The NXR Podcast - THE LIVESTREAM - Did Protestantism Destroy Christendom？

00:00:00.000 Leave us a five-star review on your favorite podcast platform.

00:00:03.820 I get it.

00:00:04.620 It's annoying.

00:00:05.380 Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.

00:00:07.420 When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm so that

00:00:12.440 our podcast shows up on more people's news feeds.

00:00:16.280 You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries

00:00:20.820 aren't.

00:00:21.860 We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears. 0.98

00:00:30.000 the church in america is super duper gay this is undeniable some would say that it's not only gay 0.98

00:00:38.420 but it is fake and gay now there are many friends catholic and eastern orthodoxy who would like to 0.99

00:00:46.680 accuse protestants as the source of all this gayness it's undeniable that a large percentage 0.90

00:00:54.220 of protestant churches especially the mainline protestant churches have embraced same-sex 0.91

00:00:59.300 marriage. They've embraced female ordination. You will find rainbow flags all placed outside

00:01:07.720 of the church buildings, more prominent than many crosses in these mainline Protestant

00:01:12.960 denominations. Of course, you also have Big Eva that is spiritually gay for all intents and 0.97

00:01:18.620 purposes. And then, of course, you also have many word of faith, prosperity, seeker-friendly

00:01:23.760 Protestant churches that may really not take a position one way or the other, but you are sure

00:01:30.160 to find smoke machines and laser lights and a 18-minute TED talk that probably doesn't use

00:01:37.660 the Bible at all, and if it does, uses the Bible out of context. The Protestant church in America

00:01:43.560 has struggled for quite some time. We admit this, but is it fair historically to say that

00:01:50.120 Protestantism is what derailed the Christian church and caused it to become increasingly

00:01:56.300 progressive? Our answer in today's episode is no. And in order to flesh that answer out,

00:02:02.360 to back it up, we have invited the other Paul to join our show as a special guest

00:02:07.220 in order to make a historic argument for why Protestantism, despite some of its setbacks,

00:02:13.700 is ultimately not to blame for the church in America being in disarray today. Tune in now.

00:02:30.020 Here we are, myself, our very own Wesley Todd, and as promised, special guest,

00:02:35.560 the other Paul. Thanks for coming on the show. G'day, gentlemen. Thank you for having me again.

00:02:41.800 It is a fine, if slightly dreary Australian morning here, but it's going to look like a fantastic stream and a fantastic day in general.

00:02:53.360 I think it's going to be great.

00:02:55.040 And I am always grateful to hear your Australian accent, because if it were not for your accent, your look, it would kind of, I don't know, it kind of feels a little Muslimly, you know, feels a little Islamic to me.

00:03:09.580 But then you open your mouth, begin to speak, and it's like, all right, he's our guy. We're safe.

00:03:14.340 We're going to be okay. So you're going to kind of take us down a historical path today. You've

00:03:19.700 done the reading, as the kids say, and we're very grateful for it. And so if you could just kind of

00:03:26.320 take some time, and really, we've kind of delved into this a little bit, but one of the common

00:03:31.860 accusations that I'll hear from my Catholic friends or Eastern Orthodox friends is that

00:03:37.600 the Reformation was really just the other side of the same coin, which the other side being the

00:03:44.700 Enlightenment, right? And so it's not really different, and this is ultimately what derailed

00:03:50.860 the church. We took the transcendent and the objective, and we made it imminent and subjective

00:03:55.980 and relative, and it's just been a crap show ever since. But I don't think that's true, 0.74

00:04:04.000 and it'd be nice historically to make the argument.

00:04:07.360 So could you lead us off

00:04:08.500 and just start to take us down this historic path?

00:04:13.680 Well, Kaz, I don't know why you think I look brown, bro.

00:04:16.280 I'm white, I swear.

00:04:17.260 No, I just, I just.

00:04:21.960 But yes, there's four key myths in particular

00:04:25.820 I want to tackle today.

00:04:28.580 And the first two of them are quite closely related.

00:04:31.940 They are, but all four of them are that the Reformation was anti-liturgical, that it was anti-sacramental, that it was anti-tradition, and that it was the unique cause of the Enlightenment.

00:04:47.920 Now, as a bit of a preface as well, my particular focus, because this is my tradition, is going to be on the English Reformation and the Anglican tradition.

00:04:59.900 So, that's basically where my sources are chiefly derived from.

00:05:05.880 But a lot of what I say here can be equally applied to the Lutheran and distinct Reformed denominations as well, with some ever so slight differences.

00:05:16.320 differences. But if people more or less want to hear the same arguments, the same attacking of

00:05:24.300 myths from, let's say, from the Lutheran tradition, two channels I can particularly

00:05:29.000 recommend to you are the Scholastic Lutherans and Jordan B. Cooper. And Dr. Cooper, if you're

00:05:37.740 listening, please unblock me on Twitter, but be that as it may, they are very good channels for

00:05:43.560 essentially establishing, well, what is the confessional Lutheran faith? What does it teach

00:05:48.400 at the Reformation and after the Reformation? And in this case, what are some myths that Romanists

00:05:54.380 and other like traditions like to spread about us, which is just not true. So I recommend those

00:06:02.600 channels for that. As for the reform side, I can't actually think of one particular channel

00:06:09.660 that's great at that, or at least specializes in that hardcore. But if you go on Twitter,

00:06:15.300 if you follow me on Twitter at TheOtherPaul2, you can find me interacting with many, many good

00:06:21.200 reform guys who are more than capable of dunking on those myths quite hard. As for myself, I'm

00:06:27.120 focusing here on the Anglican tradition and the English Reformation and demonstrating how those

00:06:32.560 myths completely fall flat for that. So with the first one, this will be that, and you gentlemen

00:06:38.240 can interject or ask questions whenever you feel like, of course, as usual. And the first one being

00:06:44.140 that the Reformation rejected the liturgical richness of the historical church, stripping

00:06:50.080 it down to a bare bones Sunday meeting where reading the Bible and preaching were the only

00:06:55.140 things that mattered. Now, of all the myths, this is one of two that has an ever so slight kernel

00:07:05.180 of truth to it. And that's why it's good to kind of address it first. And that chiefly regards the

00:07:11.400 Reformed tradition, but also in Anglicanism, the Reformed end of that tradition, which was

00:07:17.060 particularly dominant in the 16th century. So for a very, very brief overview for everybody,

00:07:23.120 in the English Reformation in the 16th century, particularly from Edward VI through to Elizabeth,

00:07:30.660 but especially in Edward VI, the English Reformation was highly, highly, highly,

00:07:35.280 highly reformed, as in uppercase R, reformed theology. And it got to a point of almost

00:07:41.940 bordering on Puritanism at points. And so by the late 16th century and then through into the 17th

00:07:49.220 century, other Anglican theologians and bishops actually ended up pushing back against certain

00:07:54.980 Puritan reformed extremes that were made at that period, which is very, very important because

00:07:59.760 that's actually what ends up saving Anglicanism from certain extremities that were simply not

00:08:06.480 necessary in the Reformation. Now, in that light, there was a very intensive campaign of stripping

00:08:15.060 down liturgy at points in the 16th century. But even there, it wasn't some strictly anti-liturgical,

00:08:23.760 oh, it's just reading the Bible, it's just preaching, and that's all that matters. No,

00:08:29.080 that's a myth. Even with more Puritan-minded theologians and bishops, they always had a very

00:08:37.120 high regard for the Lord's Supper, to the point that that was actually a central point of theological

00:08:41.640 dispute. What is proper to do? What is the proper practice for partaking in the Lord's Supper in

00:08:50.880 the service, if you will. And so, for example, one key debate was whether we should kneel in

00:08:59.300 communion or not. The more developed Anglican theologians would argue, yes, we should. It's

00:09:07.340 good. It's proper. It's reverent. But then Puritan theologians would argue, no, we should not,

00:09:13.540 because that gives into Romanist superstitions on transubstantiation and their ideas of

00:09:21.540 Eucharistic adoration. And then of course, elsewhere with the prayer book in 1552,

00:09:28.800 the second version by Thomas Cranmer, it would prescribe a very particular, but symbolically

00:09:34.240 actually quite rich form of receiving the sacrament where rather than a typical altar

00:09:39.300 upon the east end and people come up to that and receive or near it. Instead, there would be a

00:09:45.520 table and it would face the north side and the people would gather around at that table and

00:09:52.320 receive the Lord's Supper there. Obviously, much more low church, but still symbolically rich. And

00:09:59.020 that's important. And I guess it kind of bleeds into both the question of whether it was

00:10:04.840 Reformation was anti-liturgical and anti-sacramental, but both matters apply. So

00:10:10.380 if we could pull up quote number one, this is from the 39 articles of religion, specifically

00:10:19.840 article number 34. And so for those who don't know, the 39 articles are one of the authoritative

00:10:28.600 doctrinal, well, authorities for the Angkin tradition. And it says this concerning traditions

00:10:34.160 and ceremonies. It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly

00:10:41.120 alike, for at all times they have been diverse and may be changed according to the diversity of

00:10:46.360 countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever,

00:10:52.920 through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and

00:10:57.640 ceremonies of the church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved

00:11:02.400 by common authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that

00:11:08.620 offendeth against the common order of the church and hurteth the authority of the magistrate

00:11:12.620 and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national church have authority

00:11:18.320 to ordain change and abolish ceremonies or rights of the church ordained only by man's authority

00:11:23.420 so that all things be done to edifying. And what's important with here is that unlike with the

00:11:30.340 reformed regulative principle of worship, which asserts the necessity of all the elements of the

00:11:37.080 liturgy being clearly stated and established in scripture. Here, the articles, and thus the Church

00:11:43.400 of England, the Anglican tradition, asserts that, well, any ceremonies in the church, as long as

00:11:49.720 they're not actively repugnant to the word of God, even if they're not explicitly laid out in it,

00:11:54.720 they're fine. And the church has the authority to establish these. And this is indeed what we

00:11:59.360 would end up seeing with the various versions of the book of common prayer up until it's relatively

00:12:04.480 speaking final version in 1662 and even with the return to more high church practices in the 17th

00:12:13.040 century such as the return to more ordinary if you will roman style altars although that's a bit

00:12:19.780 of a misnomer to think that way um and so it introduces i was just going to say an element

00:12:25.480 of prudence to it so it comes in and it says there isn't a rigid system in all nations in

00:12:30.860 all times in all places we're not abolishing it either there's good traditions that instructed

00:12:35.540 by the word of god that we should keep however we're not going to be so rigid as to say all of

00:12:40.240 these have to be kept prudently kept not flagrant not just breaking some tradition because it's a

00:12:45.520 tradition that's what it's bringing in it seems like not just anti-liturgical anti-tradition

00:12:50.400 anti all these practices that have been done in the past

00:12:52.960 that is precisely true and in particular some helpful context is with the council of trent

00:13:00.980 which by the time the 39 articles were finally assented to or given royal assent in 1571

00:13:07.580 the council of trent had finished uh in around 1563 i believe for those who don't know the

00:13:14.700 council of trent is one of the major councils of the roman catholic church and that was basically

00:13:20.540 their big anti-Reformation council. And in particular, it was a vehicle for normalizing, 0.82

00:13:29.100 if memory serves correct, the Tridentine mass as we know it. Now, obviously the Latin mass

00:13:34.760 in Roman Catholicism, there were Latin masses in that, but the Council of Trent and other like

00:13:40.200 councils had a role in standardizing things across the Christian world through the power of the

00:13:44.980 papacy, which was not merely in their minds, the spiritual head of the church, but even had

00:13:49.860 temporal headship over all states and so the that important context with the 39 articles is that

00:13:56.720 it's establishing well actually no not only can the church ordain rituals even if they're not

00:14:03.260 explicitly stated in scripture but also this is the right of national churches to do at their

00:14:08.740 own discretion this is not something that the pope can impose upon us and so in those and so 0.96

00:14:14.540 with that context, we learn it's not this stupid caricature of, oh, Rome was all about the beauty 0.91

00:14:22.040 and tradition and blah, blah, blah, but the reform were just these utter adults who hated tradition 0.99

00:14:27.540 and wanted everything to be plain and bland. Well, no, it wasn't. The question was actually

00:14:32.960 of a principle. What is proper in worship? They held up liturgy. It was just that they disputed

00:14:38.920 the proper principles of liturgy with Rome, but also questions of authority and not merely

00:14:44.620 the authority of scripture and tradition, but also the temporal authority who has the

00:14:50.220 coercive state power to enforce these changes. Great. Yep. Nope. Keep on going.

00:15:01.900 Perfect. All right. Could we bring up quote number two, because this actually goes,

00:15:06.880 it shows even deeper the particularity of the Anglican tradition's position. So this second

00:15:11.900 quote is from the Savoy Conference. Now, the Savoy Conference was a 1661 gathering of bishops of the

00:15:22.160 newly restored Church of England and of various Puritan ministers shortly after the restoration

00:15:28.960 with Charles II after the parliamentarian regime basically collapsed. And this conference was

00:15:37.420 basically established to create some final, some more revisions for the Book of Common Prayer.

00:15:43.120 And it both heard from the more lowercase C Catholic-minded bishops of the Church of England

00:15:48.500 versus the Puritan ministers. And they had a whole bunch of debates about what should be in and what

00:15:53.820 should not be in the Book of Common Prayer. Now, the very famous, and in some circles are here

00:15:59.120 notorious, Reformed theologian Richard Baxter, as well as another Cornelius Burgess, they gave

00:16:06.740 what was termed as their exceptions to the Book of Common Prayer, the things that they thought were

00:16:11.760 bad and should be removed or replaced. That was responded to by the bishops at Savoy, and this is

00:16:18.840 what they said, uh, in, in light of, um, in light of their particular paradigm of the

00:16:25.200 regulative principle, the bishops say, quote, again, it can be no impeachment of Christ's

00:16:30.440 laws as insufficient to make such laws for decency, since our savior, as is evident from

00:16:36.620 the precepts themselves, did not intend them, intend by them to determine, determine every

00:16:42.360 minute and circumstance of time, place, manner of performance and the like, but only to command

00:16:49.440 in general the substance of those duties and the right ends that should be aimed in the performance

00:16:55.140 and then left every man in particular whom for that purpose he made reasonable to guide himself

00:17:01.240 by the rules of reason for private services and appointed governors of the church to determine

00:17:07.060 such particularities for the public. Um, thus our Lord commanded prayers, fasting, et cetera,

00:17:14.960 for the times and places of performance, uh, sorry, et cetera. But for the times and places

00:17:20.100 of performance, he did not determine every of them, but left them to be guided as we have said

00:17:25.420 so that it is no impeachment of his laws as insufficient to make laws for determining,

00:17:31.100 uh let's say low uh determining uh those particulars of decency which himself did not

00:17:39.820 as is plain by his precepts intend to determine but left us governors for that purpose to whom

00:17:46.820 he said as my father sent me even so i send you and let all things be done decently and in order

00:17:53.260 of whom he hath said to us obey uh those that have oversight over you and told us that if we

00:18:01.080 will not hear his church. We must not be accounted as Christians, but heathens and publicans. Now,

00:18:06.980 forgive some of the more archaic English grammar there, but I think there might have also been

00:18:10.920 some formatting errors when I sent over the text. So, mea culpa. But otherwise, what this was in

00:18:17.020 particular responding to was the accusation that to believe in the church's right to establish

00:18:25.760 other ceremonies and practices in the liturgy that are not found in scripture. This is to impugn

00:18:32.800 the word of God as insufficient. This was a key argument by Baxter. And the bishops are saying,

00:18:39.340 no, it's not. It's not at all that way because our Lord's commands were given towards a particular

00:18:46.500 purpose of establishing principles or establishing ground rules, but they were never intended for

00:18:51.840 establishing every single minute detail of how we ought to do our worship and so that was a key

00:18:58.480 argument by the anglican uh bishops at savoy against the regular principle of worship and

00:19:05.480 that is very important here because that is a strong disabuser of the of a common myth of that

00:19:11.200 oh am i still here uh we lost you but you're back go ahead

00:19:20.980 Okay. Thank God. Thank God. All right. So I'm audible. I'm all good. Yep.

00:19:29.160 All right. Great. So that torpedoes a major myth about the Reformation that it was just

00:19:34.100 anti-liturgical. Oh, where's that in the Bible? Chapter and verse, chapter and verse.

00:19:39.600 Although that said, given how I'm arguing, it's ever so slightly true about the Reformed,

00:19:46.940 about those who affirm the regulative principle of worship. But to batten their defense as well,

00:19:53.640 even in that case, that's not anti-liturgy. That's not saying, oh, not liturgy is a secondary thing,

00:20:00.740 get rid of these smells and bells because, oh, bad. It's because it's actually grounded in

00:20:05.180 principles. It's actually grounded in arguments that if Romanists and others want to address them,

00:20:10.840 want to poo-poo the idea of the regular principle of worship, you have to actually attack it on

00:20:15.120 principle. You can't just, yeah, you can't just take it for granted that it's wrong and assume

00:20:21.780 that and what have you. So that's a key argument. And I'll give one more quote before moving on to

00:20:29.840 the issue of the sacraments, and that's quote number three. And this one is particularly great

00:20:34.580 and particularly beautiful, I think. And it comes from Jeremy Taylor, a great 17th century Anglican

00:20:41.700 theologian, particularly from his work, Holy Living, which is actually something myself and

00:20:46.200 a few other Anglican friends are going through. It is a fantastic work of just how to live as a

00:20:50.500 Christian. And he says, lay fetters, that is, he's giving an imperative, he's giving a command. So

00:20:58.400 lay fetters and restraints upon the imaginative and fantastic part, because our fancy, that is

00:21:05.180 our imagination, being an imperfect and higher faculty is usually pleased with the entertainment

00:21:10.620 of shadows and gourds. And because the things of the world will fill it with such beauties and

00:21:15.820 fantastic imagery, the fancy presents such objects as are amiable to the affections and elective

00:21:22.320 powers. Persons of fancy, such as are women and children, have always the most violent loves.

00:21:28.880 But therefore, if we be careful with what our representants we fill our, we fill our, yeah,

00:21:34.920 sorry if we be careful with what representations we fill our fancy we may sooner rectify our love

00:21:42.080 rectify our love to this purpose it is good that we transplant the instruments of fancy into

00:21:49.480 religion and for this reason music was brought into churches and ornaments and perfumes and

00:21:55.220 comely garments and solemnities and decent ceremonies that the busy and less discerning

00:22:00.740 fancy being bribed with its proper objects may be instrumental to a more celestial and spiritual

00:22:06.060 love. In simpler English here, Jeremy Taylor is saying that because many people have active

00:22:15.300 imaginations or loves and even lusts in some cases, it is good and proper that actually the church

00:22:24.120 have, shall we say, more elaborate liturgies, which includes music, ornaments, even smells

00:22:32.900 or perfumes, as they put it, garments and various ceremonies, that it is actually good that the

00:22:40.820 church employs these in order to direct more carnal minds towards the true and the good and

00:22:48.420 the beautiful. And this is actually a core reason for why we ought to have higher liturgy in our

00:22:54.660 churches. And so this is not from a, this is not from a Romanist. This isn't from, excuse me,

00:23:01.860 this isn't from a Jesuit arguing against the reformed, arguing against the reformation. No,

00:23:07.260 this is from a Protestant, quote unquote, Anglican theologian arguing for the necessity of high

00:23:13.040 liturgy in our churches and so hopefully what i've said here that's nuked the myth uh the first myth

00:23:19.640 that the reformation was anti-liturgical um i guess before i move on do you gents have

00:23:25.820 anything to say any comments or no i've seen in the chat a few people are asking

00:23:32.180 if uh reformed churches have liturgy the answer is yes i mean it depends on which one you're a

00:23:37.080 There could be exceptions, but yes, most classically Reformed churches are liturgical.

00:23:43.920 Right. And I saw a couple other comments. Why focus on the Anglican Church as opposed to Lutheranism and the Reformed tradition, I think, of the Scottish Presbyterians?

00:23:52.760 I think one of the simple answers is that it was the British Empire in the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th centuries that spread across the world.

00:23:58.960 And while not all of the movements that came out of Britain were Anglican, so you had Methodism, you had obviously Baptists as well, like Spurgeon,

00:24:06.160 They all came from that seedbed that was, as you're laying down in here, the church,

00:24:10.460 the 39 articles, the book of common prayer, those were the foundation, the seedbed that

00:24:14.460 a number of Protestant movements that went on to settle America, that went on to form

00:24:18.160 missionary societies, that really went to take over the world and bring Protestant with

00:24:22.460 it, they were rooted and grounded in this. 0.65

00:24:24.980 They weren't rooted in vibes.

00:24:26.280 They weren't rooted in very ahistorical Baptist traditions.

00:24:29.760 They were rooted and grounded in men who were thinking through this, who laid down their

00:24:33.620 principles who were very learned in Med, and this is what they were saying about liturgy. No, here's

00:24:38.980 its use. Here's how to prudently apply it. It wasn't just come as you go. What do we feel like doing?

00:24:44.120 It was very grounded. Exactly, exactly. Very well said. And actually, to explicate my reasons again

00:24:53.260 for why I'm particularly focusing on Anglicanism here, there's really a couple of reasons for it.

00:24:57.280 That was a good reason you gave there, whereas given the influence of the traditions, that's

00:25:01.360 very good. But in particular, it's for two other reasons. One, that is my tradition. And for a long

00:25:07.960 time, I've always made it clear I'm not some generic mere Protestant apologist. There is no

00:25:13.520 such thing as mere Protestantism in terms of a concrete tradition. There is common ground

00:25:19.540 between Anglicans, Lutherans, Continental Reform, Presbyterians, and the like. There is that. And

00:25:25.440 that common ground can be called Protestantism. That's fine. But that's not a concrete tradition. 0.85

00:25:30.200 That is an umbrella category. In a concrete terms, I'm an Anglican. And so I'm going to

00:25:36.800 specifically defend that in my work. But second, it also serves, even if I'm just defending

00:25:43.600 Anglicanism, and again, I pointed people to elsewhere where they can find defences of

00:25:47.600 Lutheranism, for example, particularly scholastic Lutherans and Jordan B. Cooper. Again, Jordan,

00:25:52.560 please unblock me. But even if I'm just defending Anglicanism, the fact is that is one of the 0.99

00:25:59.380 three core pillars of the reformation and so if i can refute certain myths lobbed at the

00:26:05.580 reformation just in the anglican camp then that actually refutes that myth for the reformation

00:26:11.480 generally because now that myth is no longer true even if it ended up being true for lutherans and

00:26:16.740 reformed which in most cases they're not but even if that was the case it wasn't the case

00:26:21.020 for the anglican tradition and so it's not true of the reformation generally that's important

00:26:27.200 So that's why I have the focus here.

00:26:29.240 It's really good and it's much more manageable than just juggling between multiple different

00:26:34.800 traditions, especially when they do have differences on these issues, especially in the matter

00:26:38.460 of liturgy and sacraments.

00:26:39.640 That's where the differences are most pronounced.

00:26:42.160 But with that said, we can now look at the second myth, one that I think is certainly

00:26:46.640 more pervasive, and that is that the Reformation is anti or was anti-sacramental.

00:26:51.020 and it will typically, it will very often be betrayed by many Roman apologists in particular

00:26:56.880 or Eastern apologists that, uh, oh, we believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,

00:27:02.760 that he's truly there. We truly eat his body and we truly drink his blood. Uh, John chapter six,

00:27:08.460 unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you.

00:27:12.320 Uh, the last supper narrative in the synoptic gospels, unless, uh, uh, take and eat this in 0.56

00:27:18.080 my body which is shed for you so on and so forth uh but all you protestants know the protestants

00:27:23.680 believe that it's just a symbol that it's just a memorial and that is of all the reformation myths

00:27:30.100 that one is one of the biggest most shocking and blatant lies ever ever uh spread and unfortunately

00:27:39.080 it's because people will look at many baptists and non-denominational communions or non-denoms

00:27:48.380 they're not communions but whatever they will look at those and they'll see that they very

00:27:53.460 explicitly will argue oh it's just a symbol it's just a memorial there's nothing in their words

00:27:57.560 magical happening which borders on blasphemy but that's for another time um of course though

00:28:03.280 more baptists are actually coming to an acknowledgement of real presence which is

00:28:06.180 fantastic. Holy orders in becomes another question there. But anyway, they'll see those Romanists

00:28:12.860 will see those. And then they will say, oh, look, these guys are part of this thing called

00:28:16.180 Protestantism. And so now I'm going to impute that on Protestantism more generally. And so

00:28:21.340 they'll encounter a Lutheran and they'll say, oh, you don't believe in the real presence.

00:28:24.520 And they'll encounter an Anglican and say, and they'll say, oh, you don't believe in the real

00:28:27.320 presence. Same with reform, same with Methodist, so on and so forth. And one key example I've got

00:28:33.460 of this, I'm going to name names. I'm a guy who likes to name names, is the Roman apologist

00:28:37.340 Douglas Beaumont. And he very, and I'm very confident to say this, he lied. He openly lied

00:28:45.920 in a video of his against Protestantism on the Eucharist, where he explicitly said Protestantism

00:28:52.400 doesn't believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist, whereas Roman Catholicism does.

00:28:58.020 And when an Anglican priest friend of mine, Father James, his channel, barely Protestant,

00:29:01.800 very good. And that's kind of a joke name from earlier in his life. He's not literally barely

00:29:07.060 a Protestant, but anyway, he actually emailed the guy and said, yo, that's not true. We Anglicans

00:29:11.020 believe in our own authorities that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. And then the guy

00:29:16.380 replied saying, oh, actually by real presence, I specifically mean the Roman view of transubstantiation

00:29:24.680 because that's the only meaningful view of real presence, which is utterly deceptive,

00:29:30.880 let alone wrong. But point being, that's how common the myth is. And to nuke that from orbit

00:29:38.000 right from the get-go, I want to bring up quote number four, which is also from the 39 articles

00:29:44.100 of religion, again, authoritative for the Anglican tradition, specifically articles number 25 and 28,

00:29:50.060 which pertain to the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism, or more specifically the

00:29:58.120 Lord's Supper, but it applies to baptism too. So article 25 on the sacraments generally,

00:30:03.320 sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession,

00:30:08.500 but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's goodwill

00:30:16.120 towards us by the which he doth work invisibly in us and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen

00:30:23.180 and confirm our faith in him. And then article 28, which is on the Lord's Supper. The supper of the

00:30:29.660 Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another,

00:30:35.100 but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, insomuch that to such as

00:30:42.580 rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same. The bread which we break is a partaking of the

00:30:48.580 body of christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of christ so right 0.65

00:30:54.920 there in two paragraphs just utterly carpet bombed like israel over gaza that complete myth

00:31:03.400 of the reformation being anti-sacramental this is one of the core authorities of anglicanism

00:31:09.700 directly affirming these are not mere symbols they're not they are effectual signs of grace

00:31:16.540 or a more common terminology, means of grace.

00:31:21.340 And I don't even need to say more about that.

00:31:24.920 That's it.

00:31:25.320 That is our official stance.

00:31:27.520 Now, it's true that in Anglicanism,

00:31:30.320 there are some diversities on precisely how that's articulated

00:31:33.740 because we don't go into a lot more detail,

00:31:36.840 at least in our fundamental authorities,

00:31:39.360 on in what precise manner is Christ present?

00:31:42.960 Is he present in a real and substantial sense,

00:31:45.560 which is not the same as transubstantiation, by the way, because transubstantiation particularly

00:31:51.020 affirms that the substance of bread and wine is itself lost when the substance of Christ's body,

00:31:57.860 blood, soul, and divinity comes in, to state it very simply. But you can still affirm as an

00:32:04.540 Anglican that Christ is really and substantially present, but so is the substance of bread and

00:32:11.000 wine. So there's some who believe that. There's others who affirm something called virtualism,

00:32:17.780 where it's the effects, it is the power of Christ's body and blood that is present in the

00:32:23.500 sacraments. And then you've also got the issue of receptionism, whether the sacraments in and

00:32:29.060 of themselves have that presence, or if it's only with the worthy partaking of it, that Christ's

00:32:34.520 body and blood is truly present. I personally believe receptionism is just not Anglican, but

00:32:39.040 be that as it may, either way, something is really happening with the sacrament. As it's said in

00:32:45.400 article 28, those who worthily receive with faith, when they partake in the bread of Christ, that

00:32:52.260 bread is the body of Christ. And when they partake in the cup, in the wine, that is the blood of

00:32:59.400 Christ. And thus they take upon themselves the benefits of Christ's death, of Christ's sacrifice

00:33:06.300 for us. And so to further state this, but in particular with baptism, I want to bring up

00:33:13.660 quote number five. And this is from the Book of Common Prayer, 1662, which is also for us,

00:33:20.940 for Anglicans, doctrinally authoritative. And that's something that's quite unique for us

00:33:24.740 versus the other Reformation traditions, where our liturgy also is an authority.

00:33:29.440 But with that said, this is from the, from the rite of the sacrament of baptism of infants.

00:33:37.460 And this is one of the prayers from the priest.

00:33:40.760 Almighty ever living God, whose most dearly beloved son, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of our sins, did shed out of his most precious side, both water and blood, and gave commandment to his disciples that they should go teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

00:33:58.660 regard we beseech thee the supplications of thy congregation, sanctify this water to the mystical

00:34:05.180 washing away of sin, and grant that this child, now to be baptized therein, may receive the fullness

00:34:12.100 of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through Jesus Christ

00:34:17.920 our Lord. Amen. In sum, baptism now saves you. It just does. Baptism saves you. Direct biblical

00:34:27.360 statement, but much more explicitly affirmed right here in that prayer. When a, in this case,

00:34:32.900 it's an infant, but the principle applies the same to adult baptism as well. You can see similar

00:34:36.740 prayers in those rites. When someone is baptized, it's not merely a public declaration that I'm a

00:34:44.860 Christian. Hey guys, look at me, I'm a Christian. And how do I show that? I get a bit wet. No,

00:34:50.880 that's not what baptism is. It's not a mere symbol. It's not a mere thing of showing off

00:34:54.820 or of declaring your faith, it is actually a means by which you receive the washing of divine grace

00:35:04.400 that washes away original sin. And thus you are engrafted into the church and into the body of

00:35:11.540 Christ. And so just like with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the sacrament of baptism

00:35:18.980 in our tradition is real and effectual. It is a means of grace. Um, and I'll, I guess I'll

00:35:28.220 immediately bring up just to kind of hammer it home as well with the Lord's supper. I'll bring

00:35:32.800 up quote number six now. Um, and this is also from the book of common prayer, but specifically

00:35:37.960 from the right of, uh, from the service of Holy communion. And this is what the minister says

00:35:44.540 when the congregants are coming up when they kneel before the altar or however the arrangement is

00:35:49.880 and as the minister is giving them the bread and giving him the cup this is what he says so when

00:35:55.600 the minister delivereth the bread to anyone he shall say the body of our lord jesus christ which

00:36:01.260 was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life take and eat this in remembrance

00:36:06.740 that christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving and then uh and

00:36:13.800 And the minister that delivereth the cup to anyone shall say the blood of our Lord Jesus

00:36:18.140 Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.

00:36:23.060 Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee and be thankful.

00:36:27.520 So right here in that service, as the minister is actually delivering you a piece of bread,

00:36:32.980 when he has that in his hand, he's putting it into your hand.

00:36:36.700 What is he calling it?

00:36:37.860 He calls it the body of Christ, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it will preserve

00:36:43.480 thy body and thy soul. This material piece of bread is going to give energy for your body to

00:36:49.320 continue, but also our Lord's own mystical body present in that element, it's going to preserve

00:36:55.880 your soul. And likewise with the cup, when he's giving you the cup with the sanctified wine and

00:37:01.500 he gives that to you to drink, he says, this is the blood of Christ and that it will preserve

00:37:06.220 your body because it's wine, it's a sustenance, but also it will preserve your soul because it

00:37:12.540 is the blood of Christ, which was shed for you. And that when you feed on that body and blood of

00:37:17.760 Christ by faith, it will preserve you or preserve your soul. In other words, it is not a symbol.

00:37:25.180 Now, last quote for this section is quote number seven. And I just want to bring this up because

00:37:31.460 it's not a particular proof as such, but it is honestly one of the, just one of the most

00:37:35.900 beautiful written prayers of any liturgy out there. And, uh, that is the prayer of humble

00:37:43.660 access, which is also from the holy communion service, uh, of the BCP. Um, so quote number

00:37:51.340 seven, uh, for that again, absolutely beautiful. Everyone should pray it when they take communion,

00:37:57.780 but it says, we do not presume to come to this, thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own

00:38:03.260 righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather

00:38:08.260 up the crumbs under thy table, but thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy.

00:38:13.920 Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear son, Jesus Christ,

00:38:18.280 and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls may

00:38:23.880 be washed through his most precious blood and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us.

00:38:29.660 Amen.

00:38:30.860 So again, one of the most beautiful prayers out there.

00:38:33.720 Any comments and questions on that, gentlemen?

00:38:36.320 No, that's really good.

00:38:38.100 Thank you for taking the time to walk through the quotes,

00:38:40.740 to walk through the reading, the history.

00:38:42.720 That's helpful for our audience.

00:38:43.960 It's helpful for me.

00:38:45.200 Let's go ahead and pause here and go to our first commercial break,

00:38:48.240 and then we'll be right back to continue the conversation.

00:38:52.340 America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians

00:38:55.200 to do their duty before God,

00:38:56.520 not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.

00:39:00.120 Rees Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied,

00:39:03.960 not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business

00:39:07.480 as though they're commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.

00:39:11.080 Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.

00:39:15.800 We want to find manufacturing businesses

00:39:17.960 and use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.

00:39:22.360 Rees Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.

00:39:26.520 hey friends gray toad tallow is a family business making skin care the way that it should be

00:39:32.580 simple and clean the company began as a personal mission to find healthier more affordable solutions

00:39:39.140 to common skin problems without the chemicals that are found in most products today now that

00:39:45.440 search led to crafting balms from grass-fed grass-finished animals that were naturally rich

00:39:51.740 in vitamins, and healthy fats, which is exactly what your skin craves. These balms fight dryness,

00:39:59.980 they calm eczema, and psoriasis, along with other stubborn skin issues, without containing

00:40:07.580 all the nasty toxins. Grey Toad Tallow offers everyday soaps, balms, and beard balm for men.

00:40:15.500 To experience some of their products, grab a balm sample pack. Each batch is made with care

00:40:22.680 in their home and shipped directly to their customers. For skincare, the way that God designed

00:40:29.360 natural, clean, and effective, visit graytoedtallow.com. Use code WRITE15 for 15% off your

00:40:40.560 order today again that's gray toad tallow.com and if you want 15 off then add the promo code

00:40:49.760 right 15 today all right we are back let's go ahead uh for this next section go ahead and just

00:40:58.640 give us the headline uh what are the topics that we're going to be focusing on for this next section

00:41:03.580 section. Great, fantastic. So for this next one, these next two are also quite closely related,

00:41:12.520 and those are the myths that the Reformation rejected tradition. And also, and I know people

00:41:19.840 are in the comments like, well, weren't we talking about, weren't we supposed to be talking about

00:41:23.240 if the Protestantism destroyed the West? The fourth topic is, did the Reformation uniquely

00:41:28.980 cause the enlightenment. So those are the two other topics coming. Um, I, uh, so yeah, whatever

00:41:35.040 people complaining about that, um, whatever that's happening now. And, um, but yeah, this is what I

00:41:42.420 determined to talk about. This is, these are the topics I gave, um, and whatever titles and

00:41:46.940 thumbnails were given, that's a separate question. But anyway, on this first question of the

00:41:51.200 Reformation rejecting tradition, it'll often be said that the Reformation, they forwarded this

00:41:56.880 principle of sola scriptura, which in common caricature will be that the Bible is our only

00:42:03.640 authority. We don't trust anything else. We don't rely on anything else for our doctrine, for our 0.68

00:42:08.340 practice or anything. It's just the Bible. And I cannot tell you how many times I've combated that

00:42:15.560 very myth on my channel or with friends on their channels or which my own content maker friends

00:42:22.800 have themselves refuted, because it's just not true. It's simply not true. What the Reformation

00:42:28.800 asserted in particular, including the English Reformation, was that the holy scriptures are the

00:42:38.040 sole rule of faith. Now, this is a technical term. This doesn't just mean an authority for helping us

00:42:47.300 discerned doctrine. That's the common sense of the term today. And that's why the non-shoreman

00:42:54.500 quote unquote definition of sola scriptura tends to be that scripture is the sole infallible rule

00:43:00.020 of faith. Whereas there are other rules of faith, but they are fallible and thus subordinate to

00:43:04.280 scripture. That's how it's used today. But actually in the time of the reformation, rule of faith had

00:43:10.040 a more particular sense. And what that was, was that a rule of faith is that which in and of

00:43:17.360 itself, by its own authority, can bind the conscience of the Christian towards a certain

00:43:21.180 position. So Holy Scripture, if Holy Scripture says X, that ends the debate, you believe X.

00:43:27.680 In the Roman system, the magisterium is a rule of faith. And so if the magisterium

00:43:32.960 authoritatively declares X, then you believe X as well. There's no more debate. That's it.

00:43:38.480 you don't have the freedom to do that. There can be lesser authorities like great respected

00:43:43.880 theologians of the church, like Augustine, for example, and those can have a meaningful authority

00:43:49.480 of their own right. So if Augustine very firmly gives a certain position on predestination,

00:43:55.740 for example, or on the sacraments or what have you, given his position in the church,

00:44:00.880 in the historical church, he is highly respected and therefore his opinion must be taken seriously

00:44:06.300 and you can't just dismiss it. You can't simply dismiss it and say, no, I don't like that. I'm

00:44:10.520 going to believe this instead. You have to actually do some legwork. If you believe he's

00:44:15.280 wrong, you actually have to do some extra legwork to justify your descent from Augustine. So that's

00:44:20.800 just one example. But nonetheless, you do have that freedom to challenge Augustine and to differ

00:44:26.860 from him after sufficient research. Because of that, Augustine or other fathers of the church

00:44:33.460 are not a rule of faith. They are authorities to a certain extent, but they're not a rule of faith

00:44:40.380 in that proper sense of having an immediate conscience-binding authority over the individual

00:44:45.960 Christian and the church Catholic. So in that light, that's what the Reformation argued,

00:44:52.300 that scripture alone had that immediate conscience-binding authority over Christians

00:44:58.220 in the church, whether individually or in the church Catholic. All other authorities,

00:45:03.180 Christians had the right and freedom to interrogate and to determine, well, is this actually right? 1.00

00:45:08.920 I'm going to investigate this. I'm not just going to take what it says for granted. That is not the 0.58

00:45:14.520 same as therefore rejecting their authority simpliciter. That's simply not the case. Any more

00:45:21.260 than simply recognizing, hey, my parents are fallible.

00:45:26.900 They can get things wrong.

00:45:28.400 And as a Christian, even if I'm just a child,

00:45:31.320 if I know that the word of God says X,

00:45:33.520 but my parents say not X, I have to disobey them.

00:45:37.640 I have to say, no, you're wrong.

00:45:39.000 I'm going with what God says.

00:45:40.740 And yet we still take for granted

00:45:43.100 that our parents are a meaningful authority over us.

00:45:46.620 Not merely in the sense of,

00:45:49.140 oh they want me to take out the garbage or they want me to mow the lawn not just in that sense

00:45:54.460 but even in terms of teaching even in terms of teaching scripture upholds the role of parents

00:46:00.080 Ephesians chapter 6 children obey your parents for this is pleasing to the Lord fathers don't

00:46:08.540 be harsh with your children but raise them up in instruction the Lord so on and so forth

00:46:11.880 so their authority is granted they have a default authority you must submit to your parents including

00:46:17.280 their teaching because they are Christians before you. They're raising you up in the faith. You have

00:46:22.420 to listen to them. And yet in principle, they can be wrong and you can know that they are wrong.

00:46:27.860 And in that light, you can then dissent from them. And the analogous, uh, well, what happened

00:46:35.300 with the reformation was more or less analogous to this. The fathers of the church of old,

00:46:40.560 they are real authorities. They are respected. They preserve the faith,

00:46:44.680 but we are free to interrogate what they claimed and more relevantly the church of the present

00:46:51.840 we are free to interrogate what it claims and to hold that up to the standard not just of scripture

00:46:57.040 by the way but even of the ancient church and so with that I'll bring up the first quote for this

00:47:03.420 one which is quote number eight and this is from one of the great English reformers Thomas Cranmer

00:47:09.140 the Archbishop of Canterbury. And this is from his work, A Defense of the True and Catholic

00:47:14.740 Doctrine of the Sacrament. And this is particularly against transubstantiation as taught in Rome. So

00:47:19.920 he says, quote, in these answers against transubstantiation is no absurdity nor inconvenience,

00:47:26.780 nothing spoken either contrary to Holy Scripture or to natural reason, philosophy, or experience,

00:47:31.860 or against any old ancient author or the primitive or Catholic Church, but only against the malignant

00:47:38.980 and Papistical Church of Rome. I love that word. Whereas on the other side, that cursed synagogue 0.66

00:47:45.300 of Antichrist hath defined and determined in this manner, so many things contrary to Christ's word, 0.87

00:47:51.520 contrary to the old Catholic church and the holy martyrs and doctors of the same,

00:47:55.660 and contrary to all natural reason, learning, and philosophy. So in other words, and this is from

00:48:02.700 the near beginning, uh, well, not quite the near beginning, but this is from book two, chapter 14

00:48:06.880 of the work uh and as a brief aside i actually recently got to personally hold and read an

00:48:12.800 original 1550 printing of that work so that was bloody awesome but anyway importantly he is

00:48:20.540 affirming here that our authorities for checking right doctrine is not merely holy scripture

00:48:26.600 holy scripture is supreme holy scripture norms all the other norms but we also take for granted

00:48:33.200 the authority of the consensus teaching of the church Catholic of the primitive era of the

00:48:39.640 ancient fathers. And so Cranmer is there with that in mind. Cranmer is saying, nothing I say

00:48:45.640 is opposed to the holy fathers, to the martyrs, to the doctors of the church. But what you say,

00:48:51.040 Rome, that is opposed to what they say. And so again, just like with the last section,

00:48:58.320 that alone would ordinarily be sufficient to nuke that absolute myth. But with that,

00:49:06.420 I'll read yet another solid quote on this. And this one, and whereas Cranmer, he's only one

00:49:12.540 bishop. Now, importantly, he authored the first book of, the first two versions of the Book of

00:49:19.280 Common Prayer in 1549 and in 1552. And the vast majority of that content remained the same

00:49:25.920 into the 1662. So his theology is actually very important here. But he also authored the 42

00:49:33.280 articles of religion, which would be the basis of the later and now standard 39 articles of religion.

00:49:39.920 Nonetheless, this is still a private teaching of his. Okay, he's one man. So what does an

00:49:46.840 authoritative source over the Church of England in the Reformation period say? Let's go to quote

00:49:53.240 number nine. Legendary, brought it right up. This is from the canons of James I or James VI,

00:49:59.500 depending on whether you're talking about his English crown or Scottish crown. And this is

00:50:02.780 canon number 30, which concerns the use of the sign of the cross in baptism. So when you baptize

00:50:08.220 someone, especially infants, the minister would make the sign of the cross on their forehead.

00:50:12.320 And this is actually used today, still, even in very evangelical Anglican churches.

00:50:17.120 But this canon says, and this use of the sign of the cross in baptism was held in the primitive

00:50:22.520 of church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one consent and great applause. At what time,

00:50:29.240 if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly have been censured as enemies

00:50:34.500 of the name of the cross, and consequently of Christ's merits, the sign whereof they could

00:50:39.540 no better endure. This continual and general use of the sign of the cross is evident by many

00:50:44.980 testimonies of the ancient fathers. So, this canon is seeking to uphold the use of the sign of the

00:50:50.860 cross and and very important contextually because this is something challenged again by the puritan

00:50:55.520 faction within the church of england but these canons which is basically pieces of church law

00:51:02.900 are saying no not only is it not disagreeable to scripture but also the ancient church upheld it

00:51:10.700 so we're going to go with that so there it is an official source basing a particular

00:51:16.640 liturgical practice on, well, the ancient church did it, so we're going to do it as well.

00:51:22.420 So in other words, they took for granted the authority of church tradition. Now there is

00:51:28.180 one more quote, but I don't think I'll need to bring this one up because I think we've,

00:51:32.000 because it's fairly lengthy, but I've sufficiently demonstrated the case.

00:51:37.720 But I will recommend to people two different sources to read on this matter. One is by

00:51:46.460 a 17th century anglican divine uh bishop simon patrick his work that is called a discourse about

00:51:55.420 tradition and every chance i get i shill this work because i believe it is the single best summary

00:52:03.180 work of the anglican theological paradigm of authority by that i mean what are our authorities

00:52:10.860 for determining true theology and true apostolic teaching. That work, it's quite short, but it

00:52:17.980 brilliantly and very precisely articulates the relative authority of holy scripture,

00:52:24.620 alleged unwritten teachings of the apostles, other traditions of the church, so on and so forth.

00:52:29.780 He brilliantly lays that out. And so if you want both to understand what is the Anglican paradigm

00:52:36.420 in summary form from someone from the 17th century. Or if you even just want to learn as a

00:52:43.940 Protestant, quote unquote, how to understand the relative authority of scripture versus

00:52:50.480 non-scriptural traditions, read that work, A Discourse About Tradition. And then likewise,

00:52:57.600 if you want a more detailed scholarly run through of how the Church of England through the 16th

00:53:05.800 to the 17th centuries developed its view of the authority of tradition and the authority of the

00:53:12.140 fathers. There's a very good and very dense work called The Church of England and Christian

00:53:17.140 Antiquity by Jean-Louis, and I don't know if I'm pronouncing this right, Quentin, Q-U-A-N-T-I-N.

00:53:25.640 So Jean-Louis Quentin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity. Very good book, very dense,

00:53:32.820 uh and and yeah it walks this issue quite beautifully and so with respect to that issue

00:53:39.320 that's that no the reformation does not reject the authority of tradition it actually takes it

00:53:44.100 for granted it's just it just challenged rome with their view of their pretended traditions

00:53:50.660 that's a key critique of the reformation that rome pretends that certain traditions go back to

00:53:56.060 the apostles and they bind the christian conscience with those traditions as though they were of the

00:54:01.520 same authority as Holy Scripture. The reformers said, no, for one, in terms of doctrines that one

00:54:09.160 must believe to be saved, those can only be found in Scripture. But nonetheless, with other matters

00:54:14.320 of proper Christian living, of the interpretation of Scripture, even how to rightly understand those

00:54:19.380 doctrines, we do consult the early church. We need to, and we should not resort to private fancies

00:54:25.560 in that regard and if people want more quotes than that hit me up email twitter whatever but yes

00:54:32.260 the reformation did not reject tradition um anything on that gentleman or i just appreciate

00:54:39.300 you tackling it that's one of the most frustrating myths about protestantism you'll even hear

00:54:43.180 apologists who should know better the j dyer type say well protestants believe sola scriptura means

00:54:48.260 scripture is the only authority and it's so blatantly false on its face as you said in rule

00:54:54.220 of faith scripture as the infallible rule yes obviously there's some variations there do you

00:54:59.560 know what you were talking about but it is not at all even us as protestants we're not sitting here

00:55:04.820 saying and the only possible authority that exists is the scripture because there are many

00:55:08.840 scripture itself testifies to other authorities right so one uh which category in rule of faith

00:55:14.220 two even in rule of faith scripture is the only authority that does not err the only infallible

00:55:20.540 authority, and it's the highest authority, but it's not an exclusive authority. There are other

00:55:26.040 authorities that are, in fact, authoritative. They're just lesser authorities, and they're

00:55:30.120 authorities that are accurate many times, but can, in fact, err. So, authoritative authorities,

00:55:39.600 accurate authorities, but not the highest authority and not infallible authorities.

00:55:45.360 scripture reserves the right to fill that category alone. But yeah, when guys say you think

00:55:51.720 scripture is the only authority, that's just, that's someone who's either ignorant or being 0.98

00:55:56.880 dishonest. Absolutely true. Absolutely true. And with that, we go to the final, and I guess in some 0.96

00:56:07.900 ways the most hyped up myth for this stream, that is that the Reformation uniquely caused the

00:56:13.600 Enlightenment. Now, I worded that that particular way because I'm not denying categorically that

00:56:22.300 the Reformation caused the Enlightenment in any way, shape, or form. In terms of history,

00:56:27.580 that's undeniably true. The Reformation was a factor to bring about the Enlightenment.

00:56:34.260 That's undeniably true. However, excuse me, just clearing my nose, voice is still recovering a bit,

00:56:41.900 but as i'll show that's not as meaningful as romanists like to say the typical romanist and

00:56:49.160 eastern myth is that the reformation uh with its doctrines on private interpretation and the

00:56:56.280 liberty of conscience that was taken by the enlightenment as like oh yes great uh we can 0.84

00:57:02.360 now come up with these secular atheistic god-hating theories and just crap all over the church

00:57:09.720 and that's the common myth brought about. 0.92

00:57:13.320 Some of them will be a bit more charitable and say that,

00:57:16.580 well, the reformers didn't intend that,

00:57:18.260 but that was the logical result,

00:57:20.420 keyword logical result of their teachings.

00:57:23.340 And so we're going to determine, is that actually true?

00:57:26.260 But before we get to that,

00:57:27.920 we're going to disabuse some misnomers

00:57:30.980 or some false framings.

00:57:33.460 To start with, to speak of the enlightenment

00:57:37.520 without qualification is a mistake. There is such a thing as the enlightenment, but in the same

00:57:45.900 sense as before, where I said that you can speak of Protestantism as an umbrella term for multiple

00:57:53.680 distinct concrete traditions, but it's not a concrete tradition, a singular tradition in its

00:57:58.980 own right. The same is absolutely true one for one with the enlightenment. There is the umbrella

00:58:07.020 category of the Enlightenment, and there are general, shared, somewhat vague premises across

00:58:14.180 them, but the actual concrete Enlightenments are national level and sometimes even at the individual

00:58:19.800 level. The German Enlightenment is different from the French Enlightenment, is different from the

00:58:26.280 English Enlightenment, and so on and so forth. The French Enlightenment was, I was going to use a 0.87

00:58:36.900 insane in many ways. It really was. And you can see that culmination with the French revolution,

00:58:41.040 what was caused there with the reign of terror, with the, and I'm going to, um, I'm going to

00:58:46.460 absolutely butcher my French here, but what was it called? The, the differing secular churches of

00:58:52.140 the culte de raison and the, uh, again, my French is probably absolutely dog crap, but basically

00:59:01.060 the cult of reason versus the cult of the Supreme God, which was, which were basically set up 0.96

00:59:05.600 somewhat rival churches in revolutionary France, opposed to the Catholic Church.

00:59:12.900 Now, that was different to the English Enlightenment, which was, by comparison,

00:59:18.180 a lot more tame, a lot more measured, and didn't violently overthrow its monarchy and behead the

00:59:26.020 entire royal family. Very different in that regard. The French Enlightenment was much more

00:59:32.420 radical in its aims, much more egalitarian in its aims, purportedly, and by result,

00:59:41.720 a lot more violent because we know how that goes. Importantly, it also brought up figures like

00:59:47.940 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is the one behind the social contract theory, who largely formulated the

00:59:55.320 idea of the state of nature, that man in his pure state of nature was a free, free roaming being.

01:00:03.640 And that actually the fall of man, so to speak, began with the invention of private property.

01:00:11.000 And that would eventually lead to Marxist theories, communism, hundreds of millions dead,

01:00:16.760 the rest is history. The English enlightenment on the other hand was made of figures like

01:00:23.080 John Locke, like Hobbes, and other figures like that. And by extension, other figures in the

01:00:31.140 United States as well, because that was an Anglo project. Although some figures of the United

01:00:36.440 States project actually had influence on the French Revolution, like Thomas Jefferson, I

01:00:40.420 believe it was Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin. I think Benjamin Franklin, who actually

01:00:46.500 helped author the Declaration of the Rights of Man for the French Revolution. Very fun fact there.

01:00:53.080 be that as it may, the important thing to know there is that these enlightenments were actually

01:00:57.220 significantly different in a number of ways. Um, but also another thing is that in light of that,

01:01:04.720 you can't just say the enlightenment bad. That's ridiculous because there are actually advances in

01:01:11.480 the enlightenment that all of us take for granted today. The scientific method, the rigor of the

01:01:17.240 scientific method that's the enlightenment our natural healthy skepticism towards extraordinary

01:01:25.520 miraculous claims and to preface that that's not me saying erm you saw a vision or erm you saw a

01:01:31.540 demon erm do you have a peer-reviewed study for that no i'm talking about the healthy skepticism

01:01:37.180 that especially all of us in our inter-denominational debates have towards each other's

01:01:43.100 miracle claims. When a Romanist claims to have seen a Marian apparition that says the Church

01:01:48.260 of Rome is true, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants rightly ask, is that actually real? Is that a 0.77

01:01:55.000 real vision? Even if it is though, did you rightly interpret it? That kind of healthy skepticism

01:02:01.120 towards miracle claims is an enlightenment thing. And obviously that got taken to way off the deep

01:02:08.200 been by certain figures, but that doesn't, uh, per the Latin saying abusus non tollitusum,

01:02:16.440 that is abuse does not take away use just because certain figures abused that, uh, that attitude of

01:02:23.200 not taking for granted very grandiose claims that doesn't therefore mean we should now just

01:02:29.120 be credulous towards every such claim. Those things, uh, were given to us by the enlightenment,

01:02:35.040 as were more critical scientific ways of doing theology.

01:02:40.940 Now, if people want to read up on that,

01:02:43.820 actually I have a really good book,

01:02:44.760 which I'm reading through right now called

01:02:45.980 Theology and the Enlightenment,

01:02:47.620 A Critical Inquiry into Enlightenment Theology

01:02:50.220 and Its Reception by Paul Avis himself,

01:02:52.880 an Anglican theologian.

01:02:54.640 And per the title, it specifically focuses

01:02:56.940 on the Enlightenment and its interaction with theology.

01:02:59.820 And what you will very quickly learn

01:03:01.600 is that, as I've been saying,

01:03:03.320 the Enlightenment was not a united project. It was very much a vibe shift, if you will,

01:03:09.420 but with various different figures with very different takes. And as this book as well shows,

01:03:15.920 there were many very orthodox Anglican theologians, bishops, and that who took on the Enlightenment

01:03:23.320 project of the increase of knowledge of taking reason more seriously while yet holding onto

01:03:30.940 their Orthodox Christian faith. One of the great examples of this would be George Barclay, although

01:03:36.600 it's spelled Berkeley, like Berkeley University. Actually, that was named after him. He's a key

01:03:42.420 example of the Christian Anglican Enlightenment. He's a major figure in that. He was a bishop

01:03:46.780 himself, but also an idealist, philosophical idealist, and one of the foundational empiricists,

01:03:55.920 actually. And I recommend people give him a read. He's actually very stimulating, very good.

01:04:01.840 But all that to say, the Enlightenment was not one united project. It was an umbrella for multiple

01:04:08.060 movements for many individuals with different ideas. And it wasn't just a universal bad.

01:04:14.060 So because of that, when Romanists or Easternists say the Reformation caused the Enlightenment

01:04:19.860 it bad that is on its face that claim is literal nonsense it is actually meaningless precisely

01:04:28.300 because the enlightenment was a very polyvalent period with actually numerous mutually exclusive

01:04:36.580 philosophies and ideas going about so when someone says that you want to actually ask them

01:04:42.300 what do you mean by that which enlightenment are you talking about which figures which ideas which

01:04:48.680 philosophies. And when you tell me which ones, okay, now create the causal chain of ideas

01:04:54.420 from that idea going back to the Reformation. That's a key thing. Now, in that light,

01:05:01.740 there is a sense in which the Reformation caused the Enlightenment. One of those key ways, in fact,

01:05:06.800 I'd argue probably the key way, was the geopolitical situation following the Reformation.

01:05:12.560 As the Reformers agitated for, hey, the Roman church, you have all these abuses,

01:05:17.880 both in practice and in doctrine and uh we want you guys to reform this and the church of rome

01:05:25.960 said okay this thing will change yes this thing yeah that's it that's an abuse will fix that

01:05:30.100 and this is with the council of trent uh but all these other very fundamental issues of doctrine

01:05:34.620 and theological authority uh yeah no cringe cope and seethe uh go be burned at the stake

01:05:40.440 rome said that and the reformers were like well no you're clearly wrong or per their belief and

01:05:47.300 so they kept going at it. And Rome would thus excommunicate various reformers, including the

01:05:53.140 entire Church of England, actually, because a lot of people believe that, oh, Henry VIII, he broke

01:05:57.600 the Church of England because he wanted more divorce and that created Anglicanism. Not actually

01:06:04.500 true, not wholly. For one, there's a whole myth about the nature of the divorce or rather the

01:06:08.920 annulment. But also the Church of England actually came back under Rome with Mary I after Edward VI

01:06:15.880 died, Edward VI being the successor of Henry VIII. And there was a reversal of the English

01:06:22.220 Reformation going on. Unfortunately for Rome, Mary I died quite soon into her reign. And then

01:06:29.220 Elizabeth I came in and she actually resumed the Reformation project, but she didn't actively

01:06:33.760 break with Rome. Now she reasserted the act of supremacy, but for her, they can't say that that

01:06:39.920 was because, oh, well, she wanted to have a divorce. And so she said, oh, I have supreme

01:06:44.620 authority of the church of Rome. No, she had a principled belief in the supremacy of the local

01:06:49.780 bishop over the, sorry, of the local monarch over the affairs of the church in his realm.

01:06:54.960 So she reasserted that and then Rome excommunicated the church of England because of that.

01:06:59.060 Now, bringing that to the side, with that situation and with the various baronies and

01:07:07.800 principalities in Germany that would side with the Lutherans against Rome, with the continental

01:07:13.860 reformers, with all of that, many, many wars, tragically devastating wars would break out

01:07:21.300 on continental Europe between the various Reformation traditions and the Church of Rome,

01:07:27.800 and particularly those countries that were still under the authority of the Church of Rome.

01:07:33.060 And that geopolitical situation would thus allow for more dissident movements to eventually arise,

01:07:41.440 and thus, as we know it, make the Enlightenment much more possible. Now, that doesn't mean it

01:07:48.080 couldn't have happened under Rome, but it does mean that the geopolitical chaos following the

01:07:54.820 wars of religion in particular, that is what allowed it to become a possibility geopolitically. 0.91

01:08:01.600 So that's absolutely true. However, the myth in particular focuses on the ideas, that there is a

01:08:10.100 genealogy of ideas between the Enlightenment and the Protestant reformers. Now, there is such a

01:08:18.280 genealogy very superficially, to the point that actually there is the same genealogy between the

01:08:26.360 Enlightenment and Roman Catholicism, or Christianity at large. So, with the case, with the key case

01:08:34.880 being, oh, well, Protestants, they believe in the right of the individual conscience, liberty of

01:08:39.880 conscience and what have you. And the Enlightenment just took that to its logical extent, and they

01:08:44.700 asserted absolute freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and now you have state-enforced 0.98

01:08:50.240 atheism and gay sex. That's basically the argument. Now, here's the thing. When you actually read what 0.99

01:08:56.020 the Reformers said, they're actually not the same idea. The Reformers did not push for a principled

01:09:02.620 freedom of public expression. They rather specifically argued for the liberty of the

01:09:08.760 individual conscience. That is, the church or the state or whoever is not able to bind the

01:09:18.560 conscience and thus declare this person is going to hell if he doesn't renounce this doctrine or

01:09:23.580 if he doesn't affirm this doctrine. It is not able to do so in and of itself by its own authority,

01:09:29.600 separate from the divine authority of scripture. Simultaneously, those same reformers said that

01:09:36.780 as the civil, excuse me, as the civil magistrate has the authority in his realm to maintain both

01:09:44.260 tables of the law, something explicitly said in one of our chief Ankin divines, John Jewell,

01:09:50.320 as he has that responsibility, if there is someone in their private liberty of conscience

01:09:56.700 saying, yeah, no, I don't believe in the established religion of the realm. And if he starts to be

01:10:03.260 public and publicly dissident about that, the magistrate not only has the right, but the duty

01:10:08.740 to suppress him. That was contrary to a lot of the Enlightenment figures, especially in the

01:10:16.600 French Enlightenment. In fact, they tended in the exact opposite direction where they would

01:10:20.320 suppress the Catholic Church. But putting that to the side, their ideas, those later ideas in the

01:10:26.180 French Enlightenment, but more especially, and the English Enlightenment as well, actually,

01:10:30.020 but especially with the United States of a principled right to open and free dissident

01:10:36.260 expression, that was not a reformation principle. That was, if there is even a connection between

01:10:44.080 Luther and other reformers saying something, liberty of conscience and enlightenment figures

01:10:49.840 saying, hmm, I like that. I'm going to abuse that. Even if there is a connection of that sort,

01:10:54.880 it was an abuse. One of the best books you can actually look on this issue is actually

01:10:59.380 our good friend Stephen Wolfe's The Case for Christian Nationalism. He actually lays out quite

01:11:03.280 well how, in particular, the Reformed theologians, they would, on one hand, assert the liberty of the

01:11:09.920 individual conscience. So, in your private thought, in your conscience, in your relationship to God,

01:11:16.260 you are free to dissent from the claims of the church, the claims of the state, etc.,

01:11:22.620 if they are not sufficiently grounded in the Word of God. But at the same time,

01:11:27.500 those public authorities the church and the state have the duty to suppress clear public expression

01:11:35.060 of such dissident so in that light the reformation and the particularly the french enlightenment but

01:11:42.880 also the english enlightenment i haven't looked much into the german enlightenment but it might

01:11:46.060 be the same that idea of a principled public free expression of dissent that was actually a pan

01:11:53.880 enlightenment idea. That's one of the common ideas uniting the enlightenment. And that was

01:11:59.520 rejected by the reformers. They did not assert that. Now, of course, certain enlightenment

01:12:03.940 figures, they weren't free speech absolutists either. You would have the likes of this pretty

01:12:08.800 famous meme at this point with John Locke basically saying that public atheism can't

01:12:12.720 be tolerated. Absolutely based on true. But otherwise, freedom of thought, freedom of 1.00

01:12:18.760 dissent, freedom of religion. But the reformers did not believe that. So that idea of utter free

01:12:26.120 speech, that is not a Reformation idea. That is at absolute best an abuse of that idea.

01:12:32.100 And if Romanists and Easterners want to say, aha, well, okay, even if it is an abuse, 0.57

01:12:37.280 that was still something caused by the Reformation. Well then, okay, then you've made 0.71

01:12:42.100 accusations of X caused Y absolutely meaningless, because all such things come from an abuse of the

01:12:49.460 true and the good and the beautiful. In this regard, we can also say that the Enlightenment

01:12:54.640 was caused by Western Christianity, by Western pre-Reformation Christianity, because a distinctive

01:13:02.900 of Western Christianity against the East, and something that they like to actually give as

01:13:06.960 criticisms against each other is that the West, uh, largely adopted this idea of scholasticism,

01:13:13.620 um, which basically the, the broad adoption of Aristotelian thought into Christian theology

01:13:21.240 and philosophy. And with that, they would undergo, undergo a very scientific, very principled and

01:13:29.860 methodical outlining of the Christian faith in very precise terms. A lot of minutiae discuss.

01:13:37.160 You have the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas is one of the key examples of that, but there's

01:13:42.000 even more complicated works in that in many regards. In fact, the Summa was actually a

01:13:45.880 seminary textbook. It wasn't even his most advanced text. One of those would be actually

01:13:49.680 his commentary on Peter Lombard's sentences. But putting that to the side, that Western method of

01:13:56.840 scholasticism, of scientifically interrogating the faith, of scientifically going about natural

01:14:01.520 philosophy, that was something the Enlightenment took on and took to a greater extreme. It would

01:14:07.900 apply that same general idea of, okay, let's scientifically investigate theology and nature.

01:14:14.720 And many of them would come to say, oh, look, there's contradictions in the Bible. Oh, look,

01:14:18.120 there's contradictions in Christian Orthodox theology. Oh, look, God doesn't exist, so on and

01:14:23.540 so forth. So by that same token, by that same measure, we can say that Roman Catholicism

01:14:31.220 caused the enlightenment. And now to have a thing of charity, we can obviously say

01:14:39.940 that these enlightenment ideas of skepticism towards the Bible, of pitting faith against

01:14:45.960 reason, that was not intended by the scholastics. Their principles didn't lead to that. And I would

01:14:50.440 say, absolutely true. It wasn't the proper logical outgrowth of scholasticism, of Western Christianity 1.00

01:14:57.340 that led to rejection of the faith in many parts of the Enlightenment. It was the taking, it was

01:15:05.780 the mindset, it was the existing mindset of let's scientifically examine things taken by certain

01:15:12.080 figures in the Enlightenment and then twisted towards corrupted ends that created that mass

01:15:18.540 period of apostasy and dissent. The same is true with what the Reformation taught with regards to

01:15:25.740 individual liberty of examining Holy Scripture, of putting to the test the claims of the church

01:15:30.820 and what have you. It was the abuse at absolute best. If there is an actual relationship,

01:15:35.100 it was the abuse of that teaching by certain Enlightenment figures. Well, yeah, it was the

01:15:42.840 it was the abuse of that teaching it wasn't a logical outworking of that now i have a little

01:15:48.500 more to say on this um but i've been going for a bit so if you gents have anything to say or ask or

01:15:53.440 comment no i think it's good we've got some super chats that i want to get to so why don't you go

01:15:57.860 ahead and finish your thoughts and then and then briefly let's say take like five to seven minutes

01:16:02.940 to finish the thought and then um as efficiently as you can give us the overview so in light of

01:16:08.260 everything that i've said da da da da da then we'll go to our final commercial break we'll come

01:16:12.680 back and do the super chats because we'd like to be able to do that with you still on the show

01:16:15.940 because most of the questions for today will be, of course, addressing you. Okay. So go ahead and

01:16:21.680 finish your thought. Give us an overview. We'll go to a commercial. Fantastic. Fantastic. Now

01:16:28.680 there is a lot. I love to bring this up. It's a brilliant argument. When I first learned of it,

01:16:34.480 there is actually something of a meaningful genetic relationship between certain extreme

01:16:44.920 ends of Enlightenment skepticism, especially French Enlightenment skepticism, which would

01:16:49.580 come to reject the faith wholesale. There is actually a meaningful genetic relationship

01:16:53.520 between that and certain, that's me being charitable, I'm not saying Roman Catholicism

01:16:59.820 in general, but certain Roman Catholic teachers, and not just any Roman Catholic teachers in

01:17:06.020 whatever context, specifically counter-reformers, those who were opposed to the Reformation.

01:17:13.800 There was actually something of a genre of arguments, particularly raised by the Jesuits,

01:17:20.460 the quote-unquote Society of Jesus founded by Ignatius of Loyola and a major opponent of the

01:17:26.660 reformation. Um, but sorry, one second. There's something weird came up. Um, yeah, anyway, sorry.

01:17:35.100 Uh, but not just them, although they were major pioneers of these arguments and that was the

01:17:39.780 revival of Greek Peronian skepticism, basically not taking a hyper simplistic way of saying not

01:17:49.800 taking any, uh, grounds of belief for granted being incredibly skeptical of, well, how do I

01:17:55.080 know this? How do I know that? Possibly even to the point of just saying, look, I don't have any

01:18:00.060 certainty in anything. Certain counter-reformers, and by name, I'll include one of the main ones

01:18:08.840 being the Romanist priest Pierre Charon. Now, he wasn't a Jesuit himself, but Jesuits would

01:18:14.840 appropriate these arguments. He would raise, he would in his work against the Reformation,

01:18:21.360 raise arguments of epistemic skepticism, essentially. Basically saying, well, without

01:18:27.760 the church, how can I know X, Y, or Z? And very often this argument would involve, especially with

01:18:33.880 the Jesuit counter-reformers writ large, it would involve some form of, well, how can I know

01:18:39.460 that scripture is the word of God? How can I know what scripture says? How can I know that I've

01:18:45.160 interpreted it rightly? Unless the church gives its authoritative pronouncement on that. Without

01:18:50.920 the authority of the church, I'm just left to my own private opinion and my own private

01:18:56.100 rationality. But all these other people, they have their disagreements about it as well.

01:19:00.260 So how do I decide between myself and them? Like, how do we do that? So they would employ

01:19:05.360 these skeptical arguments against the Reformation because the Reformation on the opposite side,

01:19:09.800 we're arguing that no scripture is clear. It is perspicuous, the terminology used

01:19:15.600 with respect to the doctrines of salvation and also, broadly speaking, Christian moral living.

01:19:23.920 It was these Jesuits who would raise up, and the non-Jesuit, Pierre Chaon, who would raise up

01:19:29.680 these arguments of skepticism in order to undermine the authority of scripture, to be blunt,

01:19:35.220 and thus try to compel people to flee back to the Church of Rome. Now, here's the very interesting

01:19:42.220 part. These arguments, these philosophies, these skeptical philosophies would be picked up by

01:19:48.700 none other than René Descartes, the one of the fathers of the French Enlightenment, himself a

01:19:56.080 Catholic, but yet a father of the French Enlightenment, and obviously most famous for

01:20:01.080 his methodological skepticism, where he'll ask, okay, I believe this thing, but I could be wrong

01:20:07.260 because of X, Y, Z. So I need to go down a step, but I could be wrong there. So go down, step,

01:20:12.080 go down, step. Until he found what he believed would be the most properly basic foundational

01:20:17.740 belief that he could not be possibly be wrong on. I think, therefore I am. Some other, some little

01:20:25.120 invisible demon couldn't be fooling me about that because my ability to think is just logically

01:20:32.820 predicated on my ability to exist. So that's my most foundational belief, but otherwise everything

01:20:37.720 else is less certain, up for grabs, so on and so forth. And that would be a foundational,

01:20:44.500 well, how would I articulate that? That would be a foundational basis upon which the authority of,

01:20:53.120 well, Christianity, the truth of Christianity itself would be attacked in the Enlightenment,

01:20:58.460 well, the French Enlightenment in particular, but also other areas in the Enlightenment and

01:21:01.520 by various figures therein. And that came from Romanist priests. So, and again, I like to extend

01:21:09.000 the charity that many Romanists won't extend themselves. That's not me saying Roman Catholicism 0.89

01:21:13.960 created the enlightenment or Roman Catholicism created skepticism. No, it was particular Romanist

01:21:19.940 priests, but that's still an important thing. It was Romanist priests. And in particular, Romanist

01:21:24.880 priests attacking the reformation who laid the groundwork for one of the key figures of the

01:21:32.000 radical French enlightenment. Um, and if people want to see more detail on this, uh, there's some

01:21:37.240 particular things I can recommend. So the aforementioned channel, Jordan Cooper, Lutheran

01:21:41.300 theologian, uh, his, his, uh, video Descartes and Chiron and the creation of modern philosophy.

01:21:48.040 If you look that up, he goes through that in fantastic detail. It's really good.

01:21:52.380 and uh jordan cooper please unblock me on twitter but that's a great book sorry great video to watch

01:21:58.620 on that but you can also look up the uh the historian richard popkin p-o-p-k-i-n and his

01:22:07.560 article uh skepticism um something like skepticism and the counter-reformation in france where he

01:22:16.600 basically speaks of that relationship in more detail how skeptical philosophies were used by

01:22:21.440 the French counter reformers. Um, but there's many more on that. If you simply look up those

01:22:25.620 key terms, you'll be able to find a lot of material on it. Um, but with that, I want to

01:22:31.460 raise one final quote and that is quote number 11. And I want to, I'll, I'll ask you, I'll ask

01:22:39.660 you gentlemen something about it once I have read it. So this is a quote from a reformer. Again,

01:22:45.720 we talked earlier about how all the reformers, they said, uh, we believe in the, uh, private

01:22:53.020 liberty of conscience. Um, people can believe things, uh, through scripture and they can,

01:22:58.880 they can question teachings of the church and of tradition. And this is from a certain reformer.

01:23:04.040 I'll ask you guys something about it. Once I read it, it says, quote, I have learned to yield this

01:23:08.740 respect and honor only to the canonical books of scripture of these alone. Do I most firmly

01:23:14.100 believed that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed

01:23:19.440 by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the

01:23:24.760 manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself

01:23:29.680 have failed to understand it. As to all other writings in reading them, however great the

01:23:34.720 superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as

01:23:39.680 true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them, but only because they have succeeded

01:23:44.480 in convincing my judgment of its truth, either by means of these canonical writings themselves

01:23:49.600 or by arguments addressed to my reason. Now, gentlemen, I want to ask you something.

01:23:54.900 What reformer said this quote? Ooh, that sounds like Luther, but I'm going to throw Calvin out

01:24:02.760 there. Luther and Calvin. Now I'll say in a second, Joel, that when you say Luther, there's

01:24:09.700 actually a good reason for that, but actually none of those answers are correct. In fact,

01:24:14.260 I bamboozled you. This is not from a Protestant reformer. This is from Augustine of Hippo

01:24:19.660 in the fifth century. That would make sense. In his letter number 82 to Jerome. And there is

01:24:29.520 actually good reason to suspect that it's a it's something along this quote where luther says he's

01:24:35.580 very famous unless i'm convinced by scripture or plain reason that's why i said luther exactly i

01:24:40.700 was thinking of the famous quote with the diet of worms and you know like it made me think of luther

01:24:44.560 precisely precisely i cannot and will not recant because to go against conscience is there's neither

01:24:51.260 safe nor right to do so so there's a very very strong correlation between the two i'm not sure

01:24:55.960 if there's direct evidence that he got, that he basically formed his quote from that, but the

01:24:59.740 ideas are almost identical there. So here's an important thing. Here we have Augustine very

01:25:06.760 blatantly laying out something that sounds like a Protestant reformer with regards to, well, I'm free

01:25:11.320 to judge what the tradition has told me with the standards of scripture and of reason. So by that

01:25:20.880 same token, if a Romanist wants to say, well, okay, even if the Reformation doctrine was abused,

01:25:27.580 it still caused the Enlightenment. Again, everything I said before refutes that.

01:25:32.140 But if they want to say that, then okay, by the same token, Augustine caused the Enlightenment.

01:25:37.420 The Catholic Church caused the Enlightenment because they canonize Augustine. He is

01:25:42.020 the doctor of grace, after all. Him giving this opinion, and other fathers do the same,

01:25:48.220 by the way, he's not alone. But this idea was clearly there in the church Catholic. And so

01:25:54.680 that was eventually exploited by the enlightenment. And thus the united Catholic church is responsible 0.97

01:26:03.120 for the enlightenment. If we're going to play that very silly pseudo historian game of, well, 0.67

01:26:08.860 these guys said similar things, therefore one uniquely caused the other. So it's very silly 0.80

01:26:12.800 in that regard. And so to end that with the overall bird's eye view, here are the key points.

01:26:19.460 One, the Enlightenment was not one single project. It was various movements that shared broadly

01:26:24.960 similar themes, but otherwise had very different positions on a number of different things.

01:26:29.240 There were many Orthodox Christians, whether by Protestant or Romanist or Eastern standards

01:26:34.600 that were engaged in the Enlightenment positively, as well as heretics and outright heathens. It was 1.00

01:26:41.500 a very mixed movement. It wasn't a singular ideology. Second, we all take for granted key

01:26:48.020 advancements of the Enlightenment, such as the scientific method, and not just with the physical

01:26:52.780 sciences, but as that is applied to questions like textual criticism, historical investigation

01:26:58.660 in the ancient church fathers, so on and so forth. These things, like where many traditional

01:27:04.880 Christians will see, oh, look, the writings of the church fathers, they said this, they said that,

01:27:08.880 they are basing it on critical editions and translations of these texts that were only

01:27:14.480 made possible because of the employment of broadly speaking enlightenment principles

01:27:20.180 of scientific investigation. Sorry, but that's just true. You can't get away from that.

01:27:26.320 Third, in light of all that, the Reformation, its own doctrine, its proper doctrine,

01:27:33.560 did not logically lead to the enlightenment with respect to that particular issue of the

01:27:38.180 freedom of individual conscience, the right of investigating received beliefs. The reformers

01:27:45.540 articulation of that was very different to what radicals in the Enlightenment, particularly the

01:27:50.820 French Enlightenment, would say. They were very different in many regards. Nonetheless, we can

01:27:55.880 grant that the geopolitical situation caused by the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation,

01:28:02.360 that that was what let the various Enlightenment movements become materially possible.

01:28:08.180 However, by the same token, we can also point to beliefs held to generally by the Church Catholic, including the Church of Rome, like with scholasticism, that they had something of an effect on the Enlightenment, as well as even a belief from Augustine himself and many other church fathers. 0.97

01:28:26.080 if people want to ask, just send me a message, that Christians do have a right to interrogate 0.60

01:28:31.340 things. And this is something I forgot to bring up, but actually, even the basic biblical idea

01:28:36.380 in scripture and in the fathers that we should reject pagan superstitions of demons, don't just

01:28:43.120 be credulous and believe all these claims by magicians, by false pagan gods. You need to,

01:28:49.260 in some Christian sense, be skeptical towards those and accept the true God, Jesus Christ.

01:28:54.920 That idea, by the same token, we can say that that was something taken by the Enlightenment

01:29:01.220 and twisted and abused, that general pan-Christian idea. 0.80

01:29:06.360 So in light of all that, it is an absolute myth that the Reformation uniquely caused the 0.52

01:29:13.180 Enlightenment to the exclusion of everything else, and further, that it was a principled

01:29:17.720 cause, that the very teachings of the Reformation itself were logically going to lead to the

01:29:24.280 enlightenment simply not true and that and and everything i said here by the way it's very brief

01:29:31.160 it's a summary form there's so many more sources you can go into i intend to at some point in the

01:29:35.140 future but that's basically that for this issue it's it's put to bed it's a it's a very silly claim

01:29:40.540 very helpful thank you so much the other paul for coming on the show um thorough and uh and

01:29:48.020 well studied well researched uh that's why we wanted to have you on the show it's an important

01:29:52.360 I mean, it's an important point that comes up.

01:29:54.400 You see it on X all the time, social media. 1.00

01:29:56.540 You know, well, you Protestants, you're to blame. 1.00

01:29:59.960 And I mean, don't get me wrong. 1.00

01:30:01.640 If you want to, you know, get together and beat up Protestants, I'm your guy. 1.00

01:30:05.160 You know, I mean, I'll join you. 0.99

01:30:07.440 You know, a lot of Protestants, I'd say 90% of them are either literally gay or spiritually gay. 0.82

01:30:14.160 You know, so one way or the other, they are gay for all intents and purposes. 0.98

01:30:17.520 So Protestants have some major problems. 0.98

01:30:20.140 and yet i remain a protestant because i am convinced um it's actually my conviction

01:30:27.120 and uh and i don't believe that the protestant historic reformation ultimately caused all the

01:30:33.900 problems that we have today um in many ways i i i viewed as pandora's box that was inevitable i i

01:30:40.900 think that um that just through i mean when you think of just all the things that were going to

01:30:45.860 happen throughout God's providence and history, one way or the other, inevitable, right? The

01:30:51.500 Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, all these kinds of things to say, well, this guy,

01:30:58.680 you know, he caused the Industrial Revolution, so he's responsible for divorce, you know,

01:31:05.020 because he took vocation outside of the home where you go to the factory and you do this and that

01:31:11.560 And the other, yeah, the Industrial Revolution was going to happen.

01:31:15.800 It was going to happen one way or the other.

01:31:18.420 And ultimately, I think there are many good things.

01:31:20.720 It's not inherently bad, although many evils have come out of it, but it was going to happen.

01:31:25.540 So whether it was fueled by Catholics or by Protestants or by atheists, and I view the

01:31:30.500 Enlightenment much in the same way.

01:31:31.900 And so I think that that's just a part of the progress of this church age as part of

01:31:39.540 human history unfolding, that we're AI, for example. AI has a ton of problems. And I don't

01:31:46.500 even think we've gotten to the half of it. AI could destroy the whole world. I personally don't

01:31:51.120 think it will, because I believe that God stands sovereign above it all. But my point is that every

01:31:56.780 kind of leg of the race, every major development within human history, some box is opened. And it's

01:32:03.620 a box that was always going to be opened and to say, well, this person opened it and, or this

01:32:09.820 group or this doctrine or this, you know, whatever sect, they're the ones who opened it. And therefore

01:32:15.620 their entire ideology and convictions and foundational basis of what they believe 0.95

01:32:21.780 must be evil is just a really silly argument. So I appreciate you coming and putting a lot

01:32:29.540 of those myths to rest i think you did a wonderful job uh let's go to have we done our second

01:32:34.980 commercial break okay let's go to our second commercial break it's getting a little bit

01:32:38.920 late in the day so i i'm speaking to myself more than anybody else um but let's do the second

01:32:45.080 commercial break and then let's do our best to go through at least all the super chats we want to

01:32:50.580 honor these guys who are honoring us by being generous so let's go through all the super chats

01:32:54.580 and let's try, it's 4.40, let's try to be done in 20 minutes

01:32:58.800 so we can go ahead and end the stream at five.

01:33:01.540 All right.

01:33:02.840 The silver is mine and the gold is mine,

01:33:05.900 declares the Lord of hosts.

01:33:08.040 Yet your retirement dollars keep shrinking daily

01:33:11.560 as Washington prints money out of thin air.

01:33:15.620 Genesis Gold Group aligns financial guidance

01:33:18.760 with godly principles when others serve only profit.

01:33:22.280 Their faith-centered approach to gold IRAs stands apart in an industry that has forgotten what true stewardship actually means.

01:33:32.400 Why gamble your family's future on Wall Street's paper promises?

01:33:37.360 Your 401k and IRA deserve better protection.

01:33:42.300 Genesis Gold Group transforms your vulnerable retirement accounts into physical gold.

01:33:47.860 something real, something tangible, something that God created with inherent value.

01:33:55.100 Their faith-driven experts walk you through every step,

01:33:58.440 helping you shield your life's work from the financial storms up ahead.

01:34:03.260 No high-pressure tactics, no hidden fees,

01:34:06.360 just guidance rooted in timeless principles of sound stewardship.

01:34:11.340 So the decision is simple.

01:34:13.100 Watch your retirement evaporate through inflation or secure it in God's precious metal.

01:34:20.140 Take action now.

01:34:21.440 Go and visit rightresponsebiblegold.com.

01:34:25.960 You can visit today for your free book, The Bible and Gold, and join the thousands of

01:34:31.840 believers who sleep soundly knowing their future is anchored in something unshakable.

01:34:37.340 Again, that's rightresponsebiblegold.com.

01:34:42.500 Safeguarding Your Legacy with God's Timeless Treasure.

01:34:47.780 When it comes to your financial future, are you planning forward or backwards from your desired

01:34:53.740 results? What type of financial culture do you want to create for your family and for your

01:34:59.880 children's children? We are not called to be wise as doves. Therefore, simpleton planning simply

01:35:07.340 won't cut it. Joe Garracy helps families develop and implement a long-term culture of excellent

01:35:14.200 financial management. He starts with your goals, your tithing plan, your retirement, and the legacy

01:35:21.100 that you want to build for your generations. And then he works backwards to build a real

01:35:27.400 actionable plan to get your family on track. Now, many of my personal friends have benefited

01:35:33.800 from the financial wisdom of Joe Garracy

01:35:36.360 that he shared for their specific situations.

01:35:40.260 Do you want to work with someone

01:35:41.600 who strives for alpha with your investing,

01:35:44.680 hates taxes, and brokers insurance?

01:35:48.500 Start planning smart.

01:35:50.420 Call Joe Garracy at 615-767-2555.

01:35:57.600 Again, that's 615-767-2555, or you can find him by going to backwardsplanningfinancial.inm.com.

01:36:12.800 Again, that's backwardsplanningfinancial.in, as in Nancy, m, as in ministries, dot com.

01:36:24.360 All right, we're back.

01:36:25.480 Let's go ahead and start off with the Super Chats. 0.99

01:36:27.400 The first one that we have is Gien the Baptist. 0.91

01:36:30.020 Gien the Baptist said,

01:36:32.040 the obligatory super chat cause, 0.98

01:36:35.040 all my favorite Christian content makers are on one string.

01:36:39.980 God bless you all, gentlemen,

01:36:41.440 and happy birthday to the other Paul.

01:36:44.820 All right, so this is him saying,

01:36:46.220 I must give a super chat, not to Paul though,

01:36:49.280 because this super chat and a divine sense of irony

01:36:51.800 is coming to me on Paul's birthday.

01:36:55.380 How do you like them apples?

01:36:57.400 what do you think paul yeah first of all um gian the best gian a gian gian okay john

01:37:07.100 oh okay john okay uh second of all with the super chat thing um i'd say

01:37:13.980 uh you have your very good exponent of judeo-christian values what can i say

01:37:21.560 all right here we go let's continue aiden tidwell aiden tidwell he gave us ten dollars

01:37:28.020 thanks aiden we appreciate it i'm sorry jay jadian is that the correct pronunciation

01:37:33.820 mr know-it-all yeah no

01:37:37.880 aiden tidwell he says

01:37:42.420 thanks for everything you guys do i was hoping that you could give some discipleship material

01:37:50.520 recommendations for a group god bless um discipleship i think discipleship materials

01:37:58.520 should be oriented to who's in the group if it's a single men's group yeah you're probably doing

01:38:02.660 31 days freedom from lust it's a married men's group true that parenting marriage if it's a

01:38:07.640 mixed group which is not ideal obviously for a discipleship group but yeah something to do with

01:38:12.840 we've done respectable sins by jerry i forget his name in the past dealing with you know sins that

01:38:18.020 we tolerate like being gossips or being you know untrusting of god's providence being fat

01:38:22.880 that's another one yeah you don't whip that one out if everyone uh maybe needs that so tailor it

01:38:28.240 to the group that would be my recommendation well said okay this dude rocks he uh gave us five bucks

01:38:33.140 i can actually recommend okay go ahead really quickly i can actually recommend something on

01:38:37.480 the discipleship front um i have a group of anglican friends we meet fortnightly for a reading

01:38:43.340 group within the Ankin tradition. Right now we're going through a book by one of the guys. Well,

01:38:48.200 actually I cited from that book in the presentation, Jeremy Taylor, his book,

01:38:52.400 Holy Living, which is basically a comprehensive walkthrough of the Christian principles

01:38:57.500 and even practical rules for, well, how to live a holy life. And it goes through

01:39:01.880 almost everything. It's really, really, really good. It's dense, but also very challenging

01:39:07.360 and it'll do a positive number on you. So I can recommend that.

01:39:12.060 Okay, this dude rocks gave us $5. He said, Joel and Wes, what is the Christian nationalist movement's biggest blind spot slash weakness? And when will the next Friday special season release? Okay, I'll answer both of those. In terms of the biggest weakness, there's a lot of things that could be said, but I think number one that's pressing on my mind would be one of the biggest weaknesses is that a lot of Christian nationalists do not have a local church that they're able to attend.

01:39:40.260 And I do not believe that this is because Christian nationalists tend to attract younger men, and younger men don't value the local church, but it's because they continue to be excommunicated from their local church.

01:39:52.360 So there's a lot of different movements that have come and gone over the last, you know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years here in America, all within, you know, evangelicalism and Protestantism.

01:40:03.700 Um, but I can't really think of hardly any of those movements, um, where, you know, they all

01:40:10.300 had different emphases, but even though there might be, you know, one particular drum that was

01:40:15.340 being banged by that movement, they could still go down the road to their average local church,

01:40:21.160 pursue church membership, and be welcomed. Christian nationalism is unique in the sense

01:40:26.880 that local churches and local pastors and sessions of elders actually hate Christian nationalist

01:40:34.840 young men. They really do. They really, really, really do. They'll say that you're racist, 0.83

01:40:40.760 or they'll say you're anti-Semitic, or they'll say you're misogynist, you know, one of those top

01:40:45.000 three. You hate women, you hate Jews, you hate blacks, you know, something like that, and you'll 0.99

01:40:49.320 be kicked out of the church. Now, I personally have not really ever met anyone to which those 0.99

01:40:54.780 things are true. I've met people who are patriarchal. They're sexist, but not misogynist,

01:40:59.700 right? Sexist in the sense that they believe the two sexes were created by God and that they are,

01:41:04.740 in fact, distinct with different natures and different roles stemming from those natures.

01:41:08.720 But they're not misogynist. They don't hate women, right? Or people who are race realists.

01:41:13.500 They actually believe that God created different races and that these races are distinct. But I

01:41:19.280 don't know anybody who truly hates this entire swath of other people. And I know people who are

01:41:25.300 very anti-Zionist and who recognize that Israel is a problem on the global stage, that America

01:41:33.220 currently is within a stranglehold of Israel, politically and culturally speaking, and who

01:41:39.680 would go even further and realize, well, it's not just Bibi Netanyahu, it's not just the nation

01:41:44.720 state of Israel. But I do think that there's something even to Jewishness. There's a lot of

01:41:50.080 Jewry when it comes to usury, when it comes to pornography, when it comes to these things. But 0.97

01:41:54.420 my heart for these people is that they would say Christ is Lord, that they would be converted,

01:41:59.660 that they would come to the Christian faith, that they would repent of their sins, and that also

01:42:04.120 maybe they wouldn't serve in political office here in America. That's not a hateful view.

01:42:09.580 perfectly reasonable um perfectly reasonable and honoring to christ and uh and honoring and loving

01:42:15.980 towards jewish people so i don't know anybody who actually hates women and hates blacks or hates

01:42:21.920 jews i don't know anyone like that but i know a lot of pastors in entire denominations um that

01:42:28.760 will slander young men and say that that's the case and promptly excommunicate them even without

01:42:34.880 having a fair trial. So the biggest weakness, to answer the question, what do I see as the biggest

01:42:39.720 weakness or blind spot for Christian nationalism? My concern as a local pastor is that you're going 0.55

01:42:45.820 to have a lot of young Christian nationalist men who are going to be struggling immensely because

01:42:51.320 they will not be able to have a local church. Again, not because they don't have the will or

01:42:55.560 desire to be in a local church, but because they have been utterly rejected by local churches.

01:43:00.920 second question. What's the next Friday special? Well, we got behind. We've got so much going on

01:43:08.080 and everything's going to be announced in the very near future. Some big projects coming up

01:43:12.720 in the new year. So the next Friday special, you'll see all about it, but we're going to have

01:43:17.600 to wait and air that in the new year. So January, there will be a new Friday special, new topics,

01:43:24.140 new guests, and it's going to be really, really good. So hang with us, but we're getting back

01:43:29.780 on track, and not just back on track, but we are upgrading everything. So we kind of got off track

01:43:34.480 because when we finally come back, it's going to be new and improved by a long shot. Okay, Wes,

01:43:41.660 I'll let you do the next one. All right. King Jerd, $2. Thanks, King. Love the work this ministry

01:43:47.600 is doing. Thanks so much. Titus Weller, many-time supporter, Super Chatter, sent $20. Thanks, Titus.

01:43:53.240 I'm too small-minded to understand the relevance of these theological arguments. However,

01:43:56.940 I will stand shoulder to shoulder with any saint against Luciferian hordes and expand the kingdom

01:44:01.940 of Christ. Amen. Wonderful. TMQ Shrike, he gave us $20. Thank you. We appreciate that. He said,

01:44:10.740 Paul, all right, this is for you. Paul, what might a Protestant Episcopal church that doesn't arise

01:44:17.220 from an Anglican communion look like? Thinking national character, examples being French,

01:44:25.360 indian uh congolese congolese etc and how have you uh how have you declared the seat of canterbury

01:44:35.000 as vacant so to the first what would that look like a episcopal church in the national character

01:44:44.700 that's not in the anglican communion uh very easy actually the scandinavian lutheran churches

01:44:50.020 those exist they're episcopal national churches that converted in the reformation

01:44:54.480 uh, maintain their Episcopal structure, but they're not Anglican. They, they authentically

01:44:59.040 arose from the Lutheran tradition. So that's, that's one answer. Unfortunately, um, I don't

01:45:04.160 know how, I know at least like the church of Sweden, they went mega lib, but then there was

01:45:10.880 some back and forth and whatever. I don't know if they're all mega lib, but at least for a while,

01:45:15.160 they were genuine Episcopal Protestant churches, not in the Anglican communion. So that's,

01:45:20.080 that's one good example of that um the for the second question i just blanked and what was it

01:45:28.320 again the second uh you declared um declared the seat of canterbury being oh yes yeah yeah well

01:45:36.220 so you asked how how we did that i mean like yeah i'm obviously a layman so i can't make that like

01:45:42.040 an authoritative pronouncement myself but you can objectively observe realities granting uh certain

01:45:48.240 principles and given the principles of, of the, uh, whatchamacallit, the requirements for an

01:45:58.320 authentic Christian leader, for an authentic Christian clergyman, including the basic one

01:46:03.520 that he is a man, given all those, uh, the current quote unquote Archbishop of Canterbury, I have a

01:46:11.180 much, uh, shall we say a much meaner, uh, a much meaner descriptor, which I won't repeat here

01:46:16.400 actually um um but for her she fails that basic criteria she's not a man she is and and she is 1.00

01:46:24.020 further a false teacher of liberal doctrine she is therefore usurping rightful authority

01:46:30.220 and we can therefore as laymen and as other bishops and clergy we can therefore with all

01:46:37.300 good conscience and with every right say nope we don't recognize her we're not going to take

01:46:42.540 an accuse of her. See you later. That's basically how. Very based. Very true. Okay. Cleve to 0.59

01:46:49.680 Antiquity. He gave $2 super chat and said, happy birthday, Paul. Happy birthday, Paul.

01:46:56.020 And finally, TMQ strike spent the last super chat, $5. Thank you. I love you guys. Paul's

01:47:03.320 response to inspiring philosophy on Christian nationalism is an absolute banger. Is that on

01:47:09.360 your channel or on ips it is on my channel um i'm inspiring philosophy otherwise a great christian

01:47:17.420 apologist very academic in many things but he made a video a while ago against christian 0.66

01:47:22.020 nationalism that just absolutely sucked ass i'm sorry it was terrible and so i made a response 0.61

01:47:28.700 video to it where it was both very deep very precise but also like i upped the meme game to 0.97

01:47:34.420 11 like if you go on my channel uh on christian nationalism against inspiring philosophy that's

01:47:39.320 the video. Look at the intro. It's one of my finest piece of meme works. It's a thing of

01:47:44.440 beauty. But yeah, that's what I did. It's one of my best performing videos. So yeah, do check it

01:47:51.080 out, people. Cool. Well, thanks again, Paul, for coming on the show. We really appreciate it. Thank

01:47:55.840 you to all of you who have been tuning in and listening along. It's Friday. If you're new to

01:48:01.240 the channel, our schedule is as follows. We broadcast live simultaneously on both YouTube

01:48:07.340 and on X three times a week, and we stick to our schedule. It is Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

01:48:13.160 Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time, and so we will see you, Lord willing, on Monday

01:48:19.060 at 3 p.m. Central Time with a brand new live stream. If you are not following us on X, go ahead

01:48:25.400 and do us a favor and look us up. The handle is at RightResponseM, M as in ministries, at RightResponseM.

01:48:32.540 and if you're following us right now on YouTube,

01:48:34.760 make sure that you take the time to subscribe

01:48:36.880 and click the bell.

01:48:38.420 If you subscribe and do not click the bell,

01:48:40.340 YouTube takes that information

01:48:41.540 and assumes that you would like to never see

01:48:43.740 any content from us ever again.

01:48:45.640 So you have to actually subscribe and click the bell

01:48:48.020 and you will be notified when we come out with new content.

01:48:52.260 Last thing that you can do for us

01:48:53.640 that's incredibly helpful is simply sharing the video.

01:48:57.100 So if you're watching us right now on X,

01:48:59.240 retweet the video.

01:49:00.300 If you're watching it on YouTube,

01:49:01.880 give it a like and read uh you know share i almost said retweet but share the video and the final

01:49:08.320 thing that we'll do is we'll give the other paul a chance just uh once more he did it kind of at

01:49:12.240 the top of the show but uh for those of you who've just tuned in now how can our listeners follow you

01:49:17.960 and what you're doing well joel wes thank you guys so much for having me on again it's really

01:49:25.240 good hope to do this again for any other uh pressing matters or great topics that need an

01:49:31.040 in-depth explanation. With that, people can find me at my channel here on YouTube,

01:49:35.900 The Other Paul. It's that simple. And actually, I encourage people if they don't have anything

01:49:40.120 else happening right after this stream, in exactly the countdown is three, two, one. Yep. In exactly

01:49:45.940 half an hour from now, I'm actually having a birthday celebration stream on my channel,

01:49:50.940 just chilling with friends, with other YouTuber friends. I'm going to have a good time for my

01:49:55.620 26th birthday, which was a few days ago, but celebrating it today. So if you guys want to

01:50:00.560 continue the fun, maybe even ask me about the show or other things like that, come on over there.

01:50:05.700 You can also find me at my website, theotherpaul64.com, where I publish blogs. I publish

01:50:12.620 exclusive content for supporters as well, as well as the video bibliographies for my many videos so

01:50:20.640 that they don't bloat up the description. But yeah, and if you want to help me turn what I do

01:50:25.300 into a full-time job, you can become a supporter on the website at various tiers with various

01:50:30.700 rewards. And I would highly appreciate that. So gentlemen, thank you once again for having me.

01:50:35.720 All right. You're welcome. Thanks for tuning in. We'll see you again,

01:50:38.120 on Monday at 3 p.m. Central Time. God bless.

The NXR Podcast - October 24, 2025

THE LIVESTREAM - Did Protestantism Destroy Christendom？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript