Visit our website: www.kingdompresbyterians.com/ Make a donation: donorbox.org/presbyterians-fo... Theology Matters: www.theologymatters.com/ Find a church: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi...
@@basedzealot3680 I had the discussion already. It'll be posted soon. It was a good discussion. none of us changed our minds but we gained better clarity of each others' views
@@basedzealot3680 then who is the real church? EO or RC? Both of you say the same thing. Dont you guys hear yourselves when outsiders hear it or you just listen to your own echo chambers?
1:57 small correction: the Catholic Church actually recognises Eastern Orthodox communion as valid and allows Catholics to take orthodox communion and orthodox Christians to take catholic communion. It's the Eastern Orthodox Church that doesn't allow intercommunion.
On Catholics taking orthodox communion: It is generally considered illicit by being a schismatic act *unless* a church in communion with Rome is unavailable, like getting exiled to Russia as an example. Catholics do not have a blank check to go to orthodox churches.
@@Yulas-yu5ucEastern Orthodox is allowed by the Catholic Church to take Communion in a Catholic Church, but Eastern Orthodox do not allow an Orthodox to take Communion in a Catholic Church nor a Catholic to take Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church.
@@Yulas-yu5uc- the Catholic church allows both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to receive Catholic communion, but the Orthodox generally don't return the favor.
Well yes, hes making a highly contentious claim that Protestantism is correct when he himself is not an expert, considering he even made a couple of objective mistakes that are just untrue (such as at 1:57) so of course people can argue with him.
Lol. Protestantism is a bunch of “experts” reinventing Christianity after it has already existed for 1500 years. You really think real Christians give two craps about anything Protestants have to say.
@@mdw546"Couple of objective mistakes" - only gives one "mistake" and even that one is disputable since the only exception to It is that the Roman Catholic Church allows Orthodox to have communion with them (but EO don't) but only in extraordinary/emergency circumstances and even that is disputable by some Catholics.
@@pedroguimaraes6094another error in the video is saying that historically all Protestant churches don't believe in one denomination being the one true church, Lutherans historically did claim to be the one true church, the LCMS continues to do it to this day
@@applegaming2345 No it does not. Lutheranism traditionally affirms the priesthood of all believers rather than claims of being the "one true church" in a hierarchical or exclusive sense. This is not their traditional believe. Whastmore, although affirming "close communion", the LCMS does not affirm exclusivism in being the "one true church" and they have a list of sister churches.
When I converted I was researching what denomination to be, I realized that I was using the Scriptures to judge the doctrines of the Churches and, thus, I had already implicitly accepted the notion of Sola Scriptura. I needed to choose a starting point and for me it was obvious that it would be the Word of God and the writings of the Apostles. After it, i became a member of the Presbyterian Church and it has been an incredible experience.
Roman Catholic here. Well, yes, the teachings of the Apostles were collected in the New Testament, but it's the Church that ultimately decreed what texts had to be put inside the Canon of the New Testament. For us the Bible is written Tradition technically, written, infallible apostolic tradition, but that's not all. The customs, the prayers, the rituals, the ways of governance, those things are not written in the Bible but are part of a Sacred Tradition that undoubtely descends from their rightful successors. We found the authority of the Church on the authority of the Apostles. Since they had received full authority on the Church from Christ, they had the right to pass that full authority to their successors, that's why the Pope is also considered the Vicar of Christ and the bishops and patriarchs the direct descendents of the Apostles. Does that mean that all that comes out of the Church is infallible? Absolutely not, not even the Apostles were infallible and that's why councils and synods are made since the beggining of the Church, they serve to filter the personal, fallible pastoral views from the totality of the uncorrupted apostolical teachings.
@@adelbertleblanc1846 They excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, and with him all of the EO congregation. They also excommunicated Martin Luther, and with him most of Germany. Seems like painting yourself into a corner, but that's your choice if you want to make it.
@@Procopius464 And, if I may, please notice that : RCC has NOT excomunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. You invented that. That is the Patriarch of Constantinople that went OUT of Holy Catholic Churc, because he decided so to do. Please also notice the Pope did NOT excomunicated "Germany" . You invented that. the truth is that some Germans princes decides to get out the Holy Catholic Church and to follow the dochtrines of Martin Luther. But you are TRUE when You say the Pope excomunicated Martin Luther. Yes indeed, you are true the Pope excomunicated Martin Luther !
The difference between the Pharisees and the Church that you bring up at around the 5:00 minute mark is that the Pharisees didn't have the Holy Spirit. The main role of the Holy Spirit is to guide the Church into the fullness of truth so that we don't misinterpret the Scriptures as the Pharisees did. That's why Sacred Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) is distinct from traditions of men. You sort of just draw a shallow comparison between the two without acknowledging the third person of the Trinity and His role.
this is exactly what i was thinking, christ said the holy spirt would descend onto the church and claimed it would not go astray, that debased the entire argument
@@yuunoaboi21 Another major function, but when Christ introduces the disciples to the Holy Spirit in John 16, this is what He says: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into the fullness of truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
@@bradyhayes7911 It's *absolutely* true what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 said, but we must recognize tradition for what it is; tradition. Also, I'm not certain the Bible and the teachings of the first Apostles (written in the New Testament of the Bible) can be called sacred tradition, I think calling it "tradition" devalues it, _even if_ one calls it sacred tradition. I recognize the preservative value of tradition, but ultimately, it's most important to preserve the Bible itself and our faith in Jesus. No hard feelings, God bless.
Protestants do believe the Church is the pillar of truth but there is absolutely no promisse of infallibility for the Church in the Bible and almost the entire NT is a proof that the church, even while being personally visited and instructed by the Apostles, could go ashtray.
This video does an excellent job of explaining Protestantism. I'm Baptist, so the idea of tradition isn't seen as required, but I still believe in studying and learning the traditions of the church, church history, and the other denominations. These theology videos you make are great for studying as they are short, straight to the point, easy to understand, and very informational. Thank you brother, and God bless!
I was raised Missionary Baptist, wound up Catholic and then Eastern Orthodox. The purity of Baptist Churches still move me. RZ is a positive influence in Protestant circles.
@@anthonyprose4965 @anthonyprose4965 I don't believe that Baptists think the church died out. I'm sure some Baptists think it did, but I don't know any that do.
I’m loving this series. I’ve gone to a Presbyterian church twice so far since it’s the church my father went to before being more universalist. Part of why it took me so long to go to a church was because I was struggling with denominations. This course has (so far) helped me understand reformed theology so I can ultimately decide whether or not I agree with Presbyterianism or try a different church. Keep up the good work
I love the graph you put up, especially the part about historic vs restorationist protestant. I came to more or less the same conclusions studying church history. Edit: I love my Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ, please don't take this as a condemnation against them. Plz and thank you
I very much disagree with Baptists being in the restorationist camp! Baptists were in protest of rome since the beginning and were not created as a product of the reformation.
@@ihiohoh2708 Are you kidding me? Maybe according a catholic or presbyterian that has no knowledge of anabaptist and baptist history. You are calling my belief false as if it doesn't exist. I'm here, therefore it does. Church history is not reformed history.
One of the silliest implications of the video is that the orthodox and Catholic split was only due to geopolitical interests as if Protestantism is shielded from similar accusations. For example: “If you believe in Lutheranism you are just falling for propaganda of dead german princes”
The Reformation literally only survived because heathen HRE (which wasn't H, or R, or an E) governors were interested in weakening the Church in their favor, and naturally decided to protect an heretic just like them, who was neither the first nor the last in all of (true) Church history.
That might've been the point honestly. I've heard the "peer pressure from dead _____" argument used against Protestantism quite a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if this was meant to make fun of those kinds of arguments.
Ok real talk do all RC and EO people that watch RZ are like this? literally have 0 sense of when he's making a joke or not in the video cus this happens all the time
Catholic here. Grew up Methodist. GENUINELY TRULY LOVED this video. I had never heard such a good clear argument that yes, Jesus founded the Catholic Church, but along the way it became lost and Protestantism restored it. That's a great path to take when us Catholics resort to "JESUS started our Church and some dude 1500 years later started yours!" Admittedly, the two things that will likely keep me Catholic forever are 1 it does seem that Jesus gave the Church he started an infallible authority that was maintained through the succession of Peter and 2 our transubstantiated Eucharist and only apostolic priests can consecrate the Eucharist So I need to be convinced that the Catholic Church, started by Jesus, LOST it's authority (or never had it) and/or be convinced that the bread, when consecrated by an apostolic priest, does not actually become the literal body of Christ
Wow, for me it's the same causes. If you have some time, i will talk about my history My protestant friends showed me Jesus, and after i reconized Him as my Lord, they showed the protestant doctrine. So I was "protestant" but I never claimed it because I wanted to know what I was saying, or what "to be protestant" mean. After some months researching, and with all of this doctrine confusion(its more than 500 years of discussion), I found the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch(diciple of St. Peter) and Saint Justin Martyr about the Eucharist. The protestant doctrine didn't make a lot of sense to me, and I was trying to understand it, until i found out the truth of Eucharist, than the Catholic doctrine and its authority made a lot more sense to me. But I still try to understand protestants so we can have a better conversation, without stereotypes, because if we can achieve unity again, it is through this real dialogue. (Im not that good at english, i hope you could understand 😅)
If you’re interested in hearing what I believe to be defeaters of transubstantiation, they are the following: 1: There are 7 places in the Old Testament that expressly ban the consumption of blood. The most explicit verse being Leviticus 7:27, “Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people”(ESV). The Douay-Rheims Bible translates that verse as, “Everyone that eateth blood, shall perish from among the people”. This is a command and part of the law from God. God commands us to abstain from consuming blood under penalty of death. If Jesus really did make the wine “become” his blood, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 1411 in reference to what validly ordained priests do, then this would be a case of Christ encouraging his followers to break the law of God. Also, it would mean that Christ broke the law as well since he ate the last supper with his disciples. (Luke 22; 7-12). In verse 11, Christ tells Peter and John to “Tell the owner of the house, “the teacher asks you, “Where is the guest room where I can eat the Passover with my disciples?”’’ This would mean that Jesus was not a perfect sacrifice as he had committed sin. However, we know that he did not do that because 2: AFTER his resurrection we have several verses that indicate that the Apostles did not believe that they had consumed blood at the last supper. Act 15; 20, “but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood.” Earlier, we read in Acts 10, that Peter had a vision of animals that were formerly forbidden by the dietary laws. When commanded to kill and eat, Peter said, No, Lord! For I have never eaten anything impure and ritually unclean.” This would mean that Peter did not believe that he had consumed blood because if he had, then he could not make the statement he did. Then, all together, the Apostles agree that the command to abstain from blood would continue to be binding on all believers. How can it be both binding to abstain from blood while at the same time, the consumption of blood be the “heart and summit of the church’s life….”(CCC 1407)? The only thing I can think of is that there is no substantive change of the wine into blood. Instead, there is a real reception in our spirits of the blood of Christ in a manner that our spiritual thirst is satisfied by his blood and atoning death when we drink the wine. I hope you find this interesting and that it helps you in some way. 🙂
I'm sorry but "along the way it became lost" is a major heresy. The Church is infallible and CANNOT defect. Please repent of your heresy and read the Catechism.
"Do this in remembrance of me." I see it as symbolic. It represents his body and blood. Much like how the Passover (and other celebrations the Israelites had) serves as a reminder for the judgments and Exodus from Egypt, so communion serves as a reminder of Christ's sacrifice.
@@TheOtherPhilip Thank you for your response. I always enjoy hearing other's perspectives. Everything you said would likely be correct except that the use of "substantive" change is not being applied correctly. This is an extremely common misunderstanding. There is a difference between the accidents and the substance of a thing. In mass, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change - this means they remain gluten, wheat, grape, sugar, alcohol etc But the substance changes - meaning what the thing actually IS changes Normally, all the ingredients in wine make what we call wine - but in Mass the substance becomes Jesus's literal blood, while appearing as the ingredients of wine. I encourage you to look more into what I am trying to explain in case I am not doing it well. If Peter were indeed consuming the accidents of flesh & blood, skins cells, blood cells, proteins, platelets, etc, etc, that would be cannibalism, and your points would make sense. Thanks friend
I had a question; you put the Assyrian Church in the ecclesialist category but they don't claim to be the one true church. Is that not contradicting what an ecclesialist church is?
I also want to know where he found that they don't claim to be the one true church. The only thing I found regarding the Church of the East and claiming the one true church was the wikipedia article on "One, True Church", which just quickly says that the Assyrian Chuch of the East and the Ancient Church of the Each believe they are the one, true church
He also puts Baptists in the Restorationist category, but I've never heard any Baptist claim the church died out. At most they say that biblical Christianity became a minority that survived in remote locations where the Catholic Church couldn't enforce its doctrine against them. I'm guessing he's referring to the sort who object to being called Protestant because they reject the idea that the Catholic Church ever was a legitimate body. The "Constantine founded the Catholics" types.
Every Assyrian I knows claims that they are the one true Church and that they alone have the correct Christology. They even deny that Nestorian reformed groups are valid. And, I love how we are just making up new words now. Ecclesiaists? All of the Apostolic Churches are categories unto themselves.
Aye man I don’t usually comment on videos but God Bless you Brother. Ever since I subbed you have been feeling me with knowledge, now I am reading a book by Saint Athanasius thanks to you. Continue on brother your ministry is edifying the body❤
Bro this was just something I was wondering and reading about. I have watched many hour long lectures and debates and you somehow this comic sans video synthesized and presented information more effectively than all of those.
Wouldn’t the church still need some means of making infallible decisions throughout the ages to keep it from error? Yes God is the greatest authority but we would need some way to guarantee that a decision by the church was actually guided by the Holy spirit. Otherwise anyone can say the Holy spirit is keeping them from error. Thats why it makes sense that councils of men given authority in the hierarchy of the church, can make infallible statements about doctrine.
Nothing said by a man or any Council of man is infallible. The church has an infallible means of making decisions you might have heard it referred to as the word of God or the Bible perhaps
If councils were infallible, why they needed to be corrected by newer councils? That is something that even saint Augustine said in the 4th century. We have the word of God to guide the church through the ages. What happens if the church contradicts the bible? See, as a catholic you can not even entertain that possibility.
Christ the Kings “Al Habayit” is the only person on earth that can speak infallibly on earth. So says Jesus Christ “If they hear you they hear me, if they reject you they reject me and the one who sent me.”
Why this un-godly division? When did he imply that "his particular sect of Protestantism Ala the tradition of Johnny C is correct"? @@captainfordo1 It seems to be that way...
How does it make sense that St. Athanasius would argue that during the Arian Crisis one should simply read the Bible and come to private judgement about who is the Church rather than listen to councils, and then turn around and anathematize Arianism in councils?.. This smells of a quote mine
@@haydnenthusiast That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying the Trinity is true because the Bible says so. Yes, it is, and yes, it does, but that Bible is interpreted by the reader. If someone really wants to read Calvinism onto the text, for example, they can and they will. Then they’ll just say “Calvinism is biblical.” Same thing. If anathemas are just saying a belief contradicts Scripture, the Calvinists today would have to anathematize the men in the councils and of the first 1500 years of Church history for the very canons at the councils they like to inconsistently quote from when convenient and then turn around and argue against believers today for having the same opinions the people they’re quoting have because the Calvinists believe it contradicts Scripture. All data, including Scripture, needs to be interpreted. There’s not some magical perspicuity that prevents people even the well-intentioned from falling into heresies. Vaguely saying “it contradicts Scripture” is begging the question because that’s exactly what the councils met to decide-who is interpreting Scripture correctly and who is not. It needed to be interpreted at the council, so you can’t just say they anathematized them because they were more biblical. Otherwise, what do you do when you get to the Great Schism? Just go with the “biblical” one? According to what, your own reading of the text?
4:45 This part leaves out the difference the Holy Spirit makes on the issue of ecleciastic authority. If the holy spirit hasn't kept the church from the same corruptions the pharisees suffered, we are no better then any other religion.
Are you really saying that pre-Incarnational Judaism was no better than other religions? What? The Holy Spirit hasn't kept the Church from splitting (even if you think only one of the remaining parts is the true one), it is not inconcievable that the HS does not provide absolute protection of Ecclesial corruption. If the Old Testament Israel is a prototype of the Church, there is certainly a reason to think the purity of the Church is not a given, but something that needs to be fought for and sometimes renewed.
Thank you for making these videos. My husband and I are trying to learn more about Christianity. Please keep making more awesome videos! Great voice btw!
4:06 “God always saves his people before he demands obedience of his people” what?? That’s a wild thing to say. God’s people need saving because they broke His preliminarily demand of obedience. Arguably, the main thing God does is demand obedience. Don’t eat the apple. Also, throughout most of the Old Testament, God only saves his people when they repent and denounce the non-obedient-to-God practices they were partaking in
You could also say they didn’t have enough Faith in God. Without Satan they wouldnt even have eaten the apple in the first place. Without the temper there is no tempting. Without Faith there is no works to begin with. which is exactly what paul stresses in romans. We are saved by Grace through faith and Faith alone. James affirms this. “Without works our (“faith”) is dead” they coincide so imo neither or are wrong but it is really evident that God does save then justifies us making us better in Christ. I was in love with sin before i came to know Jesus and his sacrifice✝️❤️ Glory to God and may he bless you and all those reading this.
@@xHollow.Paul never said we are saved by faith alone. The only time the term “faith alone” is used in the Bible is in James 2:24. Paul would say “show me your faith without works, and I will show my faith through my works”
i cant imagine how much of your effort is to make this vids. the time spend to read all of those literature and text and put it all in a single, history-saturated and God-centered narration is really amazing dude. God bless all of your works.
I think he’s actually Russian Orthodox, since he prominently features Russian liturgy and architecture whenever he discusses the good about Orthodoxy. The Russians are currently in schism with Constantinople, so it’d be more like Kirill ordering Kyle to make the series. Idk if this is for sure tho, he’s never confirmed it to my knowledge.
@@christophecrist2171 It's still the same thing the schism is more of a political thing between clergy. Kyle can still take communion from a Greek church if he wanted to.
@@friedchickenlover7291 It’s difficult to say. My local Greek church lost a huge chunk of its members that identified as Russian Orthodox back in 2018, they’ve rented out a room of an episcopalian church and have a Russian priest visit every now and again to celebrate the liturgy. It’s been a sad situation all around
@@christophecrist2171 Thats crazy and saddening. Ive been going to a Russian church near my university and a greek church near my house and haven't had any problems. I even asked about the schism and they told me to just worry about my own salvation.
@@applegaming2345 midwit take. there's nothing wrong with RZ's content. Stop trying to overcomplicate the scriptures; the gospel is written in a way for children to understand.
As a Baptist, I’d argue that we do follow tradition in practicing only believers baptism, the oldest of Christian traditions, and one not practiced by any other denomination. Also, I can’t speak for all Baptists, but the reason why we are typically adverse to tradition is because we learn about the Protestant reformation and how tradition can muddy our worship of Jesus Christ. That’s why we focus so much on what is necessary for salvation and pour all of our focus into that. Additionally, the idea that Baptists come from the Anabaptists is generally refuted by modern scholars, and most now believe that it stems from English Separatism, mainly over their objection to the Church of England forcing everyone to be Anglican.
You are correct about the origins of the Baptist faith. They came about from the first great awakening not Anabaptists. Useful charts does a great video on that with his Christian denominations family tree
@@applegaming2345 While the Baptists arose to major prominence in the First Great Awakening, there are at least a handful of notable Baptist confessions predating that event by decades. Baptist originated in the 17th century, not the early-mid-18th century. Indeed, the earliest Baptist congregation in the USA dates to 1638; a century before the Great Awakening! Further, best I can tell from modern sources: using the Smyth-Helwys thesis, Baptists seem to be the result of an ecclesiastical one-night-stand between a few expat English Dissenters and some Dutch Anabaptists who met in Amsterdam around 1607-1608; the English DIssenters returned having fashioned a brand-new-sect. So there evidently WAS a direct influence from the Anabaptists, but it wasn't a splinter group so much as they strongly imprinted on some impressionable Dissenters, who took some of their ideas and ran with it.
RZ is so smart about everything except Baptists. His level of expertise on most church history is top tier, but whenever he talks about Baptists you'd get a better answer from a boiled egg baloney casserole.
Zoomer, I love all of your videos and have been a, no pun intended, faithful watcher of your videos. I have been moving towards Orthodoxy for a while now and it really saddened me to hear you say, “People that convert to Eastern Orthodoxy are [falling to peer pressure from dead Byzantine emperors].” Then, immediately bringing up the oriental (Assyrian) orthodox who believe in HERESY DENOUNCED BY ORTHODOX AND PROTESTANT ALIKE to support your position that “ecclesialism” is built upon falsity is, to a certain extent, underhanded 8:06 . I still love your videos, as they direct my study, but I think I’ve finally realized them for what they are. When it comes to interdenominational videos, they are superficial ads for your personal beliefs. That being said, I think that most of what you do is exceptional, I will continue to watch your content, and of course I will pray for you as I always have ❤️ EDIT: Grammar
Thats because they do fall under pressure from Dead Byzantine emperors and Orthobros. Also for the fact of how (i will admit) aesthetically pleasing on how much The EO idolize their churches. I will throw in the fact they do kinda have the best looking bishops as well. thats more or less besides the point. When he mentioned the Assyrian Church he did not claim they are better then EO. He made a tier list clearing putting EO above them because the Assyrian Church are near heretical. *Even while trying to be “Nice” you still end up insulting him over your misinterpreted screwed perception of what RZ was trying to say.* “Your videos are nothing more then Superficial ads of your personal beliefs.” The fact you say that but continue watching him for information is insane. - Lol imagine if someone said that EO is led by Jezebel and is a failed recreation of Graceo Buddhism repackaged as Christianity, You would lose your mind over someone saying that. Absolutely shameful to make such a ridiculous CONTRADICTING claim. He bases his theology and history and reformed theology that is also based on the word of God. Reformed protestantism is the catholic church reformed by the word of God
@@xHollow. 1. I didn’t say that he was claiming that the Assyrian Church was better. I was pointing out the fact that he’s using a “near heretical” to support his view of ecclesiology. This seems a little weird, saying essentially “I may not agree with them on all of these things but I’ll use their argument against this group. 2. I wasn’t trying to be nice, I was trying to be honest. I do enjoy RZ’s videos. I will continue to watch them because he has a firm grasp on different Protestant denominations. I like to be informed and I like when my presuppositions are challenged. 3. My opinion is not in contradiction. I think that he gives the barebones, face value perception of churches outside of reformed traditions. So I will continue to watch his videos on reformed theology… because he knows his stuff in those areas. 4. I said when it comes to his “interdenominational videos” they are superficial ads for his own beliefs. He clearly props up beliefs closely related to his own, which is understandable but it’s not what I’m here for. I was raised reformed Presbyterian so I’m by and large looking for unbiased takes on other interpretations and traditions. 5. I have no idea where the whole Jezebel thing came from but it wouldn’t really upset me. I’m not EO, have never been in an EO parish, have never spoken to an EO priest, I’ve never attended a Divine Liturgy. I’ve been searching for the truth and I have been reading/watching content about EO theology. 6. I was saddened because I’ve found a wealth of understanding and theology in the EO tradition. Enough that it has lead me to consider them seriously. 7. I could have handled this comment better. I didn’t mean to insinuate that ALL of his videos are ads for his beliefs. I also should’ve stated that I’m kind of outside the argument between denominations. Like I mentioned before, though I’ve studied a TON of theology, I was raised Presbyterian but haven’t been to church in many years. So after an experience with God that shook me, I have been trying to find the truth between the different traditions (which is why I clicked the video) and get back to church.
@@xHollow. Also the word “superficial” may not be the best word. “Impromptu” might have been a better choice. I don’t think he necessarily planned to prop up his own beliefs but it turns out that way.
I was raised in pentecostal family and came to faith when i was twenty years old. After that i was baptized in pentecostal church and served there. But i was always denominational. I was just christian. My model for christianity was new testament, book of acts and epistles AND chinese underground house churches. Those chinese underground churches really seem to be most authentic modern apostolic churches. They are just like the churches in book pf acts. After years i started to become lukewarm. Ten years ago i started to follow coptic orthodox church and EO church. I joined EO church. But i never had any spiritual experience or any presence of God there. Historically and theologically and spiritually and i am starting to be sure that EO is not original church at all.
No, the prophets and the apostles are not infallible. It is the word of God that they delivered that is infallible. We need to be careful in defining what is and isn't infallible.
Similarly to how Moses was not infallible, the apostles aren't either. Again, this is gonna be a very long discussion on the canon of Bible, epistemic uncertainty, our fallible knowledge, and the infallibility of the word of God.
I go to a church of Christ college. Pretty much no member of the church of Christ believes this here. There are some that do, my parents grew up in churches that thought that way. But they are a tiny minority as far as I can tell. Like all Protestants, church of Christ believes that they are members of the one true invisible church, but not that they are the entirety of that church. In fact, one of the most famous church of Christ sayings directly contradicts your claim, “we are Christians only, but not the only Christians”.
@@rok4028 thanks for that insight.. I’ve heard that saying but thought the ones that say it were the minority. May I ask where your college is geographically?
Question: Does your old testament translation contain all the books from the Septuagint including apocrypha like 1&2 Macabees? Asking because you said "whatever old testament canon Jesus used is the one we should use". The Septuagint was used by jews in the Greek-speaking world around the time that Jesus lived, so it's reasonable to believe that he accepted those books as scripture.
Well, there’s also a split back then see the Sadducees only used the first five books of the Bible and the pharisees had the rest of the Old Testament as in the Tanakh the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew and or Aramaic and included Jewish tradition such as Maccabees but even within the Jewish community it was never seen as authoritative merely the traditional history of the Jewish people. Although you can learn from Maccabees, I personally do not believe it is authoritative. (Btw I a nondenominational biblically based Christian)
@@Caligulashorse1453 First I am not talking about oral torah vs written torah. Everything except the first 5 books as you said were considered "oral torah" at the time and wasn't written down at all until hundreds of years after Christ's death. Sephardic Jews today do not accept the Oral Torah but the Ashkenazi do. We are not talking about modern jews though... Apocryphal books like Maccabees found in the Septuagint might not be considered scripture by modern Jews, but they were DEFINITELY considered scripture by Jews in the Greek-speaking world at the time that Jesus was born (Like Jesus himself). In fact, theology from 1 Maccabees is thought to be a predecessor to the philosophy of the Sadducees. The Hannukah story for example, is an account of the Maccabean revolt which is documented only in the apocryphal texts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees The original version of KJV even included some of these texts. I could go on and on.
About to watch, but a question I’m going to throw out before I do (and I apologize if this is covered in the video)… I am a Protestant myself, but do Catholics/Orthodox see Church Tradition and Papal Authority as a carryover of extra-biblical authorities from OT times? Because there were always Levitical priests, judges, kings, etc. around to give final decisions on laws, and even by NT times Jesus said the Pharisees sat in the Chair of Moses. I don’t believe in Church Tradition or Papal Authority, but I could see Catholics and Orthodox Christians saying those things are just the modern versions of those other things. Any thoughts on that?
Yes we believe that, the apostles have infallible authority, in their time sola scriptura was not possible, but, time goes on and all of then died, so now, their written testimony (i.e. the NT) is our infallible authority, as it is the OT with the prophets, so, Sola Scriptura is the recognition of the true infallible authority of the prophets and apostles, but only then. So I don't even know why you are surprised
@@famtomerc many reasons, but I sense you are committing the same error all Catholics do, you read fallible as "will always err, and never get nothing right" we are just saying that the Apostles can not err on what they wrote, but some priests or pope later times can in rare accusations err, but in the course of 1500 years, rare cases have accumulated and reformation was needed, the something applies to us, the Church needs a second reformation against the Communism that have infiltrated all branches of Christianity, I live in Brazil, and the Catholic Church here (because is the biggest denomination) is basically a left party with gay priests and lesbian nuns, the same is true to a majority protestant county, you can turn a blind eye, or you can fight for God against these communists. thanks God we don't make our church an idol to be followed blindly
Peter considered Paul’s epistles to be scripture already during their lifetime. “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other *Scriptures*.” - 2 Peter 3:16
Awesome! Really well done. As an Anglican who has at times felt very drawn toward Roman Catholicism, this perfectly encapsulates both how I see Protestantism and what I continue to value about it.
8:39 - This is a stretch, Protestantism happened in 1500, European developed countries became developed in not even 100 years ago, prior to WW2 many of them were gigantic farms. By the same logic I could say that the Filioque and the Catholic Case for the Great Schisma is what made Western Europe richer than Eastern Europe (just look at the borders). Instead of saying it was the USSR controlling the Eastern Europe with the socialist economy vs the USA financing Western Europe with the Marshal Plan that caused it. PS: today poorer germany is the historical protestant germany. (check mate by your own logic, nothing todo with USSR, it was the protestant revolution all along xD)
That's why correlation doesn't always equal causation. Also funny that the countries he mentioned score higher in antidepressant use and susceptibility to atheism, with "HDI big" being a frequent atheist argument, and "literacy big" being a typical pro-USSR argument too.
@@lain7758 and why did the reformation happen? why did the pope make indulgences a thing? Either way, obvious dude with a female cartoon profile picture -- opinion discarded LOL
Catholics and especially Orthodoxy think they are the arc of salvation aka closest to how God wants to be worshipped. Without being apart of either or, you’re less closer to God. Thats what they believe but imo its not what Jesus necessarily preached. After all Jesus told one of his disciples to not stop a person (OUTSIDE HIS group) to cast out demons. A lot of apostolic fathers teach if there is a true church(Not mormons or JH’s) look to the scriptures. Evidence of the Holy spirit CAN be found in other denominational churches. So Yes Jesus ultimately cares if you accept him as your lord and savior.
I believe that Jesus looks at people's hearts individually, so I don't think denomination is the main basis for judgment. Jesus will reveal the truth/Himself to those who genuinely seek the truth/Him in order to prevent us from being led astray by false teachings.
@@OmgKyoyes. Modern Western churches are filled with people who accept Jesus as their spiritual limit-free credit card with no interest and have no desire or plan to change for the sake of the gospel.
@@physicalgrafiti12345exactly. Kyle even acknowledge the Orthobros being incorrect in spamming memes to RZ. There is a respectful way to go about debating and Kyle has been that
Hey man! Just wanted to start by saying this was a great video. It really helped me (a young teen who’s starting to take my faith a little more seriously) learn more about our incredible history but there is just one thing. Imma be honest I’m not very informed on these topics. I don’t know the big theology buzz words or the many differences between denominations or much of the churches history. Where can I learn more about Christian theology and history? Where’s a good place to start? I’ve already begun my journey to read the whole Bible cover to cover but is there anything else I could read or research alongside it? Any good authors or historians to start with?
For everyone saying Kyle shouldn’t see this, he should love this seeing as he’s actually a Protestant in culture. You can’t just cut orthodox propositions and paste them on an individualist Protestant. That being said. Protestantism is a better framework for life. Yet, I am incredibly happy to call the orthobros my orthobrothers in Christ. And there’s valuable contributions the orthodox have for the rest of the church.
@erc And he was a secular Atheist before that (if I remember correctly, maybe he was baptized Catholic and there was a time when he was serious about being Catholic and became a tradcath and then Orthodox). That makes two former secular atheists turned ChristoTubers.
Been wanting to watch one of your vids for awhile now, ashamed I didn't earlier. May God bring about a(nother) reformation and return to scripture in this new generation of believers (Which, your mileage may vary, but I might be considered a part of) *Extra comments:* 1:24 That was really cool the way you _slowly_ turned this graph into a 2x2 graph up to this point (the point of this time stamp) 2:43 Works are proof of faith, if we don't love God in the way that we live (what might be called works), then we haven't really changed and we don't really love God. But I think Jesus' work on the cross, and our faith in Him is what leads to sanctification. I'm open to discussion. 3:09 Oh, that's what you mean. As you walk in your faith in God, you'll naturally do works (sin and second law of thermodynamics still is a thing), I still think it's by remaining in Jesus that we allow God to prune us. (John 15:1-4) 4:00 *Amen!* It's cool that you used that passage because I think we have that verse in my home on a plaque somewhere, but we put it down for Christmas to put up the Matthew 2:10 passage, "When they saw the star, they were overjoyed". 7:30 This graph illustrates the problem with "liberal christianity", as well. ( I Was tempted to put quotes around it because Jesus already gives us freedom - From *_sin_* ) MAN I wish I had started watching this channel before
@@applegaming2345 Not really, I would say it’s a good defence for *historical Protestantism , which includes non Calvinist like Lutherans and Anglicans too. It doesn’t work for modern evangelical/ no denominational Protestants tho
What is the name of the hymn at the end of the video? I'm from Brazil and we sing it in the Portuguese version in my church Prebyterian Church of Brazil
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I did I still stand with my point that protestants are heretical,beacuse the church founded by Jesus Christs and Apostels was/is/will be guided holy spirit.That means they cant go astray if they do that would mean Holy Spirit can make mistakes(He cant).I am not a theology master thats just my understanding I could be wrong
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I dont know if my last comment got deleted but I will say it again Church cant go astray beacuse its guided my Holy Spirit and he cant make mistakes.Thats why protestants got liberal beacuse Holy Spirit didnt guide them. Its my opinion I dont know if I am wrong I am not a theology master
@@Mic1904 pointing out when protestants claim we know what the bible says, that statement is presupposing you even have the complete bible and you are interpreting what is means correctly. Not a strawman.
The big problem with sola scriptura is that protestants rely on tradition for the canon of scripture, but if tradition is fallable the canon is also fallable. And if the canon is fallable scripture itself is fallable.
dumb take. the words of christ are infallible as per your faith. If you believe that then you're a closet atheist. The old testament has continuity because of the Jewish people and Jesus was fulfilling prophesy. You don't need the RCC to help you read the bible; it's meant for those to have the faith of children to understand and accept.
Good video. There's just one problem. The Assyrian church is put in Ecclesiastical catagory (believes it's the only true church), but later it's said to not believe it's the only true church. Which one is it?
@@gilgamesh2832I've been exploring orthodoxy for a while now as someone raised Presbyterian (the good one, not PCUSA). I don't know who the true church is, but I do know that Jay Dyer and most people who bring him up are sorry examples of the orthodox. I'm still considering Orthodoxy, but terminally online orthobros seem to forget that it's about saving eternal souls rather than scoring points in the debate.
Excellent video! Love the doing away with straw man arguments and get right to the ACTUAL differences. So many times when Protestants and Catholics talk, it seems to be about caricatured versions of the other side.
Thanks for your videos, they're always very instructional and explanatory. I am curious about the denomination "Evangelical", Where does it came from? I feel comfortable testifying that I'm a Christian, a protestant, but in south America all the non Catholics are known as Evangelical, however I do not feel identified with that term due to cultural differences.
It seems to me that Catholics treat the Pope like Jesus treated the pharisees (according to your example) because not everything the Pope says is considered infallible, only certain things which cannot contradict the bible. So you actually proved why the Catholic point of veiw makes sense.
My comment is being censored but the Pope is infallible as long as he speaks truth, as soon as his words go against the church and the Bible he is not infallible.
This is a modern version of the infallibility of the pope, forced by Protestant dialog over the centuries. If that was the church position in the time of Luther we would not have the reformation, because if the pope is infallible only when he does not contradict the scripture, guess what pall, this is Sola Scriptura. That is why it is a waste of time debating Catholics, you think you can change the past because your infallible church now chanced position, and it was all a misunderstanding, and you now have to project this new position to the past because your church can not err, why would we change views if we can not err right?
My grandparents were Protestant but my parents raised me Presbyterian, i had no idea they were related that closely. Thanks for the insight Zoomer, this stuff is interesting
Would you do a video on Deuterocanon? Trent Horn does a good refutation of Allen Parr and has made me reconsider or build up my understanding for why we reject deuterocanon Also, I never thought of imperial Christianity coming coming from the empires. Are there early church father writings that support the idea that there is not one true church organization/denomination.
As an ex-Catholic and now Reformed after experiencing both systems in practice, I am a purist when it comes to soteriology. Your recent tweets about justification and sanctification freezed me, but in this video as usual you explained very well, precisely and politely the essence of the differences between us and Roman Catholics, good job and maybe I will have some more use this film somehow in future. God bless u.
Sorry to hear that. I wish you went deeper in the truths of the Catholic faith. If you have any questions, recommend you call Dr Dave Anders on EWTN radio M-F at 2 pm EST. He was deep into the Reformed Church and went to Wheaton College with a PhD from Univ of Iowa, majoring in the Reformation. He can answer any of your questions. This radio show is specifically for non-Catholics.
Additionally, many assertions he makes on the Catholic Church are not correct in this video. If you know Catholic theology, you will quickly note the misleading statements and outright errors. Imputed grace is a word Catholics don't use. We believe in sanctifying grace that gives us a supernatural grace which leads to holiness. It is not the works that make us holy, but God's grace, which from that comes good works.
@@Shawn-nq7du There's no need for treating me like fool, trust me ;-). Ahh I love how Romanists treat people who oppose their Talmudic theology as stupid. "U don't understand Teaching bro". Anyway, Im used to that, so let's go to meritum. As for sanctifying grace... this is a classic example of Roman sophism. You must adapt biblical terminology to the system so as to retain both, bringing about a situation where in fact a works system (since salvation is accomplished through the use of means both in the form of sacraments and from smaller means in the form of novenas, Friday and Saturday privileges that can help salvation, etc.) And so, in practice, justification is achieved no other way than on the basis of works done with the help of grace, and your understanding of "not by works" is limited only to in the cynical statement that nothing that PRECEDES these actions in the state of sanctifying grace does not in itself merit grace, but after baptism or confession it is of course a different conversation... However, it is worth mentioning the essential problem here, namely the claim that sanctifying grace is effective grace , and its loss is caused by a free decision of the will that leads to mortal sin. The error is that you ignore the fact of the bondage of the will, its natural inclination to sin, which makes falling from the state of grace impossible in pure practice, and EFFIECY of grace only exists hypothetically, which fully justifies the accusations of semi-Pelagianism. The true Gospel makes it clear, that because of the inevitable judgment of the Law on man who is incapable of not sinning, he is justified freely on the basis of fully effective, fully sufficient, and personal redemption made by Christ for everyone who believes. The consequence of this is that no condemnation threatens a sincere convert and believer, therefore any religion that essentially consists in maintaining and renewing the constantly lost gift of grace is blasphemous and attributes a higher value to human channels than to the pure mediation of Christ itslef, wich is grabbed by empty hand of faith, and it isn't held in iron fist of any sacerdotalist institution. Not to mention the doctrine of purgatory which directly rejects the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and the exit from purgatory is facilitated by HUMAN MERIT, both those of saints coming from the "treasury of merits" and in the form of Marian privileges, such as those associated with the scapular. There is a lot more to say, but I said enough. Papist doctrine, is based on sophisms, and won't ever let people to know the simplicity of pure Gospel, of Christ perfect atonement. For all those justified by faith, there IS peace with God, because He imputed sins of all who believe on Him, and poured His Holy Wrath on Him. His ressurection is message, that everything what came on the world through Adam, is forgiven once forever. Belive in this, and you will have eternal life. Add or remove anything from this, and you will be condemned. Reject this Babylon, and embrace the truth, brother.
What’s your take on the counter reformation efforts like the council of Trent? I’m Catholic so that’s how I think that God used the Scriptures to reform the Catholic Church. Also I’ve always understood the Church as having the authority to interpret the Bible, but not have authority to change what the Bible says, which is one of the main reasons the Deuterocanon has remained part of sacred Scripture. (Also they found parts of maccabees in the Dead Sea scrolls could you do a video on the deutercanon? I’m really interested in your take it cause even though I disagree with some things, I agree with the VAST majority of what you say cause it’s both logical and insiteful)
Amazing summary! Thank you so much!! The only statement I would be a bit careful about is the one about the canon Jesus used. When the church took over the Greek Old Testament canon from Jewish tradition, it included more books than we have today. It is not entirely clear how Jesus viewed what we now consider Apocrypha but there are hints he read the Old Testament in Greek at least occasionally.
Hi Zoomer. I don't know what the situation is like in the Baptist Church in the USA. But in Brazil, the Baptist Church is one of the most traditional. One of the few that was not affected by woke culture. I believe that we belong to the group of "Historic Christianity" because of the value we give to the Bible and the defense of its teachings. God bless you greatly, I love your channel.
Have you considered inspecting historical churches in the first thousand years of the church? You could check what all the surviving churches say and how do they differ and what do they agree on. When you look at what they all agree on, you can clearly see that protestants strayed very far from what all the early churches agreed on, despite their ongoing differences. You can actually see that the move toward a single man is correct is an addon that developed in the last thousand years, for example.
