Transcription
And that I also think that it's a reason that so many young people in particular are being drawn to Catholicism right now. It's actually because American evangelicalism is very young. It's basically a 100-year-old religious tradition. It it's very American. Um, it's made for easy export. It's sort of commodified in some ways. It it's superficial and somewhat garish. You know, we meet in strip malls because we're American and everything Americans do is in strip malls. We don't have a real cultivated aesthetic. We don't have a cultivated sense of the sublime beauty. We don't have a cultivated sense of reverence. I don't want to say that no evangelical has those things. I mean, evangelicalism large has not yet come to value those things.
It's very young. It's brash. It's a teenage religion. And in that, yeah, we're we're skinny jeans and fog machines. wear skinny jeans and fog machines and uh and there is something there not just one something there are a lot of somethings that orthodox orthodox Christianity does preserve in the world that I think that and and Father Steve said something similar that if you could fast forward 500 years from now evangelicalism will have either flamed out, which is things flame out, or it will have matured and it'll have developed some buildings that aren't 25 years old. And maybe we'll have laid off of the ESUS4 and the fog machine uh for a little bit and elevated some of our music. Like, of course, that's going to be a thing that happens. That happens with time, as you know. There's a reason that very intelligent people are are drawn to Catholicism because there's an intellectual tradition in Catholicism. There's incredibly intelligent evangelicals. I brought up John MacArthur earlier. I think he's one of the most impressive Christian voices uh of our century. Um, but there isn't like an an academic tradition in evangelicalism because there isn't tradition yet in evangelicalism. So, if you're an incredibly intelligent person, it's very easy to be drawn to Catholicism where you can study a train of thought that has evolved and been cultivated over centuries.
And um, you know, you know, one thing about that, I I get that, but I think what people are missing is that the Reformation was not a new movement. It was a going back to the first century Bible. Say Protestantism is new. I meant to I'm specifically saying Americanism is a very young tradition. Go ahead, Al. You're No, that was Yeah, that was a really good point and a point that I totally agree with is that evangelicalism, yes, is an offshoot of something that has lasted a lot longer. And I tend to agree about some things, but I will just say, and this ruffles feathers, but actually Trent Horn, who is a friend of mine who I think is great, he's a Catholic apologist, he has written about this. He's talked about this. So, it's not just Protestant Alley who is saying this.
There's a lot of talk about, oh, all these people are turning to Catholicism. It does seem like that. It's having a moment right now, and I've got my theories about that. But when you look at the numbers, it's not actually true. For every one person that joins Catholicism, eight people are leaving. And it's a somewhat similar pattern when it comes to Protestantism, but it's not nearly as bad. when it comes to those who are leaving a religion, Catholicism definitely has it the worst. And so it's not true that the there's a net gain in Catholicism right now. I do think it's having a particular moment among young people on social media because we have more of an image-based culture, an aesthetic-based culture, an icon-based culture than a word-based culture. Evangelicalism is about our words. It's about rationality. It's about the logos. It's about logic. It's about all these books. I saw someone argue that, you know, the young restless and reformed movement that I was really a part of when we became more familiar with reformed theology and the Protestant era. It thrived during the era of the blogs from, you know, 2000 to 2012. And then when we moved away from text-based based to image-based, people started liking Catholicism because it has that aesthetic.
I also think people read less. And I don't think it is a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation was fan into flame at the same time that the printing press um was developed. And I don't think that it's a coincidence that as literacy rates fall that more people seem to be taken at least aesthetically um to Catholicism. I think it has a lot to do with what people are willing to listen to, read, argue for. Um, and I don't know the answer to that as as Protestants, but that's kind of how I see it.
But I don't understand your point about uh evangelicalism not having an intellectual tradition because if anything, we come out of, you know, the the uh the Reformation, the Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon much later, um, and all these guys, Hajj, all the all these amazing theologians that obviously preceded MacArthur and it's completely intellectual. But you may be talking about just the particularized offshoot of evangelicalism which I'm not even sure how we would define that. Yeah, I would say like evangelicalism is basically a 20th century American phenomen talking more about the Soua Street. It's more charismatic. It's more charismatic. It's it's less denominational. It's of course Protestantism is, you know, 500 years old and and the Protestant reformers themselves were legitimately attempting to reform a church that goes all the way back. Like they they view of themselves wasn't that they were starting something news, they were pulling something forward. I'm not denying any of that. I'm saying that if you talk to um It's funny that you say Catholicism is image- based and we're word-based. I think that that is definitely true around the Bible and the sort of front-facing aesthetics of the church. That's 100% true. Uh Catholicism though has a rich intellectual tradition. It just isn't a rich intellectual tradition around the direct study of the Bible. So, it's a it's more of a philosophical it's a it's a philosophical tradition which is because nobody had the Bible, right? It was chained to the church lectern, you know. Yeah. And that's why evangelicals have dominated apologetics because not that there's anything wrong with philosophy. I think it's beautiful and I learn a lot from Catholic theologians like Chesterton and I think that's good.
But I would say in the intellectual realm when it comes to defending the faith. I mean evangelicals have dominated that for a very long time. I mean I'm so thankful for the evangelical upbringing that I have. Like I don't know a better mechanism for memorizing scripture and understanding the gospel than Aana. Like I'm so glad I went to the evangelical K through 12 grade that I did and the church and the Wednesday night and all of that. You know, I had the exact kind of upbringing that a lot of people make fun of now that oh the mega church and purity culture and church camp and I want it and all that. And to the people who make fun of that who think they're more intellectual, I'm like what's the gospel? What does John 3:16 say? And a lot of people that make fun of like my megaurch evangelical upbringing cannot even tell me the basic tenets of Christianity. John 3:16 is obvious. It's the one that's on the bottom of the In-N-Out cup that means get. It's time for thou shalt get a refill. That's however some of that's changing. There's a lot of now Catholic Bible studies. There's a lot of evangelical Catholics, which is great. I totally praise God for that. Me too. Me too.
Yeah. When people ask me, I get a lot of questions on college campuses, mostly from Protestants, but sometimes Catholics, but when Protestants ask the question, do you think Catholics can be saved? I always say, I even think some Baptists can be saved. you know, because and some Calvinists and some Calvinists can be saved and free and some they're predestined to freely believe. I'm just making sure that Calvinists are included. But I before this gets carried away and people think we're trash and Cath I I I think all of us have very good feelings about Catholics individually. It's just but but uh there's there's differences and and we're we're unafraid of them and unapologetic about them and uh but um I'm not we're not here to trash Catholics.
Can I can I sum up what my mentor said about it because he came out of Roman Catholicism as well, Norman Gistler. Yeah. By the time he died, he had written 129 books. Wow. He's written more books than most people had seen, you know, and um he had a book that I still think is a standard work on the topic, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, agreements and differences. And he said he went to Loyola Marry Mount. He's got his PhD in from a Catholic college, a Catholic university. And he said, "If I had to sum up my basic problem from a my perspective, what I think is the biblical perspective with Roman Catholicism is that they've institutionalized salvation. that you have to go through seven steps and we're the ones that are going to administer those steps to you. You have to go through this organization. This is of course prevatican 2. Mhm. But if Vatican 2 is now saying that the separated brethren outside of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved, which is what they are saying, now you've got another problem if you're a Roman Catholic because you're changing your doctrine. When you say, "No, we don't change our doctrine." The doctrine has changed. It's clearly changed. This is why people who are traditional Catholics are saying we don't like Vatican 2. But in any event, the difference was he's saying they've institutionalized salvation. And of course, there was no institution to grant salvation to the apostles or at Pentecost or any of these early on. In fact, the the the bishop of Rome did not begin to assert his authority until late in the 400s AD. Yeah. Not even at Nika. Yeah. Yeah.
Here's a question for you. There's two apologists in the room. we put you in those chairs on purpose. But because because you have a background in Catholicism in particular, the the Catholic answer, as I understand it, is that Christ himself gives the keys to heaven and hell to the apostles. And so they would say, well, there was an institution um that the institution that that existed beginning at Pentecost is the apostles that the apostles did have uh the keys to the door. Their their job was what what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. What what is apostles not apostle not Peter because if you look at Matthew chapter 16 the rock is not Peter. The rock is either the confession of that Jesus is the Christ or Christ himself. In fact in Peter's own book he says that Jesus is the cornerstone. He doesn't say he is. So the rock is not Peter. In fact, if it was if Peter was the first pope, why is Paul correcting him in the book of Galatians in chapter 2? Yeah. Right. Peter is a sinner just like everybody else. Now, I understand papal infallibility did not come on until about 1860 according to the Roman Catholic Church. But the idea that there is this succession, first of all, it's not biblical. If if it, let's just say the apostles do have the keys, does that mean people after them also have the keys? And is there some sort of Well, they would say that's apostolic succession, right? That that the keys that that it was always an institution that that not only did Peter have the keys, but the apostles, John had the keys. Yeah. Okay. And that therefore there's always been institution an inst salvation has always been institutionalized within the uh but it's not an inst the institution apostles the institution was not the Roman Catholic church then because the Roman Catholic church as I already pointed out they believe that of course they believe that that is that Peter as as you pointed out as you debunked as the rock upon which Jesus built his church when he says the gates of hell will not prevail against the church they believe he started the Catholic church and a lot of my Catholic friends will say you know come home and join the church that Jesus Christ established. And of course, we believe that no Catholic universal Jesus established that church and we are his people. Lowercase C and the believers in the Roman Catholic Church are part of that. Yes. All believers who believe that by grace through faith you're saved. Yes.
Okay. So, because this is uh this is rich these are rich grounds here. If it's the case that the Cathol the problem with the Catholic Church is that it's institutionalized salvation is the problem with the Protestant church that there are absolutely no institutions built around safeguarding doctrine, safeguarding theology, safeguarding these ideas uh that that can lead to salvation and transmitting them across time in a way that isn't subject to let's say uh subject to corruption. Well, I started to say that the main institution is is scripture, but uh that's the that's the true north for us. Yeah. What is the authority? Exactly. Now, they they literally mock the the idea that at least the the the mockers some. Yeah. On Yeah. Not all. In fact, not even half. I thank you for clarifying that. But the the mean ones on Twitter, like our site can be mean, too. Just so I'm clear. But they say you're you're not uh they make fun of the Bible. They make fun of our reliance on the Bible because we Oh, you can interpret. So you got billion people who can interpret scripture. So it's virtually meaningless. No. No. But here's the problem. No, no, I know the answer. But go ahead. You're my No, you're my inferior. I want to No, continue. No, I really You'll say it better than I do. Yes. Yes. No. I I just I just think that that scripture speaks for itself. And plus, we do have mentors. You're one of my mentors. No, seriously. As you are one of mine because he's written some brilliant books. But here's the problem. When people say we have a an infallible interpreter in the Pope, let's just say they do. Yeah. We still have to interpret what he said. Yeah. I I don't think the I want to still man their argument. I don't think that they would say that we have a perfect interpreter in the Pope. I think that they would say we have a perfect interpreter in the church. that there have been many times in the last 2,000 years in which popes have spoken authoritatively. It doesn't mean everything ever said by every pope was authoritative, but there have been many times in these thousands of years when popes have spoken authoritatively in in uh defense of the tr the true interpretation of the true meaning um of scripture and the church is the repository of all of that authority that is that has happened over time. So, I don't think that I don't think that it's probably a fair thing to say the the average Catholic believes that Pope Leo is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of scripture. No, they would say the church is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of scripture. Pope Leo will probably contribute, if he's lucky, he might contribute to that body of authority once or twice or or thrice in his lifetime. But this is a 2,000-year safeguarding of Yeah. The problem with that though is is that we still have to interpret what they've said. Why have the middleman when you can go right to the people who we know were inspired who wrote down the Bible and interpret what they said? Why do we have to have another person come in, he interprets what that says, then we have to interpret what he says. He might be right, he might be wrong. What I'm saying is practically it doesn't help you. You still need to interpret the passages. And secondly, if that is the case, they have a a problem because popes in the past, like I want to say it was 1302 or so, I can't can't remember the pope's name. He said, "If you're outside the Roman Catholic Church, you cannot be saved." Vatican 2 comes along, you can be saved. Well, the the first pope in 1302 spoke Excathedra. Yeah. Gavin Ortland and Laya Rose. And I know Laya and love Laya. don't know Gavin, but of course Gavin is a Protestant. So their debate was so interesting about whether or not the magisterium has changed over time. Most Catholics would say no, it's been consistent. Um, everything that has been spoken infallibly has not changed. But then he brought up things like that, different things like the church actually endorsing the execution of Protestants of non-atholics and things like that. So very valuable debate that I encourage people to go watch on Laya's channel. But one thing that I talk about with some of my Catholic friends and followers, and I have a lot of those, and they know where I stand, is they will say to me, you know, the soul of scripture doesn't work because look at all of your denominations. Look at all of your different disagreements. Which in theory, I understand. In theory, I understand why having one hierarchy should create unity, should create a solid doctrinal understanding among all professing Catholics who have taken the sacraments and all of that. But actually, if you look at every statistic, I'm talking neutral Pew Research, really any study that you can find that looks at the views of Catholics versus Protestants, especially Catholics versus evangelicals who apparently disagree on so much and are, you know, interpreting scripture willy-nilly. Evangelicals are way more united on all of these big theological issues, on abortion, on gender, on homosexuality. And the majority of Protestants and evangelicals agree with what the Bible says on those things. Catholics are split. Actually, evangelicals when it comes to our views, according to studies, are much more pro pro-life are much more likely to say that homosexuality is wrong. And so my question is for my Catholic friends, if the magisterium is what safeguards unity, and if our problem is that we disagree so much, why do we agree so much and you guys don't? Um, and I think they would say, you know, those who profess to be Catholics aren't necessarily following the catechism, aren't following the teachings of the Catholic Church. And I understand that that's fair. I would just challenge them to say Solar Scriptura has actually brought about more understanding of what the Bible said and what Christ taught than the Magisterium has and has actually accomplished better unity among Protestant Christians on a lot of these issues than the Magisterium has. So I think having the Bible as your sole divine authority, not your only authority. We have church authority, pastoral authority, all of that, it actually creates a clearer understanding of what the Bible says and also more agreement among Christians. And that's just something that I would encourage my Catholic friends to ponder a little bit.
But don't you only have the Bible because the Catholics gave it to you? I don't believe that. Of course. I don't either, but I think it's a Christian. I'm I'm playing the uh I'm playing the Catholic. I'm not Catholic at all. Yeah. But I do, you know, I do attribute so many good things to the Roman Catholic Church. And I think that, you know, I can confess that and also say that I think the Protestant Reformation, you know, aside from Jesus himself was one of the best things to happen to Christendom and really the world at large in all of history. Yeah. By the way, the Catholics have denominations, too. They're called orders. True. There's Franciscans, there's Jesuits, there's Dominicans, etc. And as Ally just pointed out, at a practical level, the Catholics within the church are much more fractured than evangelicals who believe the Bible. We know we have Protestant denominations that are uh like talleros mainline. Yeah. They're mainline. They don't even believe the Bible, right? In fact, I would venture to say, however, that a conservative Catholic and a conservative Protestant have more in common theologically than they do with their liberal counterparts. So, we have more in common conservatively between evangelicals and Catholics than we do with liberal Protestants or a Catholic would have with a liberal Catholic. And so it's more about whether or not you really believe in what the scriptures say more so than you know what what your denomination is.