The Best New Book on Protestantism (with Matthew Barrett)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video I interview Dr. Matthew Barrett about his new book, The Reformation as Renewal, and why Protestantism is better positioned for catholicity than the alternatives.
Dr. Barrett's book: www.amazon.com/Reformation-Re...
Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: www.amazon.com/Creeds-Confess...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 - Introduction
04:25 - About the Book
06:08 - What Was the Reformation?
10:23 - What is Catholicity?
16:09 - Did Protestantism Cause Secularization?
31:58 - Evangelical Appropriation of Aquinas
39:10 - Luther's Concerns About the Mass
43:50 - The Mechanism of Real Presence
46:21 - Did Luther Go Too Far?
51:40 - Are Protestants Too Divisive?
56:05 - Assurance of Salvation
1:01:09 - Learning More About Protestantism
I’m a simple man; I see a Gavin Ortlund video, I click.
Same. But I do better because I like the vid too
@@rej4166 I am the opposite click on video watch 5min of Gavin hand waving, get a headache/bored, Clicked thumbs down because the Reformation is NOT about reforming the Catholic Church to stranger teachings that of Lutheran/Calvinism LOL.
Anabaptist all the way, my head would have been chopped off because I would exposed CALVINISM as the DIGHTER of the Whore of Babylon CATHOLICISM.
The Reformers were NOT Calvinist, Only a handful of a few man taught this garbage during the Reformation.
Amen
I feel like watching my favorite avengers together 🤩😆 Thank you both for your work for the catholic faith!
This layman may have to listen to this several times to catch everything but it is well worth the effort. What a rich treasure trove of important information! Well done!
Thank you for this !
Awesome video! Please bring on Lane Tipton from Reformed Forum! Two of you could make for some wonderful dialogue regarding apologetics and theology.
Dr Ortland your lighting and camera settings look fantastic
You're doing the job of our faith well. Thanks Happy Resurrection.
I just saw this book and wanted to see if you had featured it on your channel! I am so excited for this interview, and will be purchasing this book
This renewal of retrieving the reformation ethos is great to witness. I’m starting a historical theology study in the spring of 2024.. so I’ll have both your book and Barrett’s to work with - so thankful! Nice work
Luther was the man when it came to the "reformation". I wonder if you ever read what he says about Mary. He calls her the Mother of God and believed in her perpetual virginity.
@@elvisisacs3955 exactly. It's why Jesus set up a Church.
@@Momof15plus amen he did, I joyfully go to one that isn’t RCC
@@Momof15plus I’m so confused though, what does that have to do with it being held as infallible, confessional dogma of the church and held on pains of anathema? If anything, that just doubly proves I could believe those truths and remain Protestant.
That's good, man! Just don't forget to read the primary literature on the church fathers. Secondary literature tends to hid some important things
I just got the book in the mail! Quite a hefty work! I wish I had the 200+ pages that he cut out! 😆
Another excellent video! But curious to know what should be said of the many early Anabaptist thinkers who appear to promote their reforms as a revival of the Church?
Especially given the prevalence of many Anabaptist points, namely believer’s baptism, in modern evangelical contexts.
(Writing this as a proud anabaptist who would love to hear more about how my tradition fits in to the reformation and scholarship)
What do you think of menno simmons denial of christ taking flesh from mary? Also pascifism isnt a very historical christian doctrine either
Ah, two of my favorite theologians combine!
Regarding the section on assurance: I think Phillip Cary has written a very good essay titled "Sola Fide: Luther and Calvin" in which he demonstrates that the assurance in Luther's theology depends to the greatest degree upon the external work of Christ, both in His propitious death and resurrection, but also through Holy Baptism, whereas (according to Cary's assertion) Reformed theology tended toward assurance by belief in the strength of one's belief, which ends up breeding anxiousness, rather than assurance.
In part, Cary (himself an Anglican) writes: "When the rubber hits the road, however, and it is a question of how we stand before God, Luther typically thinks of a different set of scriptural promises than Calvin does, a set of distinctively *sacramental promises*, which have a different logic from the kind of promises Calvin and most other Protestants think about when they speak of the promises of the gospel."
The broader protestant syllogism, he says, is as follows:
Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ is saved.
Minor Premise: I believe in Christ.
Conclusion: I am saved.
The problem, of course, when one wrestles with assurance is the matter in the major premise; i.e., whether or not I believe. Cary says this results in an emphasis on the belief in the strength of my belief. He represents Luther with this syllogism:
Major premise: Christ told me, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Minor premise: Christ never lies but only tells the truth.
Conclusion: I am baptized (that is, I have new life in Christ).
This syllogism, Cary contends, avoids the loop of believing that I believe, which cannot finally bring assurance. Rather, the assurance rests upon Christ's continued work and the promise of His Word. I recommend this article highly, as it demonstrates that while, in limited ways, there is agreement among the Reformers of the 16th c., there are also very many disagreements that are consequential to Christian faith and life.
Respectfully, I continue to think that the strands of the Reformation diverge to too great a degree to merge them under the heading of "Protestantism." As another example, in 1528, Luther, in the Large Catechism, rebuffs the charge that he rejects Sola Fide because, as some of his interlocutors thought and asserted, Lutheran sacramental theology conflicted/s with Sola Fide.
I enjoyed the interview and, if wallet allows, I will buy the book, but Krauthian in my assessment of the Reformation (See The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology).
God's peace.
Are you familiar with the Baptist apologist Thomas Cooper (1805-1892)? I found his book "The Bridge of History Over the Gulf of Time" to be fascinating.
Is that an “icon” of Aquinas I spy in the background? 😏
This sounds like a must-have book.
Added it to my wishlist, and will be getting it on my next purchases.
Protestantism leads to atheism
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 only if you take an epistemological view that the Church is the only way to truth, which is clearly circular and begging the question.
@@natebozeman4510 No because Jesus Christ established a church so take it up with God then
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 and Protestants didn't leave the Church.
The Church refused to Reform their accretions that clearly weren't in the apostolic deposit, so the Protestant movement is a movement within the church catholic.
@@natebozeman4510 1) which of these “accretions” where not apostolic deposit.
2) Protestantism was not a movement within the Roman Catholic church, that was the Jesuits.
3) the Age of Enlightenment thinkers got there ideas from Protestant thinkers and not catholic thinkers
Just curious, is the 1689 London Baptist Confession in this book by Crossway? Many thanks!
Yes, it is.
Make it an audiobook!
Seriously, I was just looking for this.
Given that Matthew talks about the nominalism of Ockham does he refer to Wycliffe's realist opposition to this at all? It's not as if Luther is the first to reject this position.
You guys should read some St John Fisher and St Francis De Sales and their critiques of reformationist thought.
When does your book on Protestantism come out?
August 2024
Gavin please talk about how all the early church was premillenialist
Well that wpuld be hard to do because its not even close to true
Cramner's Defense of the Sacrement, William Perkins A Reformed Catholic, and John Cosin's History of Papal Transubstantion are three defenses of a Reformed view of the Lord's Supper, two from the 16th century and one from the 17th century.
What I have never understood re antipathy among Protestants to Thomas is that before the Reformation we were all in the Roman Catholic Church and one of our collective teachers was Thomas. We do a huge disservice to the great minds/theologians by not grasping church history. The Roman Catholic Church is fundamental to Protestant Church. We weren’t declared anathema until Trent. Thank you for both of you for an excellent discussion.
This sounds fascinating, but is the book overly academic? For 1000 pages, it needs to be engaging, or I wouldn't be able to finish it.
"If we were to resurrect Luther, he would have have some fiery words for certain Evangelical understandings of the Lord's supper today." I would pay to watch Luther's reaction to the prepackaged single serving cracker and grape juice packets many churches use for communion!
I'm particularly interested in holding together thoughtful protestants like Barrett, Dolzal, and Sproul (Thomist Classical Doctrine of God) with Camden Bucey and Lane Tipton (Classical Reformed Doctrine of God) and then those like John Feinberg, John Frame, Scott Oliphint, James White, and Douglas Wilson, who are more open to a reformed classical doctrine of God.
The issues are sometimes formulated around simplicity (the identity of attributes thesis), but has roots in the basic issues of necessity and contingency in God's will. The major issue, which is unresolved from Augustine through Aquinas and Luther to now is how God can be necessary and timeless without the creation being eternal as well. This problem of implicit pantheism in the classical view of God is what is bothering these later listed theologians that are pushing for a way to hold onto the classical roots (that God is a se, and unchanging in his essential attributes) without ending up with God having to create out of necessity. The difficulty with the retrieval movement (which I am generally for, having been trained in the classics as well as law) is that the retrival is pressing for the classical views of the doctrine of God without really acknowledging the problems that get retrieved with it. It is often just insisted that the "simplicity" referenced in the confessions must be definied as Thomist simplicity (identity of attributes). Rarely is the problem of the contingency of creation raised in the context of God's strong simplicity and strict immutablity.
As these issues have the potential to create a real wedge between brothers, it would be good to get a basic handle on the reasons why those entertaining a reformation in the classical doctrine of God have qualms about the Thomist notions. It is not as simple as an allergy to Roman Catholicism. It has to do with the John Milbank’s and the David Bentley Hart's neo-plantonism which is pressed into service for universal salvation. It has to do with Schleiermacher's absolute and the panentheism that seems to flow regularly from the classical view. These are some of the issues that I see. I look forward to reading Barrett's book (as I enjoyed his None Greater book). But I do pray that we can hear eachother out on these issues for the better edification of all.
@John Hemmerich - Not sure how familiar you are with the East's teaching on the Essence-Energy distinction and their formulation of Divine Simplicity as compared to the West - but I've found it resolves the issues that Augustine, Aquinas, and the West in general have tried to grapple with, unsuccessfully in my opinion, and the example you give of eternal creation is a perfect case to show how the Essence-Energy doctrine clarifies the nature of God without holding on to such a contradiction or dictating and necessitating anything from God. I could attempt to explain the basics here but Dr. David Bradshaw has many interviews and lectures to check out on youtube that I would recommend before I butcher the concept and teaching.
@@mkmeix, thanks for the recommendation! I will check it out.
I have studied it some, but would like to learn more. As I understand it, the energy-essence distinction is used to step away from strict notions of cause. The idea is that God can give creatures power to act (energy), without necessarily determining the effects of the power bestowed. This is easiest to see in man’s free agency. God gave man power of will without necessitating all of man’s choices.
I think the purpose of the distinction in God is to relax the nemo dat rule, no one can give what they do not have.
In part this is to explain that, while God is the author of man’s existence and essence, man has a power of self corruption, the actuality of which is not authored by God but by man.
I think the idea is helpful for the notion of sin and causality. But I’m not sure it touches on the issue of the place of contingency in God’s will. Namely, whether God has freedom in his essence with respect to creating or not.
I think Jay Richard’s an Untamed God has an interesting proposal. He argues for a Devine essentialism, which denies nominalism or absolute volunteerism in God, and affirms God has an unchanging essence, but that part of that unchanging nature is a distinct power to create contingently. This power to create is held as part of God’s essence, but the actualization of choice in God is real, as part of God’s will. The will is limited by God’s intellect (which contains forms, if you will), but among these forms, there are multiple good possibilities (self-consistent worlds) that God could actualization. Thus, there is no imperfection in such a choice because God is perfectly good before his selection and after. Richard’s distinguishes his view from Barth’s actualism, which Richards thinks leans to much toward absolute volunteerism/dialectical nominalism (at least under the most common interpretation of Barth, e.g. McCormack).
I wonder if one could use the classic arguments for God to reach the core of his essential being, but the problem comes with thinking this necessity is “all there is” in God. The “net” we use to identify God’s necessity might leave out the fish of his contingent will, so to speak.
But perhaps the energies/essence distinction falls along these lines. If so, maybe it would be helpful. Something to learn about for sure!
@@mkmeixhere is a rather fascinating quote from Augustine in the city of God (his mature work). It really sounds compatible with what is known as the essence-energies distinction in God. What do you think?
Augustine, City of God, book 5, chapter 9 (towards the end):
The spirit of life, therefore, which quickens all things, and is the creator of every body, and of every created spirit, is God Himself, the uncreated spirit. In His supreme will resides the power which acts on the wills of all created spirits, beling the good, judging the evil, controlling all, granting power to some, not granting it to others. For, as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the bestower of all powers, not of all wills; for wicked wills are not from Him, being contrary to nature, which is from Him. As to bodies, they are more subject to wills; some to our wills, by which I mean the wills of all living mortal creatures, but more to the wills men than of beasts. But all of them are most of all subject to the will of God, to whom all wills also are subject, since they have no power except what He has bestowed upon them. The cause of things, therefore, which makes but is not made, is God; but all other causes both make and are made. Such are all created spirits, and especially the rational. Material causes, therefore, which may rather be said to be made than to make, are not to be reckoned among efficient causes, because they can only do what the wills of spirits do by them. How, then, does an order of causes which is certain to the foreknowledge of God necessitate that in cause walke nothing which is dependent on our wills, when our wills themselves have a very important place in the order of cause?
Cicero, then, contends with those who call this order of causes fatal, or rather designate this order itself by the name of fate; to which we have an abhorrence, especially on account of the word, which men have become accustomed to understand as meaning what is not true. But, whereas he denies that the order of all causes is most certain, and perfectly clear to the prescience of God, we detest his opinion more than the Stoics do. For he either denies that God exists -which, indeed, in an assumed personage, he has laboured to do, in his book De Natura Deorum-or if he confesses that He exists, but denies that He is prescient of future things, what is that but just “the fool saying in his heart there is no God?" For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God. Wherefore our wills also have just so much power as God willed and foreknew that they should have; and therefore whatever power they have, they have it within most certain limits; and whatever they are to do, they are most assuredly to do, for He whose foreknowledge is infallible foreknew that they would have the power to do it, and would do it. Wherefore, if I should choose to apply the name of fate to anything at all, I should rather say that fate belongs to the weaker of two parties, will to the stronger, who has the other in his power, than that the freedom of our will is excluded by that order of causes, which, by an unusual application of the word peculiar to themselves, the Stoics call Fate.
-----
Augustine goes on to speak
on whether our wills are ruled by necessity.
Not sure if people are familiar with Layton Flowers, or Ken Wilson’s take on Augustine, but this pretty much destroys their view view that Augustine completely rejected free agency in man in his later works and went back to some sort of manichean fatalism.
@John Hemmerich Of course! And just briefly, my understanding is that the Essence-Energy distinction relates directly to God's nature (or essense, or being) and how that essence relates to not only all of His creation but how the Persons within the Trinity relate to one another - meaning God's energies (or activities or operations) are at the same time distinct from His essence yet remain fully God. This distinction without division is what the East holds up as a refutation of many of the Hellenistic philosophical notions of dialectic and dichotomy, seeing God as transcending these philosophical limitations. Their apophatic approach has also been extremely helpful in coming to a deeper understanding of Trinitarian theology in general. Almost any video of Dr. Bradshaw will have him explain it more clearly though. So while it relates to causation, will, and so on, I'm not sure if the East would say that's the starting point as to why the distinction is made - but it is still an area I'm continuing to learn about.
That's an interesting idea put forward by Richard's - (total spit balling here now) but (and I forget off the top of my head) I think the Church Fathers like St. Maximus argue that God has no deliberative will - God doesn't have to deliberate and choose before acting, even among a plethora of goods - it was not necessary for Christ to think before acting as we do, weighing one option compared to the next - but again take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt. I also hesitate in agreeing that 'the will is limited by God's intellect' - for surely God's intellect has no limit so why would his will? As for causation, I believe the Orthodox position is that yes, men have free will as we are made in the image and likeness of God - and that God's foreknowledge does not imply causation - but at least in my mind those questions are not as directly connected to the Essence-Energy doctrine.
And finally - that apophatic approach was key to my understanding that we will never "reach the core of His essential being" as you say these classical arguments might be used for - no creation will ever reach that level of understanding, for to do so would be to become God ourselves. So by discarding what God is not, in His essence, we are able to attain closer to what and who God is, by nature. Outside of direct revelation and Scripture (well, in tandem WITH those) the process of beginning to comprehend the truly incomprehensible and infinite necessitates a process of negation.
I'll have to look more into some of those names you mentioned though! Always interested in examining people's arguments/positions. Thanks!
@@jrhemmerich Just seeing this one! Also interesting - I'd have to go read more of Augustine as I know his views changed through the years on certain elements and to critique a tiny snippet of his work may not be super productive - but it's interesting he says that 'wicked wills' are not from God - I guess the idea that the will itself could be anything other than natural and good, being a creation of God, strikes me as odd. The employment of that will by the individual to make choices against God's will and what is good, that is what I believe to be wicked, not the will itself. I don't believe the Orthodox give 'evil' any ontological existence in itself, seen more as the turning away from the good, beautiful, and true - ie away from God. Generally though I would agree with his argument that our wills hold a place in the order of causation - and certainly subordinate to God's will when God so chooses - but it's that question of when God chooses to that I think people will disagree and debate on until we pass on from this world.
Can't say I'm familiar with either Flowers or Wilson's take on Augustine, I don't watch them too regularly, but this definitely is a point where Augustine makes room for SOME amount of human will to be operative in the world. (but just to reiterate, my understanding of the Essence-Energy distinction is less dealing with these issues than it is with Absolute Divine Simplicity and the nature of God)
lately I have been hearing several different notions floating around the internet (some of which are probably just fringe views) but I was curious about your thoughts first on the recently popularized claim that Protestants argue like Atheists, and second, that Protestantism is responsible for the moral decline of the West. (Specifically that it incited the rise of individualism and the rejection of scriptural/church authority leading to the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of many cultures today.)
the second of those is addressed in the video, you can see the time stamps; hope that helps
Gavin has addressed the first of your questions before. He has a short video titled, "Do Protestants Argue Like Atheists?" And I think he's probably addressed this in other videos as well.
I'm not sure if he's explicitly addressed your other question, but I think it's fairly easily countered by the fact that that large movements like the Enlightenment are not so easily dissected to get to one single cause. There were many different movements going on, variations country to country, and different interactions between those movements and the Reformation. I'm no historian, but I'm sure there are more in depth responses from a Protestant perspective countering that accusation.
Those are both common Roman Catholic arguments based on caricatures of Protestantism (but not without some ounce of truth of course).
@@TruthUnites Thank you - I'll watch through to hear (both of) your thoughts.
@@matthew7491 Thanks for that - I'm sure there's a great deal of depth on that and why it's a false equivocation, but I'll keep looking to get more depth on that, and watch the video you mentioned.
Let me guess who's behind the claim that Protestantism "is responsible for the moral decline of the West." Actually I don't need to guess, I know it's fervidly zealous Catholics.
Great stuff, I'd be interested in seeing Gavin debate Jay Dyer!
Jay is in a lower level, and he said he doesn’t like Gavin and he’s not interested in debating him.
@@internautaoriginal9951 lower level in what way? Just curious
@@internautaoriginal9951 Jay would steamroll any of the above dudes. What are you on about?
When was Thomas Biblical exegete? That he missed justification by faith
Nominalism isn't s mind virus, but the natural development of human consciousness to individualize. Its this effect generated by the church at large which caused the reformation, by creating more and more self reflecting minds capable of abstract thought, which then alienates us from the larger arena, which then creates the human individual. Christian work is to accept the new reality and looks fresh at how to regain a felt and active participation from within. This was always the Christian task, but this new reality is breaking in faster and faster, and we have to take it more and more seriously. We can't recreate an old consciousness, this is like the Hebrews who wanted to go back to Egypt. We can't demand the future either. We just have to take the next step from where we are.
Do you have a cold or did you do something different with your audio?
I rather hate it when moderators delete entire threads from the comments section.
22:42
I'm a big fan of Protestants (and everyone) learning more about their history and reading source material but I hope they also begin to read the Church Fathers themselves and not just the Reformers that pulled from the Church Fathers - just as modern scholars and theologians have interpreted and molded Reformer's thoughts and writings, so they did to the Church Fathers. Just as this interview makes the case to Protestants to reclaim the depth of understanding and intent the Reformers had at the time, I would urge viewers to seek the understanding and intent behind the Church Fathers. It's interesting that towards the beginning of this interview Dr. Barret brings up the Reformers pointing to the Orthodox as a certain justification - and the great tragedy from the Orthodox point of view is that the Reformers did not join the Orthodox Church and reassert the true Church in Western Europe, instead turning the Church into a largely political tool to be wielded by state actors, politicians, and kings. The theological history of the Reformation is important to grasp but it cannot be divorced from this political reality that was occurring alongside and through the Reformation. People used the Reformation as a way to break ties with Rome politically and consolidate power within their own territory, taking back (stealing) land and property from the Roman Catholic Church and asserting that the state now has authority over the Church, as opposed to a more proper symbiotic relationship of Church and State working hand in hand. This might seem tangential but I think it's an important element often discarded as secondary to the theological debates when in some cases it was potentially primary.
One other point that stuck out was the section 'Are Protestants Too Divisive?' - I'm glad Dr. Barret admits there is division among the Protestants, something many do deny, or at least they will claim no division when it comes to 'the essentials' or as he puts it 'first order issues' which only begs the question, what are the essentials, what are first/second/third order issues? But when he says that on this side of the eschaton "of course there's going to be a lack of unity" that was a more shocking admission of the mindset I'm sure many Protestants hold. Why of course? What justification is given for this seemingly obvious position he presents? And perhaps he means, 'of course people are going to have disagreements over issues' - I would agree there, but that is very different from accepting disunity within the Church. It gets at the heart of how we define the Church - for the Orthodox, the Church never suffers disunity - yes, practically and historically it has undergone schism, division, disruption, and today subversion, but those entail schism AWAY from the true Church, division FROM the true Church, not some acceptable difference of opinion that is tolerated to be 'within' the Church. These divisions do not happen overnight, but the belief that the Holy Spirit will always and forever guide the Church to Truth is to be trusted. Appealing to the unity of the 'invisible Church' only leads to the practical outcome we see today - because who can deny someone when they claim to part of something unseen?
We don't have an invisible Church. The body is visible.
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great, The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).
Roman hubris has always been it’s biggest problem. That’s why it turned to tyranny when confronted with humility.
lol typical potty rebel hubris.
Protestant hubris in trying to form their own Churches turned to a tyranny of a different kind. Theological tyranny
New book on the instructiveness of error. 🙂
profound insight
Matthew Barrett has got to apologize to Dr James White on a recent talk he gave this is not fair of him. Or have a talk with Dr james white live. Did you know one of Matthew students became Catholic?????
Sadly even Roman Catholicism has a false unity that is merely external. There are huge divisions within Rome and always have been. It’s dishonest historically to whitewash these differences. A magisterium doesn’t prevent either theological differences among adiaphora nor essentials.
I see parallels between the Jewish accusations against Paul versus Paul’s pro Jewish sincere motives when ending up in Rome to appeal to Cesar.
Acts 28
“ men, and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people, or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem, into the hands of the Romans, who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there was no cause for putting me to death. But when the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Cesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse my nation. For this reason, therefore, I have called for you, to see you, and speak with you, because for the “hope of Israel”, I am bound with this chain”
Jesus is the Messiah and Lord God !
Galvin and Trent are attacking each other here.. in an indirect manner
How so?
Huh?
I wouldn’t say they are attacking each other. That being said, I do think they are hashing out certain ideas through their own venues.
It doesn't look like it and neither of them would say they are engaging in that way.
@@HearGodsWord
Trent uploaded a video against sola scriptura
Treat attacks Galvin
Galvin uploads a video a case for sola scriptura
Galvin attacks Trent...
I feel like this battle will never end
Too bad that all this Protestant "renewal" led to biblical modernism and rationalism first and then biblical emotionalism post-modernism later, with Protestant Churches consacrating women first and then gays, lesbians and trans and blessing their unions and actions.
Over many centuries, the Catholic church consecrated many thousands of gay men who wanted to be priests. It just did so under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and we see how well that worked out. As for "Biblical modernism," whatever you mean by that, the Catholic church has gone right along with the Protestants' efforts to scientifically study the scriptures and revamp the Mass along Protestant lines.
@@joeoleary9010 the Church welcomes everybody but not every conduct. As for the Eucharist, it remains the climax of Christian worship as has been always understood.
@@jonatasmachado7217 All the modernism you are complaining about was started by that filthy order of the Jesuits, infiltrating governments and churches pushing nothing but communism(satanism) and illegal immigration to White western countries.
Here's the thing, though. Pope Francis is pulling the Roman Catholic Church toward a sympathetic position when it comes to gay marriage. If you can't go to Scripture to prove that he is wrong, then you have nowhere else to turn. Vatican I ensures he can't be wrong.
Description says "Protestantism is better positioned for catholicity"
and then you ask Gavin "which branch of Protestantism, yours or william craig or james white or mike winger or james cooper"?
Gavin: ??????😅
He clearly said he’s baptist, you don’t understand how protestantism works, you don’t even know how your church works since Bizantine catholics do whatever they want and Germans bless gay dudes
Which Catholicism is better yours, taylor marshall's or peter diamonds?
@@theknight8524 none since both the person you mentioned holds no authority in the catholic church.
@@Ternz_TV The authority itself is in dispute lol
@@theknight8524 we still dont have protestantism's problem with pastors don't agreeing with one another. we have a magisterium and dogmas and the pope to unite us. faithful catholics adhere to these.
Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
And The first 5 centuries of church history was overwhelmingly against veneration of saints
(the perp virginity of Mary was not a reason for the reformation, as a Protestant I don’t have a problem with it aside from the fact that it has no 1st century basis )
@David Textle blatantly wrong on the veneration point. Especially of the relics of saints.
@@1984SheepDog just pointing out no union of believe in protestantism. Even Luther himself wouldn't be followed by the protestants of today.
@@Momof15plus Lutherans ?
@@1984SheepDog I’m sorry but no. Eric Ibarra, Reason and theology, etc even agree. This isn’t up for debate.
They do say it was doctrinal development tho.
Protestantism is philosophically untenable, and rather silly.
How so?
Catholicism and their fruits.
Letting a sodomite paint God the Father and think blessing gay couples
And yet the Holy Spirit is pleased to work through Protestantism to save hundreds of millions. Be careful, brother, how you characterize this branch of Christianity which Jesus loves, rebukes, cleanses and clothes in His righteousness.
Yet you failed to prove your opinions or offer up a valid alternative, which makes your comment rather silly.
@@HiHoSilvey
I don't think the holy spirit is at work through Protestantism.. I think the ones who at work are humans beings through Protestantism
Human beings are flawed and Protestantism is a flawed system..
God is truth. the truth is not flawed and the holy spirit is not flawed..
God is gay
He's happy?