@@jonwatson3271I agree. Of course the Bible is the just important writings for any Christian. But reading what the church fathers wrote can a lot of times help us understand what we read in the Bible. Interpreting the Bible isn’t always easy
This, along with your work on 1 Clement, the Papacy, and early ecclesialogy is really good. They have been very helpful in my own research on an article I am working on, "Rhetorical Subterfuge in Roman Catholic Apologetics". Still in research mode, but very much in the works.
Haha your quote from Vincent of Lerins makes me think this is why we should use the KJV in our day. It is set in an older English whose defintions cannot be changed from that time and are set and clear. Whereas modern translations have to be constantly changed to keep up with changing language. Obviously this is a joke but I think it could be an application;) awesome video. Love seeing the ortho bros and catholics freak out and not even watch it yet feel like they can comment on it. I watched the whole thing and thought it was fair and balanced and did not favor protestants or any tradition!
Thanks a lot! Really looking forward to your book. As a protestant I feel we have a tendency to downplay the church fathers and their wealth of knowledge. Instead of Sola Scriptura we have become Solo Scriptura. Keep doing what you are doing and I pray you continually grow in your faith. Much love from Malaysia
You mean to tell me that when I find one sentence in one work of one father in one era that seems to align with something the East believes, I shouldn't become Orthodox?
Hey The Other Paul, I'd love to hear your response to our video on eating the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His Blood. I'm not sure where you stand on that issue.
Didn't even think about that, could do that for promotion. Tho since it's self-published I'd have to buy them first then re-ship to people. They'd be more expensive that way.
I tend to be quite sceptical about your why reason given. I think that in order to be the fairer regarding a text, one should not looking something into it. One simply need to learn from the text regardless of where one stands initially or what one wants to demonstrate. However, a problem that can happen is the total disregard for the context of a writing and a "florilegium" methodology, that is both disrespectful toward the father, but also time waisting for you. Let the text speak for itself. Do not impose on it an objective. You are totally right saying that there is too many text around. Reading "the" father is completely impossible, and I simply laugh at people that pretend to have done it. But you can for example read one book of one important father of a council, athanasius for Nicea (Treatise on the holy spirit), Basil for Constantinople (Of the holy spirit), Cifyl of Alexandria (On the unity of Christ) etc.. Proceedings like that, might not give you the gotcha argument against X or X or X, but it will give you the global understanding of maybe one, two or three key authors. If you have liked one specifically, you can go explore his other works. Also REALLY important, and link to my comment above. Do not force the writing on your frame, and do not put the author on a piédestal. Read it like you would read any other men, not like you would read scripture for example. Let the author be free to express his thought, and be free to disagree. Otherwise, you will loose your sanity very quickly.
Speaking as someone who lost his Protestant sympathies by reading the Fathers, I think what struck me most about reading widely in patristics was that the early church's concerns simply had nothing to do with the concerns of the Reformers. It wasn't so much that I found the counter-Protestant positions continually affirmed by the Fathers, but rather that the Fathers' concerns simply had nothing to do with anything the Reformers were talking about. This led me to realize that the concerns of the Reformation were highly parochial to 16th century Europe, and full of theological nova that were utterly foreign to the early Church. I think Protestants trying to read the Fathers for support of their positions are going to be even more deeply disappointed than they imagine - they will find a world of people who do not even care about their primary concerns, which were invented in the 1500's. My 2 cents for any Protestants wanting to get into Patristics.
You watched a 40 minute video in SIX minutes?!?! Jokes aside, they can go hand in hand together. It's always good to have time with just you and the scriptures and meditating on them, but reading with the fathers a great help too (so long as their authority is not overstated).
Dude, even with your video, I'm feeling kind of not confident if I will be able to find answers to my questions with that deep searching in the early church. I'm a poor guy, and I live in Brazil, so indexes, encyclopedias, and stuff like that are very expensive to buy. Do you know good online indexes or something accessible? Please, pray for God to help me find the truth.
@@oceanw9988 Papistry is pure demonic filth and I have never wavered in that conviction (I mean, it's fruits are obvious). I was seriously considering Orthodoxy for a while but God steered me away from it. I stand on the reformation more unwaveringly than before, informed by Early Church history which actually backs up reformed theology.
why begin?? don't you believe in sola scriptura? the so called church fathers are as subject to scripture as WE ARE. moreover no one had more insight into the gospel at that time through being closer in time to Christ than we are. Just look at the things the letters in the NT spoke about. carnal minded ness and heresy are ALWAYS carnal mindedness and heresy , even when they occurred among the 12 ( as in Judas)
Please explain why the guys who came even a couple of hundred years after Jesus are the Church Fathers, but the guys who actually spent that 3 years with him disappear into anonymity after a Pharisee named Paul hits.
Your impatience in study and disdain for God's providential activity in the lives and works of earlier Christians is one reason why many fall into popery. BTW, aren't you that angry guy that not only attacks Catholics but also Protestants who don't submit to you?
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Sola fide: 1st Clement 32. Sola Scriptura: Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists, book 2 chapter 3. Imputation: Epistle to Diognetus ch. 9.
The entire premise of the video can be summarized as a: How to quote mine the Fathers as a Protestant and make of their overwhelming catholic positions. Interesting.
@@icxcnika7722 yes it is a lie. Show me one place in my video where I tell anyone to "quote mine" the fathers as opposed to read in context and with honesty.
The Roman gospel falls under the anathema of the real Paul. He would be much more harsh on Romanists than the other Paul is. And why wouldn’t he? Rome denies the gospel.
