What Protestants Got Wrong (And What They Got Right!) w/ George Farmer 

OMG I'm a missionary kid and I was also a missionary for several years. I feel the Catholic Church calling me, I'm so scared!

That's so cool to hear!! Glad to hear from you. I was raised Lutheran myself, but am finding myself increasingly adoring the Catholic Church. Matt's podcast here is intensely interesting and enriching. Also, quite relaxing and funny.

Virgin Mary is our example of who God wants us to be. She is the epitome of who we women should strive to be like.

Like the Biblical Deborah, and Miriam; if someone is only looking to Mary the mother of Jesus (according to His fleshly nature) as an example of a righteous believing woman, then this shouldn't be a problem; however, she is not a co-mediator with Christ, nor do we have any Biblical evidence of her own "immaculate conception" (of Christ's yes, but not her own); as she herself was not sinless but, required the mediation by her son to be reconciled to a Holy God (like we all do): "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" - 1 Timothy 2:5

@@Remy4489 Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without Sin as Eve was. Gen 3:15 Eve chose to disobey God, Virgin Mary chose to be completely obedient to Him (Lk 1:38, Rev 12:17). She is the Arc of the New Covenant (Jesus). God made her full of grace (without sin) to conceive and carry His only Son. She did receive salvation, before she was born, because she was intended to be the mother of God the Son. To suggest otherwise, would say that The Father would allow His Son to be touched by satan. In 1 Chron 13:10 God struck Uzzah dead for even touching The Ark housing The Ten Commandments. But you think He would allow His Son to be born of a woman that had even a taint of sin? No way! God chose Virgin Mary above all women and she never told Him no. She’s our advocate with her Son Jesus Christ. Yes, we can only get to the Father through His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus does not tell His Mother no.

But do you have an alternative lived experience to compare it to?

@@Remy4489 we’re all co-mediators with Christ; when you pray for someone you are participating in the mediation of the one true mediator and sharing in it.

I think that the doctrines about Mary are the only doctrines that prohibit me from becoming Catholic. You can’t tell me that Protestants can’t look up to Mary and learn from her just because we don’t pray to her. Also, I don’t miss dead people whom I’ve never met. I really can’t relate with Matt on that one. I love the show and I wish I could get over this intellectual hurdle of Mary but I just feel convicted when it comes to the doctrines of Mary. Mary wasn’t sinless. She calls Jesus her savior in Luke 14. Why would she need a savior if she was sinless? There isn’t any theology of Mary either. Theology pertains to God.

@@matthewvanwyhe1498 I miss the Apostles, the Saints, the Early Church Fathers and the Martyrs christians who were killed because they refused to deny Christ. All dead, never met them. I stand on their shoulders. I never met Christ in person but I meet Him at every Mass. Catholics belong to an eternal family, some are in Heaven and some are on Earth, one day we will be reprinted at the eternal Feast.

@@matthewvanwyhe1498 Mary calls Jesus her saviour because he protected her from ever commiting sins. Without Jesus she wouldn't be sinless. It's like saying the vaccine saved you from a deadly sickness.

@@illyrian9976 but what about the scriptures that say no one is righteous and all have fallen short?

She called me home to the Church. I love her.❤

Not to mention all the women who follow Jesus, Lydia the apostle Paul’s friend, and phoebe. We can also look up to Mary and not have to see her as sinless and pray to her.

@@matthewvanwyhe1498 Our Lady is elevated because she is the Ark of the new Covenant. The Shekinah/Holy Spirit which overshadowed the Ark was prophesied to return with the Messiah and overshadow the Ark which it did at the Annunciation with Archangel Gabriel. Luke1 "And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee." CC teaches devotion to Our Lady is 100% scriptural but NOT required. The short clip below changed my mind about her. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kUdYeYy3NQA.html

Exactly. And same.

Trivia: St. Evodius of Antioch is the one invented word Christian while St. Ignatius invented the word Catholic

Exactly, especially as many Protestants view both themselves and Catholics as The Church/Christians.

Or from the Oriental Orthodox family as a whole, for that matter!

What is the DIFFERENCE between a Judaism Jew and a Messianic Jew?

@@Darth_Vader258 believing that Jesus is the Messiah.

@@danielhinz3880then why not be baptised and join the church? Why not receive his Body in the Eucharist. He does mention we have to do all this

That's not wrong. I absolutely adore Ruth & Naomi and need to look into Deborah more. But, they're also Old Testament. Virgin Mary was there from Jesus' birth up to His crucifixion and to Pentecost. She was a major player in the Gospels. She's also just an especially great example of pure 100% fearless obedience to God. Being the literal Mother of God (God the Son) takes a very special kind of lady, not just any ol' random person. Angel Gabriel did greet her in a very distinct way after all--the Hail Mary prayer is his words straight from the book of Luke.

I grew up protestant, in multiple denominations over the years of my life. I only heard Mary mentioned at Christmas. Instead, I was taught that Catholics worshiped her, that Catholics didn't believe Christ rose from the dead, that Catholics thought they were killing Christ at every Mass, that the Pope was the anti Christ, that the Vatican was the Whore of Babylon ----- and those are just the tip of the iceburg. Those things were taught to me as though they were absolute truth and that everybody knew it. That is the reality of what Catholics hear from most of the conversation directed at us from protestants. Your love of the Church is wonderful. I somehow ended up with that same love despite growing up being taught, from the pulpit, to hate the Church. Then I converted because of that love. Now I get to hear all those arguments, over and over and over, as though I need to abandon this faith that I fought for. Apologists like Trent hear the same arguments (many of them prejudiced or hateful) over and over and over. And over. At a certain point one ends up being on the defense, even if not on purpose, and the answers get sharper as steel sharpens steel over and over. Thank you for speaking up for Catholics in protestant circles. I promise there are just as many Catholics doing the same on this side. This interview wasn't treating protestants like atheists.

@@Mrs_Homemaker I'm sorry that your church was so bad, and I've experienced some of the same, but that isn't Protestantism, that is just one Protestant church. *"Thank you for speaking up for Catholics in protestant circles. I promise there are just as many Catholics doing the same on this side."* I think that it is the least we can do for one another, so long as we love each other. *"This interview wasn't treating protestants like atheists."* I agree in one sense, but I disagree in another. I find it odd that most Protestant channels on RU-vid, although there are exceptions, rarely bring up Catholicism focusing, instead, on winning the lost. Catholic channels mostly, in my experience, have a relatively high amount of anti-Protestantism content. Sure, this video isn't as bad as Horn's, Ways Protestants Act Like Atheist, series, but the guy in the video literally acted like Mary wasn't in the Protestant Bible and like Mary isn't respected by Protestants, which is anything but true, except for in a few fundamentalist churches. In that sense, in the sense of treating us more like enemies that bothers and sisters in Christ, this video treated us like atheists, at least in my opinion.

@@mr.dododog5793 *"We think protestants have deep love for Christ, but have ultimately erred."* That doesn't justify treating us this way, I don't think. Furthermore, Protestants have this same belief about Catholics, yet Protestant channels seem to have a much lower relative amount of anti-Catholicism content than Catholic channels have anti-Protestantism content. *"I encourage you to study church history, the church fathers, and discern this issue in Christ."* I have. *"But from a previous comment which I thought was fair comment on protestant theology, it seems you overreacted."* What makes it an overreaction? What is an appropriate reaction to seeing people you love speaking ill about you and your kind, only quiet acceptance? I'm sorry if you don't like my response, but since I've posted more gentle responses many times already, on both this channel and on Horn's, I think it's appropriate to escalate the strength of the response, so long as I don't cross a line into being uncharitable, unloving, or obviously hypocritical. Such is the only hope for change, besides prayer. P.S. If you are neither Catholic nor Protestant, then what do you mean when you say, "We think protestants..."? "We" who? Eastern Orthodox?

Like half of the comments are protestant hate watchers bashing Catholicism. It is also fairly apparent that Catholics can understand protestants and how they would respond to questions way more than vice versa. Since you watch Trent Horn, you can see the myriad of tired canards popular protestant apologists trot out, like the "Catholics believe in resacrificing Christ in the eucharist." When people try to correct Trent, he responds in an irenic manner, but when Trent tries to correct them literally quoting from the catechism where it contradicts them, they don't respond so nicely. If you assume protestantism as the default, you might take for granted where they misrepresent Catholics

@@TheThreatenedSwan *"Like half of the comments are protestant hate watchers bashing Catholicism."* That doesn't interact with what I said. *"It is also fairly apparent that Catholics can understand protestants and how they would respond to questions way more than vice versa."* I disagree. *"Since you watch Trent Horn, you can see the myriad of tired canards popular protestant apologists trot out, like the "Catholics believe in resacrificing Christ in the eucharist.""* I agree that that happens, because I'm not trying to justify the bad actions of my side (like many seem to like to do), but I think that my point still stands that this sort of stuff just fans the flames. *"When people try to correct Trent, he responds in an irenic manner, but when Trent tries to correct them literally quoting from the catechism where it contradicts them, they don't respond so nicely."* That, also, doesn't change the fact that this sort of video just fans the flames. It's just not loving. Why defend it? *"If you assume protestantism as the default, you might take for granted where they misrepresent Catholics"* I don't assume Protestantism is the default. I was so close to becoming Catholic, that I considered myself Catholic at heart, even though I knew the Catholic Church wouldn't have me. This, to me, is just an example of the same thing you are complaining about. An old, anti-Prontestantism canard. I hear it almost as often as I hear people tell me about my Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura not being in the scriptures, even though I don't believe in Sola Scriptura (nor do all Protestants, Methodists, for example). Isn't that a fun one. Every time I leave a comment trying to get through to anti-Protestantism RU-vidrs that I watch, and really like, I encounter similar "canards" and similar supposed justifications for this gross, unloving behavior.

Slanderous lies.

Not quite. There are people out there, who do this, but I wouldn't blame Protestantism for the selfishness of a depraved individual who claims Christ and acts in opposition to Him.

@@Real_LiamOBryan Protestantism≠protestants. Protestants are correct insofar as they share Christian beliefs, but the whole religion is ostensibly premised on sola opiniona though in reality protestants have always played puritan to papists then playing papist to their own puritans. There is also a double standard where they demand of Catholics that our beliefs be explicitly taught in the Bible while their beliefs must merely not contradict the Bible that is to say their interpretation. The average protestant is quite similar to the average Catholic in character traits, but the religions engender some significant differences.

@@TheThreatenedSwan *"Protestantism≠protestants."* Uh-huh. *"but the whole religion is ostensibly premised on sola opiniona"* More slanderous lies. *"There is also a double standard where they demand of Catholics that our beliefs be explicitly taught in the Bible while their beliefs must merely not contradict the Bible that is to say their interpretation."* Lies. I'm not even going to converse with you. You have no charity and show no love. You just assert falsehoods.

Cope

LOL

"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" "Hail, full of grace [kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"

Ancient Jews sought the intercession of Rachel. Read the Rabbinic literature. God is depicted as not hearing the pleas of the patriarchs, yet will hear those of Rachel as matriarch. Even up to the early 20th century, some Jews left votive candles at the Tomb of Rachel. "Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard on high of lamentation, of mourning and weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not." Jeremiah 31:15

Catholics believe that Mary was sinless, Protestants don’t.

“The Fathers Know Best” is a great book on what the early church fathers believed. There are many topics in that book including purgatory, Mary and overall early church history.

There are more apostles. Maybe the church was built on Peter's statement, you are the Son of God. Peter was a leader to the Jewish people. Nathaniel praised the Lord as the King of Israel, son of God, we look to the Lord's death like the serpent in the wilderness, not the Catholic church and always fallible popes.

@@danielhinz3880 From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. The 120 is the Knesset HaGadolah which was supposed to be restored in the Olam Haba. Judaism and Catholicism was born on Shavuot/Pentecost and to this day the current Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors who elect the Pope. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two priesthood offices of Temple and Authority back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government). Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return. The pope sits on the Seat of Moses, Jesus set up a new "davidic" Kingdom with a new steward/keys, new 12 tribes and magisterium/beit-din. Moses had a Written law, he had the Oral law/Sacred Traditon and he sat on the Seat of Moses. He had the magisterium/beit-din where he had 70 other men who came and helped him interpret and teach the law which btw Moses was infallible when he pronounced dogmas. The Eben Shetia stone centrepiece of the temple, Rabbis believed the stone was where Abraham attempted to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on and this stone was the first landed by God when creating the NEW EARTH. The Ark sat on this stone. Peter was renamed ROCK appointed in a land run by Roman pagans, he then lands in the centre of the pagan Roman Empire, Rome and proceeds to create a new world of christianity.

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker what? Sounds like gibberish. Judaism is alot older than Catholicism.

@@danielhinz3880 Big difference between Temple Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism doesn't have the temple liturgy with the priestly sacrifices which God proscribed MUST be done. Catholicism is older than Rabbinic Judaism which has no authority and came into being after 170AD when they wrote down what should not have been written the Torah Shebbah Pel. Prior to that the rabbis never had any authority to make any decisions, they were teachers only. From the time of Moses, it was the Priests in charge and Moses sat on the Seat of Moses. We kept the priests when Jesus gave Peter the keys of the steward of the davidic royal household. The stewards keys according to Judaism were for government/authority and a priestly office. In first century we had jewish priests who converted to Christ and brought their Temple liturgy over to Catholicism/EO. Confession, purgatory, Saints, relics etc are all ancient practices/beliefs from Judaism. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah he didn't start a new religion but natural continuation of Judaism under the new covenant, his first followers were all Jews and they started this new covenant Judaism in their respective synagogues of Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Rome, Corinth, Smyrna, Carthage, with the basic tradition like tabernacle, alter, menorah, priesthood etc. intact and by first century itself they called themselves Catholic. They considered Mary as new Eve, new Gavirah, new Ark of covenant, theotokos and nobody disputed over it for fourteen centuries until the satanic cult of sola scriptura Judaism and Catholicism are the same faith in two covenants, one old and the other new.

@@danielhinz3880 you’re seriously misinformed. Peter was the Catholic Church First Pope, has a direct succession to Pope Francis. There was 12 apostles. History and The Holy Bible proves this. What a way to spend time Bot!

You're not really explaining why their thesis is wrong; experiences do not affirm relative reality, there are truths and falsehoods regardless of one's perception. You ought to explain why he's wrong, hence why you disagree.

You are a protestant? Well, I am a restorer of words. It is my believe that words should be rooted in, well, their root. Do you have something to protest against? And if so: what? Is the act of protesting fundamental to your specific branch of Christianity? If not, then I would refrain from calling you a protestant. Edit: I have just realized an error. An earlier meaning of the word "protest" is synonymous to the present meaning of "profess". "Protest" itself is rooted in "testari" which means "testify". So in this sense of the word there is no "protesting against", but rather "protesting for", and therefore anyone who professes/testifies faith in Christ can be a "protestant". But of course, in our modern ears this does not sound quite right. And also: I am aware that my entire comment does not really adress the entirety of your comment, but rather a very specific part of it.

@@Mathiasda also geneologies don't tell you what the word means, then it's the geneological fallacy

@@Mathiasda *"Protestant comes from the Protestation at Speyer in 1529, where the nobility protested against enforcement of the Edict of Worms which subjected advocates of Lutheranism to forfeit of all their property."* Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Protestantism#:~:text=Protestantism%20originated%20from%20the%20Protestant,forfeit%20of%20all%20their%20property. Protestants are part of the movement that started as a *_protest_* against the Edict of Worms.

@@josephbrandenburg4373 While I do not disagree with you entirely, since the problem that you point out is definitely something that calls for more work in order for my theory and method to function, I will still defend the etymologically informed approach to unlocking the true meaning of words. The deeper you dig the more you learn the basics of how words are constructed and how they are rooted. Of course we have to accept (to some extent) that words can change their meaning over time, but there is also no denying that language is a battle field, and sometimes words are simply being butchered by people with malicious intent, and I will do what I can to preserve the value of good old words. But I am now digressing even further, since these remarks are not so much connected to the word "protestant".

I assume he means Christians who aren't Catholic. How could that phrase be a strawman? It's just a category. You don't have to agree with it, but a category of people is not a strawman.

@@TheThreatenedSwan perhaps it's not a strawman but it's similar to speaking of 'coloured people' or 'first nations'. A tribal person of PNG and a Chinese business man are both not white, but that's where similarities become less clear. For example the Lutheran tradition is closer to the EO than it is to American Evangelicalism.

I was former protestant - now I'm Catholic. I understand how jarring and out of place it must look to revere Mary like Catholics do. But I must inform you the disconnection is from ignorance (not your fault since we have been brought up without knowing her). Protestants can say we have Mary but as protestants we do nothing to revere or even respect her at all. Jesus on his final moments on the cross tells his mother Mary "Woman, behold, your son (disciple John)!" and then to his disciple John (telling us Christians) "Son, behold, your mother (Mary)!" And the disciple took the mother Mary into his home. (John 19:26-27) Jesus literally gave his mother to us. Not just to remember her through reading text but to also love her and respect her like she is our own mother. And she is the perfect mother for everyone. Blessed Mary leads us to her son, Jesus Christ, and that is her most precious devotion for us. To know Mary is to know Christ even more. Not to mention that Mary, the mother of God, is the mentioned in Revelation 12 as such: "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head." She is to be respected and revered like Christ has done for her for his entire walk on earth. Worshiping is different. Only God is to be worshiped. And again Mary leads us to worship and obey God like she has done for her whole life. Look into the Early Church and its Church Fathers on how much they respected and revered Mary. The only true Christian faction that has retained all practices and dogmas of the original Early Church that Jesus has founded is the Catholic Church. "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Muslims love God, should we not evangelize them?

Mary was indeed saved by Jesus Christ. She was saved by being preserved from sin at the moment of her conception. Jude 1:24 talks “Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing,” ‭‭Jude‬ ‭1‬:‭24‬

@Matthew van Wyhe

@@catholicfish9780 amen brother. Our Father and the blessed trinity can certainly do that for us. I just think that’s by trusting in the Gospel, and that that verse isn’t applicable to God creating someone who is pure at birth. And it still doesn’t answer why Mary needs to be sinless, and if she needed to be sinless to birth the Messiah, then her mother would also need to be sinless to bear her as a sinless daughter. Do you see how this train of logic plays out?

@@matthewvanwyhe1498 She didn’t have to be sinless. Her sinlessness comes from the fact that she was the human vessel which God himself became man. It was from her flesh that Christ received his Human nature. Because Jesus is God it makes sense he would receive his humanity from a sinless human nature. But it doesn’t mean it was a strict necessity that Mary be sinless for him to receive from her a sinless human nature. God could have done it anyway he wanted to do so. The immaculate conception isn’t a statement on her dignity but a statement on the Lords dignity as it shows who he is ,God incarnate. It also was also not necessary for her parents or linage to be persevered from sin as it was a special grace given to Mary in anticipation for the Lord (her sons) redemptive work. It was a grace God could give to anyone and at anytime he pleased to do so. But he gave it to her to equip her with the graces to become a fit mother for our Lord. This grace wasn’t given to her parents or Lineage because it wasn’t necessary for them to have the same exact precise graces given to Christs mother who would bear him in her own womb.

@@catholicfish9780 that’s a decent answer. Thanks

she was sinless because of the graces of God, not because she is equal to God

#Calvin was a whip smart guy, but don't you think he was too hard on the Catholic Church? Plus he was critiquing something that no longer exists. Catholicism post Vatican 2 is very different to the Catholics he knew 500 years ago.

Funnily enough, you're a lot closer to Catholics than most other Protestants.

@@josephbrandenburg4373 In what way?

@@aclark903 Calvinism is based on Augustinian theology, which is one of the chief cornerstones of Catholic theology. The idea of the federal headship of Adam, predestination, individual election to salvation, all that originated with Augustine (c. 400 A.D) and was picked up by Calvin a little more than a thousand years later. I donno how many Catholics are believers in predestination, to be fair, but Augustine and his teachings were the basis of all of this.

@@josephbrandenburg4373 What do you mean by "federal" headship? Admittedly, I've not read #CityofGod, though I have read his #Confessions.