Response to Horn and Akin on Icons 

Thanks for noticing that, and making an intelligent comment.

Why do you think the consensus of historians around the world is so strong that even Roman apologists admit that the historical Christ and His Apostles didn't actually make icons and kiss them?

@@truthisbeautiful7492 Our Lord and his Apostles were Icons personified. Therefore, for the early first century believers icons were not needed in the apostolic period.

@Sandalio Not creative, but theology.

@@thecommonnarrative1777 That is an interesting perspective about icons. I don't know why icons are Needed at all? It seems we can maintain a closeness w/ God just fine w/out them. I don't understand a lot about Orthodox theology though. Just that icon veneration is very important and integral to the Orthodox form of worship. It is nice to see positive feedback from Orthodox for any protestant. Most of the Orthodox seem to just disdain us utterly, and I've seen many just blatantly say that we are not even the same religion and they don't really recognize us as Christians.

Thanks Nate!

Continue your good work. Forget the 3 x 3 hours turf protection rebuttals. They just hollow bluster!

@@Tanjaicholan actually, the rebuttals show how shallow Gavin's model is. You guys treat everything like it's an academic exercise bereft of what the Church needs at any given moment in time. Allowing converts from Paganism to venerate icons is like giving a beer to an alcoholic. Good thing Jesus is in charge of our Church and not you, Gavin, Luther, or anyone else stuck on academic rules.

@@enshala6401 I... Are you suggesting we give beer to Alcoholics? I don't really follow your argument.

@@protoseargeant😂😂😂

That’s a problem though. Now, they are, practically speaking, moving past Trent. Francis is pretty loosie-goosie, doctrinally, and I believe that the bulk of modern Catholics - effectively - ignore the existence of anathemas.

@@bersules8 James is using the word faith differently than Paul. We do this in modern conversation too. We might ask someone, “What faith are you?” That usage is different than when we encourage a friend to “have faith”. So, Luther included “faith alone” as an appropriate translation of the intended meaning. If one is justified by faith apart from works, isn’t it implicit that one is justified by faith alone? That’s not to say that works are not part of our “faith” as James uses the term. They clearly are a part of the new life we have in Christ, but they don’t justify. By the way, Luther did not remove any books from the bible. Just look at any bible a Protestant friend uses. See? James is still there. It was in Luther’s German translation too. And, the question of the use of images didn’t start with Calvin. Might want to watch Dr. Ortlund’s video that initiated this discussion.

@Tennis Brah when were the infallible councils abrogated, and by whom? Akin is an apologist for Catholic Answers. He’s not the magisterium. I find it laughable (and sad) that current Catholic apologists are pretending - when convenient, of course - that the church was born in 1963.

@@bersules8 because you put a lot of prooftexting and twisting into trying to make Scripture support its insufficiency, does not mean it’s worthy of detailed response. As the 20th C. and 21st C. magisterium would demonstrate, we cannot count upon mere men to be infallible.

@@bersules8 read the whole of the Bible - a STANDARD, scholarly translation from the original text. You will see why Christ is worth of Sola fide. We can repose our hopes in Him and His sacrifice. All of the body of Scripture pints to the sufficiency of His sacrifice.

Amen

The anathema is for condemning others based on a false doctrine “that icons are sinful”. It’s not saying you must use them; it’s saying you don’t get to condemn others with your make believe nonsense. Perhaps Roman apologetics persuaded you because there are two apostolic faiths and Rome is one of them 🤷‍♂️.

​@@thegoatofyoutube1787 writes: "The anathema is for condemning others based on a false doctrine “that icons are sinful”. It’s not saying you must use them; it’s saying you don’t get to condemn others with your make believe nonsense." I suspect that you haven't actually read the acts of N2. If you do so, you will find MANY anathemas, including anathemas simply for not venerating icons, or even for merely believing that they should not be venerated. To claim that the acts ONLY anathemize those who hold that "icons are sinful" is simply not true. I have no idea what to make of your other assumptive claims.

@@philoalethia You got me that it’s more specific than I realized. Still.. 1) the council was reacting to the false belief that icons were to be condemned as sinful. 2) Anathemas were simply disciplinary measures and they don’t even apply today (as the Catholic Church has stopped using them). 3) There was no requirement for personal devotion; anathemas were related to accepting the practice and not causing public scandal.

@@thegoatofyoutube1787, I am puzzled. You started out by making a claim that simply isn't true, apparently as a result of not having actually read the council acts (yet strangely still feeling competent to make assertions about their contents). You now make another series of claims that, as before, seem to indicate that you still have not read the acts, yet still presume to comment on what they mean. I recommend that you actually read them before telling others what (you think) they mean. Specifically, regarding (1): "the council was reacting to the false belief that icons were to be condemned as sinful." That is largely correct. However, it doesn't follow that a reaction to an error is necessarily right, true, or good. Dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a "reaction" to Japanese acts in WW2. It doesn't make them good actions. Regarding (2): "Anathemas were simply disciplinary measures and they don’t even apply today (as the Catholic Church has stopped using them)" That is false in at least two different ways. Anathemas are disciplinary, but they represent condemnations to eternal damnation, especially within the context of their implementation. Further, the claim that the (Roman) Catholic Church "has stopped using them" is not accurate. They were invoked as recently as Vatican I. Second, it doesn't really matter whether they have been used in the most recent council. They WERE used in practically every one of the early councils, and don't just evaporate over time. They remain in force unless specifically rescinded. There has not been any ecumenical council that states, "oh, by the way, we retract all (or any) past anathemas." Regarding (3): " There was no requirement for personal devotion; anathemas were related to accepting the practice and not causing public scandal." This is borderline deception. Yes, people were not required to venerate icons in their personal homes, but the acts CLEARLY require veneration in liturgical contexts, as well as belief that such veneration is fitting. They specifically condemn anyone who fails to venerate icons or who otherwise holds that it is wrong to mandate veneration. That is just what the words say. No need to try to skirt around it. Again, perhaps it would be good to go and actually read the acts of the council before commenting further. They are lengthy. It should take awhile.

@@philoalethia As far as (2) anathemas, you are mistaken. They did not represent eternal damnation (I don’t know where you heard that). Anathemas were comparable to Paul casting believers out of the community for their spiritual growth and repentance. In Catholicism, they actually involved a ritual of sending someone out of the church until they repented (this ritual almost never actually happened), they do not automatically continue and are no longer in use (not used in Vatican II). You’re thinking about them as if they themselves are doctrines; they are not. They are actual disciplinary procedures that are no longer in use (so they have “vaporized”). The Catholic Church has discontinued this disciplinary practice as part of its authority to bind and loose in smaller disciplinary practices (as well as dogmas). Sounds like you don’t understand anathemas as well as you think you do. If you have evidence to support your claims about them then I’ll respond to it but, if not, I’ll assume that I’m correct and that you have misunderstood. As far as icons, yes they need to be accepted in Catholicism. No, you don’t need to be privately devoted and there are no longer public liturgical settings where you must do so (it is optional). There are no longer anathema proceedings being held and, even when they were, they were extremely rare. The point of those was to discourage scandal and the practice of condemning icons; that reality (of anathemas) no longer exists today.

I’m not even a reformed baptist but he has such a genuine heart and approach to scripture and theology.

@@caleb3639 Gavin is Reformed?

@@elijah4168 Yes, he is reformed baptist. I thought that was clear.

@@caleb3639 I looked at his church website and it doesn't mention being Reformed and he doesn't seem to mention being Reformed as far as I know but good to know lol

@@elijah4168 Yeah he has spoken of it in the past, he is the head pastor of First Baptist Church somewhere in California

Sounds like lofton.

Same thing happened to me. I’ve read others write the same. Self-proclaimed “pope-splainer” reacts like the pope he defends.

I see you posted this a year ago. I’m interested in knowing if you’ve become a Calvinist or if you’re still not.

@andrewnunez7894 No, I'm still not a Calvinist and don't intend to be . I'm still having a wonderful fellowship with my Calvinist brothers and sisters

@@costa328 thanks for the reply. I was just wondering!

We are much closer than you think (despite what people like Redeemed Zoomer might say). Anyone that has a doctrine of justification by faith alone is instantly closer than any other group, which may or may not be truly Christian. I will leave that for personal preference. God bless you!

I think it runs deeper than that. Mr. Ortlund was talking in this video about the many messages he receives from Protestants about how this can be a question of conscience for them. The reciprocal is likely also true - Roman Catholic apologists like Mr. Horn and Mr. Akin getting similar questions from Catholics about "Wait, is this actually wrong? Are we wrong to do this?" As far as Mr. Horn and Mr. Akin, Dr. Ortlund's content is hurting their fellow RCs' consciences. I can see why they would be frustrated. But this is apologetics - comes with the territory. And usually, I think the apologists all around do well to understand and accept this. Everyone has a bad day sometimes. While we should call that kind of behavior out when we see it, we should always do so with the same grace and ireny (not irony) that the doctor urges. Not trying to say you weren't doing any of that, or be reproachful here. Merely rambling.

@@ottovonbaden6353 actually, it’s funny you say that. I just came back in here to comment that people should look where the Roman Catholic Church is, today. It’s a church in crisis. There are quickly becoming two churches at loggerheads, under the umbrella of the Roman rite. People like Akin are less answering-Gavin and more keeping-Catholics-in-the-fold. If or when Francis rolls out his apostolic constitution on the abrogation of the TLM in the next few weeks or months, Catholic Answers is going to get crushed with calls and requests from people at a crossroads, and wondering whether or not it’s all off-base. If the earlier Councils are wrong, and Vatican II is right, then, what really IS infallible?? James White is FAR less dangerous than the peaceful, calm, systematic Gavin Ortlund in the eyes of apologist orgs like Catholic Answers. I’d be willing to bet on it.

@@KristiLEvans1 You make an excellent point. I'm very curious what we will see going forward.

We should all have lives as hard as Trent or Jimmy. Each makes over 6 figures a year reciting Catholic church teachings for a few hours a week.

@@joeoleary9010 very well-trod arguments, in fact.

👆Right~Anathematized Heretic. They DO have 151 anathemas to choose from, after all. 😁🤣😂

I don’t know about coming out on top but it’s worth asking why there is only one.. is Protestantism actually reasonable or is Gavin just an intelligent, clever man with a false conviction?

Ortlund believes in Gavin Alone.

@@fantasia55 sounds like you are bearing false witness. Also, it would be pretty impossible to actually believe that after listening to the man speak as his words show him to be Christ centered. This means you either don't actually watch his videos or you want to intentionally deceive others.

@@Bbos2383 Gavin expounds as doctrine whatever pops into his head. His followers think he is infallible.

@@fantasia55 his followers think he is infallible? Um wut??? Can you provide a single shred of evidence that a single person thinks Gavin is infallible?

Thanks for the comment, see you in Ohio!

Please, you can prove catholicism wrong powerfully just by the end of second Nicaea. Dr. Gavin wouldn’t I think state it this hard, but I must: Nicaea made an absolute doctrinal claim on history and it is absolutely wrong and attested to by all you’ve learned in Gavin’s presentation. A great bulk of your church is a fabrication based on the embers of heretics long dead and mostly unrepented. Please, this is more serious than an academic convo: you must repent and remove yourself with vigor, so many people are falling in the hands of perverse and evil men who refuse to acknowledge the simplicity of the truth. Don’t be them. God rest

@@TruthUnites I am no one Dr., but I have seven detailed reasons for the absolute dismissal of roman catholicism and the danger of the souls of those who remain inside its institution. Can I go over them with you and possibility get your rendering or even correction if you think them not strong enough, though I am sure they are solid? You can use them on your platform. I rather they go out rather than stay with me a no one. I know this is not exactly a question I have a right to hear back from you concerning, I know you are a man of a great schedule, so feel free to ignore this if you have not the proper amount of time to devote to such a request. Thanks. God rest

@@TheChristianNationalist8692I’m interested to hear them! If you are willing to disclose.

They always are. Read Letters between an Evangelical and a Catholic Priest. I read it two times as an apologist for the Catholic church and was disappointed with the Catholic priest response. Very low Biblical evidence! Also I knew of Catholic nuns who promoted Earth worship and even Goddess worship. A Catholic deacon tried to refer to Jesus as a woman once or that person. I confronted him on it and said it was blasphemous. He defended noone knew God's sex even though I told him scriptures always refer to him in the masculine. So, it's very prevalent!

Much appreciated

On the weight of the scriptures, and also on their many reversals and innovations, some of which contradict earlier Catholic dogma.

​@@joeoleary9010 At the same time those "minor issues" are serious enough to declare anyone in opposition an anathema. Very confusing.

glad the videos were helpful!

@@bersules8 we believe in the Triune God, one in essence, three in persons, and in the incarnation of the Son, who shows us the way to the Father. We do not relate this at all to a graven image with eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. We prostrate ourselves before God alone, not a representation of Him.

@@bersules8 you are getting to point D from point A. How does incarnation mean that an image of saint whoeveryouwant is a Window to him? How does gets to trinity.

@@bersules8 really? Now that scripture is relevant to icon veneration? You are trying too hard.

@@bersules8 it is an odd comparison though considering Christ was not made from stone or wood. He is alive. The images being mentioned are not.

Amen!

Yes!!

Jesus is the mediatior.

@@sustainablelife1st Jesus IS God! ❤️

John 20:23 If you (the Apostles, and their successors through the laying of hands) forgive the sins of any, they are forgive; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

Zinger!

being on youtube is idolatry, you better get off.

@@bethl bIBLIOLATRY WORSHIP OF A BOOK IS ALSO IDOLATROUS.

@@josephdalelio6684 Protestants would agree. How many times have you seen a Protestant kiss, light a candle or burn incense to, or bow down before a Bible? There's a big difference between that and simply believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, don't you?

Yep totally agree there. Gavin has to balance preaching, pastoring, RU-vid, and family, and writing. I'm amazed st how he does it. I'm always a large procrastinator.

When the "state of our society" is measured by the number of RU-vid subs someone has... LMAO. You guys need to go outside.

Ya I am blown away every video that we get this level of quality work for free. I thought you had to pay to go to seminary to get this type of scholarship.

@Caru14 Oh dear, you think this is quality scholarship? Then tell me something, does Gavin believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins? This is stated explicitly in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed was originally formulated at the first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church held in Nicea in 325AD and was later amplified, adopted and authorised as a true expression of the Faith at the second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381AD. The reason I am asking this is that it doesn't seem like Gavin affirms the content of Councils across the board, so why would he affirm the ones that only suit his narrative? It seems disingenuous to me. It's along the lines of Sola Scriptura, where the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is ignored out of convenience for the sake of those who find Jesus' teachings too hard to follow, so they walk away, just like many of Christ's disciples that day.

@@enshala6401 you do realize that agreeing with your opinion is not necessary to be scholarly right? You realize people can accurately report on facts that are obvious without agreeing with a certain view right? Do you actually get how research works? Or do you just want biased one sided opinions from like minded people? An echo chamber is not healthy my friend.

Yes indeed. The Goliaths have met their David

To be fair, Trent didn’t actually aim any personal attacks at Dr Ortlund.

Gavin is clearly in a different league than Jimmy and Trent.

@@Wanderer-s2c It's true that most attacks at Gavin's intellect or intentions came from Jimmy. But it was Trent's channel, his video, in which he co-hosted, and no apologies came from him at any point, so he still takes the full impact of these statements on himself and doesn't seem to regret it. But I agree, that he probably would not use such arguments himself.

I've seen this kind of behavior from Trent before (don't know enough about Jimmy). I used to be a big fan of Trent, but now I can't stand the guy.

Excellent Scripture to use here!!

Jimmy Akin is a professional sophist and will say whatever he needs to say to win arguments in the eyes of ignorant people

I wonder what kind of catholic answers you have been watching or listening to, you must share the fine weed you re using. You sounded slanderous .

@@expiringphilosophy7605 As a cradle Catholic, I can tell you that Jimmy Akin views whatever the Catholic church decrees AS the direct wishes of Jesus. To imply that the RCC is or has ever been wrong about anything is the same as saying that Jesus was in error and cannot be trusted. This conflation of the Church with Jesus is the very essence of Catholicism. All professional Catholics believe thus.

Joe, this comment was well said. Thanks for writing it.

@@joeoleary9010 Can't argue with that. However, treating the Church as Jesus is, obviously, idolatry. That is how I would summarize Roman Catholicism: Church-worship. More accurately Pope-worship, as Revelation 13 describes. Moreover, it is spiritual butch feminism and egalitarianism. On your model, the Church doesn't even need her Husband's Words. She'll just make all the decisions for herself, on her own authority, and hand them over to "Jesus" for a rubber-stamp. He'll agree to it, no matter what. Who's really leading here?

thank you Briana! :)

I think a vast majority of catholics like Dr. Ortlund, among them both Horn and Akin. I respect his work, even though I think that catholicism is true. His challenge of catholic theology brings out the best of our apologists.

@@dnosic It also brings out the worst. An attack on the channel name and message from Akin was an attack on character, not an attack on the argument. It wasn't in keeping with the spirit of Christ. I cannot respect that

@@TheChadPad You cannot expect that 100% of catholics are nice and charitable. This is impossible. We are regular people, not saints. Also the same from other denominations.

@@dnosic well these guys are representatives, not your average catholic. I have every right to expect more of them

Yeah, giving reasons for Christians to accuse each other. Brilliant. The Prince of Lies is pleased with this video.

@@enshala6401 Let’s all just shut our mouths in the face of falsehoods and not contend for the truth, right?

@@iQuiiKKz well-formed Christians discuss faith and morals in search of the Truth all the time without having to snipe with an outrageous thumbnail message. "This one thing will make you protest againt the Methodist Church!" See how absurd that sounds?

@@enshala6401 No, I don’t think it’s absurd, I think you’re straining at a gnat. It’s a statement meant to suggest that a strong case is presented in the video.

@@iQuiiKKz it's sensationalized click bait that is unbecoming for the Body of Christ. Have you ever considered for just a moment, what if you are wrong? Is lying about Christians something you are willing to risk just for the sake of ... clicks?

because it was about the click bait of Garvin. You would only be fair to see that first.... first thing first.

It would seem that things get personal when an answer isn't possible or apparent.

They have gone into panic mode

@@ProfYaffle so you wish. It's actually Garvin that went into panic mode since Cameron's conversion.

@@jimmydavid1993 You guys are such hypocrites, going on and on about "evil suspicion" and then partaking in it yourselves

That's such a nice thing to say about Gavin. God really gave him a gentle nature, so that he normally doesn't have to work as hard at it as most of the rest of us do. I don't find arrogance w/ Trent, and Trent and Gavin have such great respect and report w/ each other. Things are a bit different w/ Jimmy though, and I think his nature struggles w/ arrogance a bit more. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

I’ve been going to a PCA church for about 4 months now and I absolutely love it! I hope you find a good one as well.

@@Beefcake1982 What is the PCA church please?

Thanks so much!

It's really hard and I don't know Dr. Ortlund does it. I'm on a Christian discord and I frequently encounter Catholic and Orthodox friends that often I butt heads with and sometimes it gets heated.

@@Convexhull210 Show them Jesus. Let them show you the Devil

@@TheChadPad ah, so Catholics and Orthodox worship the devil now? OK, keep talking like that... it's good for people to see the lack of charity in the hearts of Protestantslike you.

@@enshala6401 Not what I meant at all. I assumed from his comment that people were acting ugly to him on discussion threads about religion. I told him to show them Jesus, and let them show you the Devil. Maybe I assumed too much, but it was just a generalized comment about how to engage with people on social media about Jesus. Sorry for the confusion. God bless

@@TheChadPad eh, I don't buy it, because no one said anything about anyone other than a generic reference to Catholics and Orthodox. Ah well. I am indeed blessed by God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as I hope you are now and will be for all eternity.

My Proposal : " Protestants Unites"

I'm glad my videos have been of use and I pray God continues to bless and guide you! Thanks for sharing!

Zekdom, My parents were cradle Catholics, and when they were born and raised, 1957 onward, Catholicism was uber dominant in their region, Latin America. The usage of icon veneration down there was, and in many ways still is, far more pronounced than it is in American Catholicism. They came to evangelicalism, him reluctantly, in a charismatic Presbyterian Church, pastored buy a reverend that had been raised within the Society of Friends (Quaker), who had gone to a mostly Baptist bible college, who originally opposed tongues, but came around because of personal experience. The beauty of the Gospel is that the ultimate deposit of faith, which Christ gave directly to his apostles in the first century, is beautifully preserved as the Bible, and it has wonderful truths taught clearly, explicitly and with perspicacity and without ambiguity, enough for us to be able to deal with the doctrinal challenges you mentioned with a gentle spirit and with wisdom, without compromising the core Christian tenants at all. I love the apostles Paul's solomonic wisdom in dealing with disagreement and error . Errors (of the nature which does not exclude somebody from being Christian but serious enough to cause someone to stumble, or cause division)

@YAJUN YUAN Hey buddy :;)

Probably the best question for Roman apologists on the Canon is - is 3rd Esdras (the tale of the swordsmen) Scripture yes or no? There have been different 'answers' from different 'apologists.'

You mention Sabbatarian and pentecostal views, which surprised me, as the historical origins of Sabbatarian groups like Seventh Day baptists, seventh day adventists, and Armstrongism is well documented. Same with 'speaking in tongues' either of the mainstream pentecostals or the anti-Trinitarian UPC. Have you studied the origin of Sabbatarian groups like the Adventists of the origin of the Pentecostal movement? Both are fairly modern.

may God bless you on your journey. I was on a similar one and ended up becoming Confessional Lutheran (LCMS), praise be to Christ! We have all the catholicity you could want, without the idolatrous practices of Rome, focused on the gospel, but also enjoying our western christian heritage

​@@joseortegabeede8233can you expand on that please? What are Lutheran churches like? How would you compare Lutheranism with the other denominations?

@@fusion9619 Lutheranism believes in total depravity, unconditional election, justification for all men through faith alone, belief that salvation is a monergistic but resistible process and that falling away is possible, albeit with gospel assurance, and infant baptism. They are higher church, have a form of episcopal government, and are liturgical. They don't believe in transubstantiation, but believe the body and blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist in a mysterious way. Baptismal regeneration is a thing for them, but it is not 100% necessary to get saved, as per article 251 of the small catechism, and they practice infant baptism. For more information, I recommend Jordan B Cooper, a Confessional Lutheran youtuber,

So where is the truth found? Which is the true church? Whatever we believe is true? Whatever Gavin believes?

@@johnbrion4565 I think the key is what Jesus said - "seek the truth." He didn't say accept the truth, or submit to it, although these aren't bad things if you know a truth. "Seek" is the key. That means use your own head. What even would be the point in knowing a true thing if you lack the ability to discern it for yourself? And that implies that there is such a thing as truth There's an archetypal character in humanity that denies the reality of truth, demonstrated by Pontius Pilate asking if there's such a thing as truth and modern leftists saying all truth is subjective. If you hear someone saying that, run away... Truth exists, but the whole truth, as understood from every angle and in complete and perfect knowledge, is impossible for anyone but God. So the person claiming to know absolute truth is just as deluded as the one saying truth is subjective. The only thing that's left is for you to start from first principles and deduce truth yourself. And I'm not saying to reject churches and their teachings, in case it started to sound that way.

Glad to hear it! Thanks!

Seriously they are both part of CatholicAnswers who’s bread and butter is criticizing Protestantism. I’m not sure why Jimmy Akin is complaining.

Thank you so much for the prayers and feedback!

What do you consider unwarranted personal insults and condescending attacks?

Catholics have almost a paranoid attitude to any dialogue or discussion on Christian unity. They perceive anything spoken in good faith as evil. It is very difficult to have any discussion with Catholics. The prime example was Martin Luther who only wanted to improve or get rid of abuses within the Roman church, he sincerely wanted to remain a Catholic, but inept and immoral leadership scuttled his attempts.

@@NP-vk8de Catholics have almost a paranoid attitude to any dialogue or discussion on Christian unity. They perceive anything spoken in good faith as evil. It is very difficult to have any discussion with Catholics Can you give a link to a good video that proves that so I can prove it to others? The prime example was Martin Luther who only wanted to improve or get rid of abuses within the Roman church. So he agreed with the Catholic doctrine but wanted to get rid of abuses within the Roman church like indulgence or selling indulgence? he sincerely wanted to remain a Catholic, but inept and immoral leadership scuttled his attempts. So if he wanted to remain Catholic and held to his Catholic beliefs, how did they scuttle his attempts and was he teaching any non-Catholic beliefs.

@@radar4545 An excellent third party view on Luther Is Eric Metaxas biography of Martin Luther. Metaxes uses historic information based on fact as both Lutherans and Catholics have over dramatized the role Luther played in wanting reform. His absolute intent was to remain Catholic in doctrine. The response of the day was ineptly handled by the current hierarchy. These included a period of six immoral popes including the notorious Rodrigo Borgia. Catholic leadership remained in a rut of obedience and not listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit as to needed reforms within the Roman church. Indulgences were a prime example, but of course the number one strategy was to deny, deny and keep on denying any faults or weaknesses within the church. The intent was to retain the historical understanding and doctrine of Catholicism. There is some movement today among some conservative Protestants to align with the ancient church. As understanding of what is true and authentic Catholicism drives many in this direction. The early church of the first 300 to 400 years was totally different than the Catholic Church of today, in fact, it could be said some Protestants appear more Catholic than the modern Roman church. Those who for example, want the Latin Mass want only to return to their grandparents or great grandparents (pre-Vatican II) church. Enough said, dialogue is difficult on this type of forum.

Your comment kind of echoes mine. I appreciate your comment from the bottom of my heart. I respect your tradition but I don’t like how some Catholic apologists have addressed this issue

@@Frosee14 I humbly ask that you forgive our mistakes and prayerfully consider Catholicism despite the errors we make in making our case. Much love ❤️

@@lyterman Catholics and Protestants are closer than they have been since the Reformation, at least officially. Especially on Justification. These sticking points can be hard to overcome though. Peace to my Catholic brothers and sisters.

@@mj6493 Some Protestants, yes. Certainly the evil one wishes for us to be apart and fighting between one another as we have since the schisms. May the Lord unite us.

👆 Irreconcilable Differences remain unchanged between Catholics and Non-catholic Believers. Impossible to have real unity without agreement about foundational issues. ⚔️ TRUTH v DECEPTION ⚔️ = Spiritual War

Great to hear that!

I think you might love listening to defense of the Augsburg confession, apology of the church of England. Read history of Popish Transubstantion and defense of the sacrament by thomas Cramner. Athanasius Against the Arians. Augustine on the Trinity. Tertullian apology. The ante Nicene fathers. Best - Reformed view of history. The proper use of the fathers in controversy. I'm Baptist and reading patristics for more then a decade. Ortland is right now. Read the 17th century baptists too.

​@@TruthUnites, Gavin, please, suggest the best books and articles in defense of Sola Scripture.

Precisely.

How do you worship God or use what He has forbidden as an aid to worship?

How do you know it hasn't crossed?? We see people in Mexico turn it to a culture and it's looking pagan

@@raphaelfeneje486 Done in the right way icons can help draw the mind to God, provide a reminder and awareness of God's presence and the cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1), and inspire a Godly desire to grow in righteousness and holiness (to imitate Christ and the saints who fought the good fight before us).

@@JW_______ I basically asked a question. What is the right way?? Where through out church history was it even stated that venerating icons was done in the right way?? If we have the witness of the Holy Spirit, we can trust in his word and be assured of our salvation. We don't need an icon. The human nature always tend to do things excessive, especially when one is ridden with emotions and loyalty and so on. Where do you draw the line is the question. Nowhere in church history does it suggest that there's a certain way to venerate icons or so. I don't know what's the relevance of the verse you quoted though. The Bible says God is closer to us and that he'll make our heart his temple. A Christian is always conscious of God and his words. Doesn't need to venerate icons to be conscious of God. That's idolatry!

Yes

I’m not sure Jimmy or Trent are arguing this. Nor Suan Sonna.

Jimmy says this verbatim. It’s quoted in this video.

@@repentantrevenant9776 oh yeah that’s right. I believe he qualified it as being seen in light of what he considered a u turn: circumcision to no circumcision.

Newman had to invent progression because he couldn’t find those doctrines in history 😒 To be history is to not ever be catholic

Wonderful! Thanks!

🤗

Luther was wrong or lacking in things, he was a human among the rest of us. t. Lutheran

Thank you very much!

@@bersules8 it was a few days ago I watched it, but what I remember is a few of what Gavin has mentioned here. The main issue that I felt was undermined was Jimmy saying icon veneration is a tertiary issue at best and being somewhat condescending in his following rhetoric. He may be right about the hierarchy of truths, but it seemed obvious that the point Gavin made is that the problem is that Icon Veneration (or speaking to images, or images in worship settings) is clearly refuted on multiple accounts in the early centuries, and then develops to be the norm, and if you don’t believe and practice it you are separated from God by anathema or the affects of anathema. How could that be an inspired or authoritative belief when it is starkly different from the early beliefs is the question being asked. I think that makes sense. I’m not saying they didn’t address it, I just felt it was undermined and somewhat misrepresented. Gavin may be wrong, and I’m open to it for sure, but I think it would have been more helpful to clearly deal with the issue at hand. Anyway that’s one I noticed. Not trying to rub anyone the wrong way, I think my observation was pretty fair. I like Jimmy and Trent and I’m subscribed to them as well. I had a long and very tiring day yesterday I’m sorry for the later response, I hope you are well.

I’m saying, they didn’t address it. dismiss & deflect are tactics

It unfortunately works indefinitely w/ too many, if not most people. Catholic Answers has a full panel of mostly ex protestants who can deftly use the bible to finesse many protestants out of the authority of scripture, by using scripture pretty much against itself, and certainly the Catholics who don't really know the bible.

There are no real U Turns. There’s only a couple examples that are even plausible and they can be easily addressed.

Agreed

Theologians have debated points but doctrines are the final conclusion.