aspects of the faith and each year the contemplation grows more rich than the last. Orthodoxy is far less individualistic and emphasizes community, although I wish it had some of the Protestant taste for activism. Protestantism seems to be a movement that seeks simplification ( what must I do to be saved?) and eliminates a lot from liturgy and practice, drawing a false distinction between "works" and "devotion." Salvation is almost transactional. Once you "accept Christ," there isn't really much else, except maybe to encourage others to do so (as we all should) but there is little offered for discipleship or spiritual growth. This leads some to seek "novelty" as expressed in "entertaining" liturgies. Protestantism also has virtually eliminated contemplation, most obviously by abolishing contemplative orders. Although the "priesthood of all belivers" has a nice ring to it, it too often leads to the priesthood of none and the secularization/desacrilization of the faith.

[@gwendolynnorton6329]

Well, there is certainly more than one type of Protestant to be fair; but speaking of the evangelical variety it is not almost; as you stated; but entirely transactional. Ironically that makes it somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to have a relationship. I say ironically, because relationship is their big selling point. It also, as I pointed out in my post, makes sin amongst believers an enormous problem. They take go and sin no more to mean that a “real” Christian never sins. Then what do you do when someone obviously has? My experience is that they claim much of what is sinful, is in fact not sinful, they ignore a great deal of sin, and if it simply cannot be ignored or denied then the attack the offender as being an imposter in their midst. In other words never having really been Christian in the first place only pretending for some usually unknown but always nefarious reason. What sort of relationship is that supposed to be? No hope, no redemption. As we celebrated divine mercy last Sunday I am once again reminded of how thankful I am for the sacrament of reconciliation.

[@inarticulus7687]

Pitting scripture against sacraments and coining a term sacramentalism. Genius. But i trust you austin to discern.

[@GospelSimplicity]

It's the subtitle of his book. My first question is about the dichotomy

[@Featherfinder]

The witness of the Lord’s apostles and their students was handed down through tradition, and they certainly insisted on the sacraments instituted by the Lord, very much including the sacrament of Holy Communion, which is why early Christians were sometimes accused of practicing cannibalism. Why not engage with scholars such as Scott Hahn and David Anders (to name just two), who set out as Protestants to prove that Catholicism is untrue --only to learn in the process that Catholicism IS true?

[@augustinian2018]

This wasn’t as painful as I’d feared it would be after the intro, but it was quite consternating nonetheless. I would love to see a debate between Ferris and an Anglican or Lutheran on the sacraments and the place of the early church fathers in theology and biblical interpretation. I believe many of his distinctions were false dichotomies, like the distinction between the New Testament as evidence and the church fathers as verdict. Even if one grants his account of the emergence of the canon, unless one admits that the church fathers are a source of evidence about the New Testament church, one has no evidence for something as simple as the names of the four evangelists. Even if one grants the Lutheran scholar Martin Hengel’s argument that the Gospels were never transmitted anonymously (which I find likely given the absence of alternative attribution), one still must look to Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian fragment, etc for actual textual evidence on which to build such an argument (which Hengel, as a Lutheran, did). (Richard Bauckham, an Anglican, is also worth pointing to on the topic of the historical study of the Gospels and its relation to/use of the church fathers.)

[@AJ-me1dg]

The Orthodox church thinks highly of the sacrament of the Eucharist for good reason. Look at John chapter 6: "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.'"

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@suew4609]

It really bothers me when people, like this man, don’t understand the Catholic Church, but tell us how wrong we are in what we believe. It also bothers me when Protestants say that the whole truth is in the Bible, yet when they run into a text that they don’t like or don’t believe, they just twist what it says and say that isn’t what was meant. Scripture vs. Sacramentalism? I didn’t know that was a word, or is it? Are the Sacraments and Scripture against one another? I like both! What do you have against the SEVEN SACRAMENTS that were instituted by Our Lord? If Sacramentalism is the ability to have all of Christ’s sacraments to help you on your path to Heaven, (Baptism, The Eucharist, Reconciliation aka Confession, Confirmation, Holy Marriage, Holy Orders, and the Anointing of the Sick), then why wouldn’t you want them? The Catholic Church is still ruled by a group of bishops. Only the Pope (the Bishop of Rome), in union with all the Bishops of the Catholic Church can define doctrine. You’re showing your ignorance and prejudice of the Catholic Church. Scripture isn’t the final or only authority, Scripture itself says so. 1 Tim 3:15, “…the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of truth” It’s Christ’s Church which has the authority, not the Scriptures alone. In the New Testament when they say they searched the scriptures, they were searching the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The Church wrote the Bible, not the other way around. No other truth than scripture? Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine taught by Protestants in the 1500s. Maybe you should trace back the Protestant churches and the changes of belief that each taught, causing divisions in Christ’s church. and people making their own churches. Why are there so many churches teaching so many different ‘truths’? You can’t all be right! Jesus prayed that we would all be one. Where is that one Church? It’s the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It’s Catholic because it’s everywhere, in every country, teaching the same dogma. And, we are not “Roman” Catholics. We are Catholics using the Roman Rite for our liturgy. There are several other rites, including the Byzantine, Coptic, and Maronite. You say 43% of Catholics do not believe Eucharist is the real body and blood of Jesus. What does this tell us? Sadly, some Catholics don’t know their faith very well. I’m sure you’d find this in any church. Jesus himself told us that there would be both good and bad members of the church. “But, lest the impression be given that the church of Jesus is made up only of true disciples, the explanation of the parable of the weeds among the wheat (Mt 13:37-43), as well as the parable of the net thrown into the sea “which collects fish of every kind” (Mt 13:47-49), shows that it is composed of both the righteous and the wicked, and that separation between the two will be made only at the time of the final judgment. (Excerpt from online Bible commentary at usccb.org). Jesus also chose Judas to be an apostle, though he knew he would betray him. About the Eucharist, It says in John 6:51-68 ‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.’ I don’t think Jesus could have been any clearer, the Eucharist is His actual Body and Blood. Why would disciples turn away if it was just bread and wine? That would make no sense. They knew what he was saying and didn’t want to accept it. The dogma of the Eucharist was believed by every Christian until the reformation, when a bad monk, Martin Luther, thought he knew better than the Church. Were there abuses going on in the church at the time? Yes, there always will be, and that’s why we need a Magisterium, to show us the way. If we didn’t have this guaranteed authority we would end up like the protestants, with many churches all believing and teaching different things. This is chaos! As far as what the church teaches about Protestantism, what changed was time. We are 500 years since the splitting of the church. The wound has healed somewhat, though many Protestants, like this guy, continue to bash Christ’s Church. The Church still teaches that we are the one true church, founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world, but we now recognize that other Christians have some of the truth, just not all of it. If you are saved, it is still through the Catholic Church, by the grace of God. You just aren’t aware of it! More on the “True”church. www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-do-we-know-its-the-true-church He says there were no priests in New Testament, no hierarchical church, and a group of leaders ruled the church. If it’s not in the New Testament do we have to believe it? Answer: We have a living church. Dogmas don’t change but more can be added. The church only defines a doctrine when there is a controversy and heretical ideas are being taught. It’s then that the church will define a doctrine and clear up an argument. If you don’t have an authority in your church what do you do when 2 or more of you disagree? How can you be sure you’ve come to the right answer? This is why I love the authority of Christ’s church. Jesus has guaranteed that he will be with his church until the end. I don’t have to worry if my church is right or wrong, I just have to follow it’s teachings and trust in God. What guaranty is better than that? Let’s not forget, the Bible claims that not everything Christ said is written. St. Paul encouraged his flock in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.“ John 21:25 says, “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” Do you think these things were not important enough for the Gospel writers to teach? They weren’t given a commission to write everything down. They were told the Holy Spirit would come and teach them all what they needed to know, then they were to spread this good news throughout the world. They didn’t hand out leaflets, the preached. The church began at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down upon the Apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit is still doing the same thing in his church, therefore we are to obey his Bishops. I have tried to explain these truths of the Catholic faith as best as I could, but if anyone has any questions or wants further proofs of what I said, I suggest these websites, www.Catholic.com, www.ewtn.com, and www.newadvent.org

[@immaculateheart1267]

Vat 2 has a lot to do with why some mainstream Amer Catholics today do not believe iin the real presence. Its a different story in the church outside of America. I think American Catholics are too influenced by American evangelucaliam. Even I got pulled away but came back home and am a traditional faithful Catholic today. Never leaving, never looking back, no regrets from my evangelical journey, but it was more of a gateway to me, back to the fullness of truth.

[@stevobear4647]

"Autonomy" My father has been a pastor my entire life. He told me of a leader that claimed the different doctrines of churches was the scaffolding leading to heaven. My thought was that it could also be the hedges that has separated the church in America and left it weaker with a debilitated voice.

[@Orthodoxi]

Brings this to mind; .... "from him who sees no wood for trees/ And yet is busie as the bees/ From him that's settled on his lees/ And speaketh not without his fees”. John Heywood 1546 The earnest beginnings of modern secular enlightenment.

[@Nonnobisdomine77]

Looking forward to seeing this video 🙏 my first thought when I read the thumbnail is well our Lord Jesus left the Sacraments before the sacred scriptures were put together by the Church and the sacred canon speaks of the Sacraments 🙏✝️ How do you have eternal life? Through water and the spirit 🙏✝️

[@David-gn7mx]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3-seGlpa7ihi5Y

[@hmkzosimaskrampis3185]

Judge a tree by its fruit, judge a church by its saints (throughout history, including recent-in fact, I would say focus on the recent to get a feel of the state of the church currently...)

[@seanmitchell8869]

We're going to need some more shorts based on the Office, since you're starting an "inside circle" like D'Angelo did.

[@artdanks4846]

"To be deeper in history is to cease to be Catholic or Orthodox"! REALLY??? ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Even the supposed "history" that he tries to drudge up to support this thought (i.e. history of iconography, history of hierarchical leadership, etc.) is totally incorrect! He has totally built a "straw horse argument"!

[@ChristopherWentling]

Jaroslav Pelikan must not have had much problems with the Fathers as he ended up leaving Protestantism and converting to Orthodox.

[@mattf.johnston2939]

My response as a prior Evangelical who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 2-3 years ago: (1) Ferris advocates a relationship with Jesus Christ, and that the institutional Church as such is unnecessary for this relationship with Christ. My response is that the Church and its dogmas provide the proper guideposts, parameters, and boundaries in order to have this proper and healthy relationship with Christ. Having a relationship with Jesus without being in communion with his Church is like having sex without being married. It is reckless, inappropriate, and harmful. The Church and its statements and lived dogmas through worship are entirely Christological. In other words, it introduces us to the actual Christ and not an imagined Christ or an idol that we make up in our own heads about who Christ is. Imagine having a relationship with someone you only have a vague idea about. Well, the Church brings greater definition to who Christ is so that it is a beginning point for our relationship in its proper context, and not some idolatry based on what we imagine Christ to be. Additionally, I would say that our relationship with Christ is both personal and communal. Protestantism has become so individualistic, that it all but denies the communal aspect of our relationship with Christ. It over-emphasizes the individualistic relationship, at the near total exclusion of the collective. Orthodoxy preserves this balance, and communal worship in the Church is properly “public”, while our personal prayer life, fasting rules, asceticism, and personal encounters are properly “private.” (2) Ferris wrongly identifies the rites, rituals, and sacraments of the church as a mediation between man and God. First of all, it is clear he has no idea what the difference between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is. I cannot speak for Catholicism, but in Orthodoxy, the rites and rituals are all pointers drawing us toward the subject of our worship - God. They do not serve as mediations, but as guides. Likewise, sacraments are not instruments of mediation. They are means of receiving God’s uncreated grace, which is to say, His uncreated energies - a concept that neither the Protestants or Catholics have in their respective theologies. This is anything but mediation! To the contrary, it is direct contact with the uncreated energies of God! (3) Ferris makes a distinction between the Church as “hierarchy” and the Church as “organism”. But he fails to acknowledge that the Eastern Orthodox Church believes first and foremost that the Church is in fact a living organism and calls it the “Theanthropic Body of Christ.” While there is institution, structure and hierarchy (skeleton), the Church is first and foremost an organism (body, flesh, blood, spirit, etc.). Again, this may not be the emphasis of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is of the Orthodox Church, and Ferris continues to conflate Catholicism with Orthodoxy, which is just naïve and ignorant, and it is really an unfortunate mischaracterization and disservice to truth. (4) Ferris disparages the idea that the Church is necessary for salvation. Well, if the Church is the body of Christ and Christ is salvation, what other conclusion should one draw? Moreover, Orthodoxy’s view of salvation is fundamentally about Theosis and union with Christ - not as a binary outcome of “going to heaven” “not going to heaven”. Thus, if “salvation” refers to the progression of transfiguring into the likeness of Christ, we need a procedure or process to get us to this goal - and this is the Church, its dogmas, and its disciplines (life in the Church). Ferris fails to acknowledge that Orthodoxy’s understanding of salvation is quite different than the West’s conception of salvation. Thus, he fails to distinguish the West’s definition with the East’s definition of “salvation”, and once again, conflates Orthodoxy with Catholicism. Because Ferris remains in his Protestant schema, he interprets “salvation” with the Protestant meaning, rather than acknowledge that, based on Orthodoxy’s meaning of “salvation” one can then properly understand the statement that the Church is required for salvation. (5) “Older doesn’t mean true and doctrinally accurate.” This is not a great way of looking at the issue of historicity. What is true is what Christ taught, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. As long as this lineage is consistent, then yes, older is true because its source is Jesus Christ himself. How we approach the Fathers is very different depending on our religious Tradition. Because Ferris is a Protestant, it is easy to point out the variety of different views among the Fathers, or even some contradictions. Catholics make use of the Fathers, but ultimately look to the Pope for the final say. Orthodoxy bases itself in a living tradition called “Holy Tradition”, so we rely neither on scholasticism/rationalism (as the Protestants do) nor clericalism (as the Roman Catholics do). Rather, there is a formational development (i.e. phronema or ethos) that is cultivated through life in the Church, and through this, we understand the Fathers in light of Patristic Consensus. Again, something that Ferris does not discuss at all because of his lack of knowledge of Orthodoxy, and because he conflates Orthodoxy with Catholicism yet again. (6) Ferris refers to the errors of having a singular Bishop. Again, this is a Roman Catholic thing. He conflates Orthodox with Roman Catholics. The Orthodox Church does not have a singular Bishop. Ferris claims that all 3 branches rely on self-authenticating authority. This is interesting, because by doing so, he does not legitimize or give credibility to Protestantism. The only thing he says is, oh well, we all self-authenticate. Not only isn’t this true in Orthodoxy, as once again, Scripture, Canon, Ecumenical Councils, Liturgy, etc. are all organic tradition passed down, based on consensus and the conciliar model, etc., but this doesn’t help his position of advocating for Protestantism at all. His argument here puts all 3-branches on equal ground. (7) Ferris advocates for Protestant scholasticism, but doesn’t even acknowledge that this is precisely the Orthodox critique of Western theology, both Catholicism and Protestantism. Ferris advocates the very thing Orthodoxy intentionally avoids because it devolves into rationalism which distorts and corrupts the purity of Holy Tradition passed down. (8) Ferris says there were no Bishops in the earliest time of the Church, and that this is a later innovation. If this is the case, why is Apostle Peter the first Bishop of Antioch and then of Rome? Apostle James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Irenaeus of Lyon was Bishop of Lyon, France, whose predecessor was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, whose predecessor was Apostle John. It is utterly foolish to say that the Episcopate was a later innovation, or that Presbyter and Episcopate were indistinguishable offices. This is just historically non-factual. (9) Ferris claims that Protestants can claim to be part of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” Church, yet he superimposes what each of these terms means. It’s like a 21st century academic redefining what a “man” and “woman” are. If we work within the context and definition as it was developed at the Council of Nicaea, we very clearly see that Ferris is making up new definitions and meanings from what the originators intended. Let us see what the Council of Nicaea means when it says that the Church is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”, not some 21st century scholar. (10) Ferris tries to point out the contradictions between what the institutional hierarchical Roman Catholic Church says, versus what it's laypeople believe. Again - no mention of the Orthodox Church... oh well. Well, this is very simple: The Church is the teacher, the lay people are the students. Not every student is going to believe everything the teacher believes. But, if they are serious about the Church as teacher, nurturer and master, then what the laypeople believe will eventually come into alignment with what the Church teaches. The Orthodox Church has a 2,000 y/o institutional memory with Holy Tradition and experience as its guide. If a person lives to 90-years-old, they are still never going to learn all the wisdom of the Church over their entire lifetime. Thus, this is a weak argument to say that the institutional Church lacks unity. What the 2,000 y/o Church TEACHES, and what a 40 or 50 y/o individual BELIEVES, is not an indication of contradiction. It means that individual lay people (and clergy) have a lot to learn, and will never learn everything there is to learn. The body of Christ is an endless wellspring of eternal life. I appreciate Ferris coming on the show. But I don’t know if it’s his lack of familiarity with Orthodoxy, or his prejudice against it that has led him to such erroneous conclusions and mischaracterizations. Hopefully, people will not fall for this, and do their own inquiry if they are interested in the Orthodox Church. This was an absolutely botched mess. It was painful for me to listen to, but I put it on 2x speed so I could at least respond to this video in an honest and thorough manner. God bless everyone! ☦️ The future is Orthodoxy, and we need to return to the Holy Tradition that Christ has given the world, not to Sola Scriptura which has created the mess that we are in to begin with. Scripture is wonderful, but we need the Church's wisdom and understanding to interpret it correctly - the way that God intended. May we all have the humility of the Ethiopian found in Acts 8:30-31. We need the Church as our teacher! We cannot interpret the mysteries of Holy Scripture on our own. ☦️

[@feeble_stirrings]

The point about history being descriptive vs. prescriptive is a fair point. But it makes one wonder, considering how dramatically different modern day Evangelicalism is from what the Church believed and looked like in it's early year, just how radically can things change and still be called the "church" or "Christianity"?