Truth Unites - Apologetics, The Deity of Christ, and Protestantism (with Jeremiah Short)

Episode Date: March 29, 2023

In this video I chat with Jeremiah Short about the needs of Christian apologetics, the deity of Christ, and Protestantism. Check out Jeremiah's YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@TheBlackDoctor21 Check out Jeremiah's TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@blackdoctor21?_t=8aoXHsqdRJW&_r=1 Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Hey everybody, welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. Truth Unites is a place for theology and apologetics done in an ironic way. Today I'm talking with Jeremiah short. I've been looking forward to this for the last several weeks. Jeremiah, how you doing today? I'm doing well, Dr. Ortland. How about yourself? Good, good. Yeah, we're going to talk. I'm always so happy to encourage people who watch my channel to check out other people who are doing great work and just try to help them become better known. And you do some great work in apologetics. Maybe you can, could you share a little bit about what are your main, well, tell us a little bit about who you are and then any of your areas of research that you like to focus on for apologetics? Yeah, I am Jeremiah Short. I'm 26 years old. Recently became 26. I am a seminarian. I took two and a half years at Westminster Theological Seminary and now finishing up my schooling at Beeson Divinity School. I graduate next year. I'm a budding apologist, pastoral, intern and interim youth director at a Presbyterian church. And so I've been doing apologetics for about nine years now. And my focus has been, of course, primarily to those outside of the faith,

particularly towards, towards Islam. But I also, as a Protestant, seek to defend the Protestant traditions and in comparison and in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, those who claim the ancient faith, and tried to show and demonstrate that we as Protestants root ourselves within the ancient faith. We weren't starting anything new when the Reformation happened. We were going back to the faith of our forefathers. Awesome. Yeah, yeah. So let's come back and talk about that. But we met at Beeson Divinity School maybe a month or a month and a half ago, something like that. Great, great divinity school in Birmingham, Alabama, people should know about. And then I watched a debate you did with a Muslim on the topic of the deity of

Christ. How did you first get interested in Islam and giving a defense of Christianity in that space? Yeah, that goes all the way back to when I started apologetics. I started apologetics when I was in actually my first year of college, doing just simple, you know, trying to demonstrate to Christians that what we believe is reasonable and that we should know what we believe and why we believe it. So I started off, you know, interacting with atheists, debunking Bible contradictions and things of that nature, and that got me off to a really good start. And my interests really trailed off from dealing with atheism to, and this might seem a bit of, a little bit of a jab at atheism, but a theology that's a bit more consistent. That is a

theistic, a theistic religion. And so going against the cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and things of that nature, I became sort of enthralled with Islam, because Islam argues that the religions are similar, that Bahamac comes into the same tradition and the same prophethood as Moses and Jesus, and yet everything that it says contradicts it. And so when we're dealing with the second largest religion in the world, we're going to need faithful men in order to stand up against, you know, a tide that seeks to contradict everything that the Word of God says all the while affirming it. This comes from not only my own interests, but also being influenced by three, three prominent men, James White, particularly, and then David Wood and Anthony Rogers.

Yeah, yeah. It's so interesting to me to ask about this, kind of what are the needs for apologetics right now? Because when I first started doing more academic work in apologetics, I was so focused on atheism and agnosticism, and that was because so many people I knew were deconstructing their faith into that. And the more that I spent time on YouTube, YouTube's a fascinating. context because you get to meet all these people, you know, who live all over the world,

that you'd never meet in other circumstances typically. And what I've come to appreciate more is just how many different kinds of apologetics topics we need to hit on, you know? Where I live, there's a need to talk about kind of new age spirituality, which is different than talking about like atheism if you're at like Harvard or something like that. And then you think about, you know, you mentioned like Mormonism, Jehovah witness doing things like that. Sometimes it seems like people need to specialize because it's hard to be an expert on like every single topic out there. But Islam is a big one. I mean, as you say,

second biggest religion. So it's just fascinating. I guess, yeah, what do you think other than, other than what we've mentioned so far, are there any other areas where you see like a big need for more apologetics work? Really a big need for the church in and of itself is sort of of like bouncing on what you were talking about in relation to new age spiritualism but going into relativism because nowadays the problem for our modern world we live in postmodernism and even post post modernism where people just don't care whether or not christianity is true or whether or not truth even exists it's it's what is going to make me happy what is going to bring up the happy chemicals in my brain that makes that makes me think that, you know, life is worth living. So we need

to bring the truth of Christianity into that sort of mindset without becoming, you know, theistic, moralistic therapeutic deism. Yeah. Where Christianity brings in not only the truth aspect, but that truth has practical applications into our lives. It brings the reason why we have, while humans have value. It's a reason why we're able to get up every day and not dread going to work because we're working towards something that's not just the next paycheck or the next plate of food that I have. It's working towards eternity and union with a God who loves us, who's created us, and who's caring for us. That's really what we need in our, in, yeah, that's what the world needs, not only what the church needs, because there, we, we have people,

congregants who are going into that mindset because we're raised up in that mindset. But the church and the world needs the truth of the gospel that speaks into that aspect of their lives. Well, you just shared reminds me of something I've thought about a lot, and that's the challenge of apathy. You know, sometimes we think that the greatest problem will be this strong apologist on the other side, but in most of my interactions, one of the great challenges is people are apathetic. Do you experience that at all? Do you observe that out there? Most definitely. There's, I mean, the fun, the fun debates are where people are like, they're actively adamant about what they believe, and that's where you get really, really heated debates. But the ones where you, you walk out and you think, did I actually do anything?

Did what I say actually matter? It's the people who are apathetic, who where throughout the conversation, you think, yeah, this person is getting it. And then at the end of the conversation, they just think, or they say, yeah, well, I'm just not convinced. Or, well, I just don't find that interesting. And that is a shot to the heart emotionally. Because if you're apathetic about where your soul is, you're going to be apathetic about literally everything else. It's giving into the same thing that Nietzsche was talking about. where if nothing has any meaning, what's the purpose of life?

If you're just going to be apathetic about everything, then what are you living for? Yeah. Well, let me ask, I have a couple questions we'll dive right into, but before that, just so I don't forget this, I want people to be aware of your work and what you do. Where can people learn more about you? Do you have a YouTube channel or is your, you do, you do work on YouTube, but I don't even know if you have your own channel currently. Yes, yes, I do have my own channel. It's called The Black Doctor. YouTube.com slash the Black Doctor. You can also find me on TikTok. That's where I do a lot of my work.

I have, I believe, over 13K followers on TikTok at Black Doctor 21. And both my YouTube and my TikTok will give you access to my link tree where you can find all the other stuff that I do and all the other media that I produce because I produce, I mean, it'll give you the link to my Instagram, where you guys can easily contact me. Also, my merch store, where I provide t-shirts, and also my Patreon, where I'm working on completely revamping and adding more content to my Patreon, because that's what I use to help fund my path through seminary. I do audiobooks of the early church fathers, and I also do live streams on there, which deal with, you know, heavy topics and controversial topics as well as teaching church history. I basically can summarize at least two

seminary's worth of church history and give it to people for a small fraction of the price that I had to pay in order to get that knowledge. Okay, well, I apologize that I didn't know your, because I thought you had a YouTube channel, and then I searched for it the other day, and for some reason I couldn't find it, but I found other things you've done. But what I'll do is make sure and put a link in this video description to both your TikTok and your YouTube channel. and because I want people to know about and be able to access that really easily. Let's talk about the deity of Christ. This is one of the things you defend.

How would you give maybe just a brief snapshot overview of how you'd make a case from the New Testament for the deity of Christ? What would be some of the main passages you'd go to? Yeah, some of the main passages that I'd go to, first and foremost, I'd start with the synoptic gospels. because there are many, many, many New Testament scholars, unbelieving scholars who say that, you know, the only way, the only place you could find the deity of Christ is in the gospel of John. However, if you look at the gospel of Mark, the first few verses in Mark, you find quotations of the Old Testament saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God

and then rooting it within the Old Testament, designating John the Baptist as the messenger of Malachi, who goes before Yahweh, the Lord, to prepare his way. So the very first proclamation in Mark, which is repeated in every other gospel, is a declaration of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Then, of course, you can go to the rest of the synoptic gospels where Jesus walks on water, where he controls the winds and the waves, where he calls himself the son of man who is the cloud writer and Dan. chapter 9, an attribute that only God can do. You have Jesus forgiving sins. And then you finally get to the gospel of John. We're in the very first verse. It states that Jesus is the word, that the word is eternal. The word is personally distinct from the Father and in an eternal relationship with him, and also that he is as to his nature deity. And then in verse 14, the word becomes flesh and

dwells among us and we behold his glory. And then in John 118, it says, no one has seen God at any time, but the only begotten God, the monogonese theos, who is at the father's side, he has exegesata, he has exeated him, he has made him known. So what John is saying is that in the Old Testament, there are many places where God was seen. We see people exclaiming, I've seen God face to face, and yet my life is spared. And he says, that person who was seen, he's Jesus revealing the father to men and then we get to

one of the clearest passages in John chapter 20 verse 28 where after the resurrection Jesus appears to Thomas and he shows him the scars on his hands and the hole in his side and he says look and see do not be unbelieving but believing

and then Thomas says to him Hakuriasmu Kaithaeasmu the Lord of me and the God of me. You are my Lord and my God. And Jesus says, just because you've seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed. So he accepts a confession of faith of his own deity. We see this as well within the writings of the Apostle Paul. We're in Romans chapter 9, verse 6, Romans chapter 9 verse 5, where Jesus is described as he who is God overall, blessed forever,

amen. We see in Colossians chapter 1, verses 15 through 17, that he is the creator. All things were made through him in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rules or authorities, all things are created by him and for him. He's before all things, and in him, all things hold together. He's the one who holds the earth. And then in Colossians 2.9, he is the fullness of deity. the pleroma the athetas all of that which makes god god dwells in bodily form and then you get to the beautiful passages in philippians chapter two where jesus is in the very form of god but he makes himself of no reputation as the king james says by taking on the form of a servant by being made in the likeness of man and being found in human form he is obedient to the father to the point of death even death on a cross And as a result, he is exalted and given a name that is above every name. And then he quotes a passage in Isaiah spoken of by Yahweh,

that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess allegiance to me. But in the Apostle Paul, he attributes that to Jesus. Let alone go into 1st Corinthians chapter 8, verse 6, which is an adaptation of Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 4, the statement of monotheism for the Jewish man. And he applies the term theos, God, to the word. the Father and Yahweh Curios in the Greek Septuagint to Jesus. And then we finally get to the book of Revelation. In Revelation chapter 1, verse 8, Jesus is the one where he says, I am the alpha and the omega,

God Almighty. And then in Revelation chapter 1 versus 17 and 18, if you don't think that Jesus is speaking there, he says it again. In Revelation chapter 1 versus 17 and 18, he says, do not be afraid. I am the first and I am the last. The living one, I died, and behold, I am alive forevermore. The entire New Testament screams the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Awesome overview. That was really good. I mean, I was trying to think you kind of hit all the main text. It seems like maybe a few others we could have thrown it, but there's just a great overview. I love to go to Hebrews one too, so maybe we can come back to that one. But let me throw out, here's a potential objection that I think it would be good for us to tackle this.

And so I'll throw it out and I'll see what your thoughts are and then I'll give my own response to it as well. Some people will say, hey, look, the deity of Christ is clearest in the gospel of John. And you've already addressed this somewhat, by the way, but, you know, just to help people. And that's the gospel that's written last. Whereas in Matthew, Mark and Luke, it's more vague, it's more difficult. So this shows that as time is going from, you know, the 60s and the 70s or whenever they want to date these early synoptic gospels, the belief about Jesus is growing. And maybe he's like, you know, Bart Ehrman says he's like an angelic type figure or something like this earlier on. And then eventually by the time you get to John, he's God.

how would you undermine or how would you respond to an objection like that yeah yeah it's it's those same scholars who point to mark as the first gospel so simply planning your feet on the very first chapter of mark shows that that's not the case where john is preparing the way for the messiah and the passages that mark is attributing to john is the same passages where this messenger prepares the way for yahway And then we see the heavens open and the father declares to the son, you are my beloved son and who I am well pleased. This is a quotation of Psalm 2, where he says, you are my son today I have begotten, you ask of me and I will make the nations your inheritance. And Jesus himself attributes Psalm 110 to himself. He says, Yahweh said to my Adonai, sit at my right hand that I might make your enemies a full.

stool for your feet. And then he asked the question, if the Messiah is David's Lord, how is he his son? He's greater than David. So he always points to himself as someone who is greater than what anybody else expects of him. This is why Mark always, in a lot of the passages that he uses in relation to Jesus showing his authority, showing his deity, they always ask, you know, what kind of man is this? Because it demonstrates that he's greater than a mere man, greater than a mere prophet or Amir Razul, as the Islamists would say. It's a great answer.

And just to dive in with you in that same direction, I love to ask people to consider their expectations. You know, if you're expecting someone, Jesus to come up and say, hey, everybody, God is a Trinity. I'm the second member of the Trinity. Let me lay out a bunch of philosophical vocabulary for you about that. That's not a fair expectation.

Jesus comes doing ministry. And so I think once you start asking, what is the expression of divine authority in the context of inaugurating the kingdom of God? As you say, you see Jesus' divinity everywhere. And I like to do, just like you, is to go to the Gospel of Mark. You already referenced this, actually. But I like to do this to go to where Jesus forgives sins in Mark 2. And, you know, he knows their reaction because

they're saying who can forgive sins but God alone and he's saying so that you know the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins. So he's saying in response to their question of, oh, but who can forgive sins but God alone? So in other words, they're saying who can forgive sins but God and Jesus is saying, I have authority to forgive sins. And, you know, so that's the kind of thing where it's not, he's not saying I am God, but he's saying what amounts to that in the context of ministry. And I find that really helpful. The other thing people can be aware of is that some of the Pauline passages you reference like Philippians 2 go back way early, but way before the Gospel of John. So that, to me, it kind of blows to Smithereens the Bart Airman kind of critique.

Yeah, I was going to talk a little bit or point out a little bit more about what you were talking about in the forgiveness of sins in Mark 2. Jesus, before he even speaks about, the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins. The text notes that Jesus perceives within his spirit the questioning of men within their hearts. So he demonstrates his divinity by knowing the hearts of men. The Old Testament says that men look at appearances, but God knows the hearts. So he didn't say that he received revelation about this from God. He says he perceived this within his own spirit. He knew what they were thinking, which is why he asked, why are you questioning within your own hearts? Because they didn't say this out loud. So Jesus demonstrates his own divine powers, not only in forgiving

sins, but seeing into the very hearts of men. Let me, let's address this question. Someone might say, well, okay, but some of these passages don't get you the full way. Some of these passages, you could have a kind of Aryan view where Jesus is like the highest creature, you know, way more powerful than the angels, but still created. But I would say, but take it all cumulatively, and certainly not all of them can do that. And I, let me, and here's this question I can ask you is, I've been impressed by some of these implicit claims to deity when you put them all together. So like a verse where Jesus says, where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among

them. Well, that's not saying I'm God, but it's like, what? You know, who is this person that can say I'm with people when they're gathered in my name? You know, or another one would be if you lose your life for me, he equates losing your life for me is losing your life for the gospel. It's like, I don't know. What are your thoughts about these kinds of like implicit claims that that seem to have a divine under self-understanding baked in? Yeah, yeah. It's amazing how I, I mean like Matthew 2819, go into all the world and preachers the gospel to every creature baptizing them in the name, singular, the Father's Son and Holy Spirit. There you have the Trinity. And teaching them to a, um, I mean, like Matthew 28, 19, go into all the world. And teaching them to all the world. And teaching them to all. And, obey all that I've commanded you, and behold, I am with you always, even until the end of the ages. So he says that he will be with them, even though he is literally about to ascend into heaven.

So that displays himself as being omnipresent. And then in John chapter, John chapter three, he refers to himself as the individual in in, in Proverbs 30, where he says nobody has descended into, No one has ascended into heaven except the one who has descended, the son of man. That's taken directly from Proverbs 30. You know, who has ascended? Who has gathered the winds in his fist? What is his name and what is his son's name? Surely, you know.

So he is implicitly identifying himself as the divine son in Proverbs 30. So there are multiple other passages where we can see him implicitly doing the same things that God does. I mean, we see him walking on water. We see him calming the storm. even even when he has even when he's sleeping he demonstrates his humanity but he demonstrates his his divinity as well in the same passage yeah so there's there's so many other places you could look at both explicitly and implicitly let's talk about the early church a little bit sometimes you hear this idea i think it was in the da vinci code where there's this idea which is pretty

preposterous that i think they even mentioned the council of nicaa well they're talking about that for scripture. It's always the council of Nica. Yeah, it's always this idea. Well, like, suddenly in the fourth century, you get the divinity of Christ. And a lot of your work is looking at the earlier church fathers, the apostolic church fathers, and after them. So I don't know, maybe give us a rundown of just like two or three of these earlier figures that you like to point to where we see the deity of Christ. The ones that I always love to look to is, of course, the writings of Ignatius, because Ignatius is literally on his road to martyrdom in about 107, 108 AD, and he's writing to seven churches on his road to Rome. And his writings are drenched in the deity of Christ. He says

Jesus Christ are God in his letter to the, in his letter to the Ephesians. He talks so much about our salvation being put to the cross, lifted up by the Holy Spirit to God, the Father, he affirms the Trinity. He says, our God and Lord Jesus Christ, there are multiple other places there. And you get to the martyrdom of Polycarb, where he's literally about to be burned. And he lifts up a prayer to the Father. He says, I bless thee, I magnify thee, I glorify thee, along with your eternal son, Jesus Christ, and with the Holy Spirit to you, honor and glory and dominion and power. forever and ever amen. And then he set a blaze. And then you have, oh my goodness, Ignatius and Tertullian, the purveyors of the regular feeday. And they say, this is what the church has always taught that there is one God. And this God has a son, Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who will come again to Joseph Living in the Dead, who gave us the Pericles, the Holy Spirit, to be with us forever.

this is the apostolic rule of faith given to us by the apostles and preserved throughout the church has preserved throughout church history and this is the way that we can show that these heretics like the modalists or the uh or the arians that they are jolly come lately's johnny come lately's because they contradict the regular feeday the things that the apostles have always taught and what they have handed down in scripture awesome well okay so you've mentioned, do you want to say anything about Ironaeus? What's Ironaeus? What's his contribution on this? Irenas really does purvey the deity of Christ, specifically with his doctrine of recapitulation. Because he says, in order to redeem man, God must come down and recapitulate every aspect of human life.

And he's one of the most, he's one of the more primary members who equates not only the deity of Christ to just the Christian truth in relation to the regular Fide, but he he roots it in relation to how we are saved. And this trend carries on throughout the rest of church history and arguing against heretics. We see this in Athanasius, on the incarnation where he talks about the atonement, God must become man. And then his relationship to revealing God to men and also conforming men to the image of Christ. God must become man so that man might become God. And then we see it in Gregory of Nissa when he's arguing against those who deny the true deity and humanity of Christ. He says, in relation to Christus Medicus, that which Christ has not assumed, he has not healed, but that

which is taken on by God is saved. And all of them are relying on Romans chapter five. as Jesus as the second Adam, who is God come man to redeem us. Well, now let me ask you this, because some people, on my channel, I have a lot of viewers from the non-Protestant traditions. And so let's talk about Protestantism a little bit. There are several people are going to be saying, well, you mentioned Ignatius, and you're just picking and choosing because you pick these things you like in Ignatius, the deity of Christ. By the way, this isn't my perspective. but I've become so used to hearing it that I want us to address it. But Ignatius talked about bishops, the office of bishop,

and he talked about a very high view of the Eucharist. So why are you just taking some things in Ignatius and not others? And there's a concern about this. So maybe we can talk about that a little bit. Well, as a Protestant, of course, there are many flavors of Protestant, primarily if we're looking at the magisterial Protestants, the Lutherans, the Reformed, and then the Anglicans. A lot of them, particularly the Lutherans and the Anglicans have retained the monarchical

Episcopate. And that's one thing that I've been looking deep into and considering my own perspective on it. Nevertheless, the reasons why we love Ignatius is because he's taking us to where he wanted us to go. He's taking us to the scriptures. And yes, he had a high view of the Eucharist. Protestants have a high view of the Eucharist. All the Magistorial Protestants believe that the bread and wine was the body and blood of Christ. He didn't

define it, though. He didn't. And so if you're going to say, just because he had a high view of the Eucharist means that he believed in transubstantiation, or that he said that this, this bread and wine is the same flesh that was sacrificed on the cross, yeah, we Protestants say that too. We just define it in a different way that is contrary to, I mean, that is not repugnant to what scripture says. And I don't think Ignatius would be altogether, you know, disagreeing with us on that, because transubstantiation historically comes later than Ignatius. So, so it's, I would, I would first and foremost say that it's the Romanist or the, the, the orthobro who is anachronistically reading into,

Ignatius, especially in relation to the Eucharist. But we as Protestants take the opinions of the early church fathers as welcome authorities, as understanding authorities, but we would do exactly as they wanted us to do and go to the inspired scripture, go to the apostolic tradition that is given to us and enshrined to us in scripture as Aaron as, as, as, as a as a as a as a, as a third book of against heresies. Yeah. You know, one of the things you said there that I want to follow up on that is helpful is this this appeal of picking and choosing. It's like, well, even if we were to grant their exegesis of Ignatius, the massive shining difference is we just made an appeal for these other things from the New Testament.

So it's not just picking and choosing because there's this massive anchor. And even the Trinity frequently the appeal will be, will you accept the doctrinal development of the Trinity but not of the papacy or something like that? It's like because that Trinity has an anchor in the New Testament, like you mentioned a moment ago. Right. I mean, the baptismal formula, but it's the deity of Christ is a shining motif of the New Testament, as we've already talked about. Papacy, not so much. So there's that problem.

And then I just want to agree with what you said as well about the Eucharist. A generally high view of the Eucharist is just not the point of contrast. And when the early Protestants were opposing transubstantiation, as well as abusive practices with regard to the Eucharist, Eucharist, they were appealing to the church fathers, to Augustine, to Theodoric, and to so many others, who do seem to say that it's both bread and wine and the body and blood, not a transubstantiation where you have a substance accident's distinction and all that kind of stuff. So those are some thoughts I have now. It's interesting you mentioned about the idea of bishop and, you know, is that a distinct office. I'd love to hear more your thoughts about that. One thing I want to say is

people are still too triumphalist with Ignatius because Ignatius, in my opinion, doesn't think the bishops are the unique successors of the apostles. He talks about the presbyters standing into the seat of the apostles. He also seems to think of bishops as congregational rather than diocesan, meaning they're over one local church, not over a region. And so these points of discontinuity get completely glossed over, it seems to me, in various appeals back to Ignatius. Right, right. And I think James Usher, Bishop Usher, really does talk a lot about that in his book or in his letter, the reduction of the Episcopate, where he's actually responding to more Puritan or Presbyterian type arguments in the reform faith as an Episcopalian and looking at the history of the Episcopate and where it develops and it grows from a more parishional type of episcopate to a monarchial diocesan one. So it's it grows over time and it develops over time as the church begins to grow from from house churches to city churches to

churches that come across entire nations. You know, another objection that kind of comes in sideways here is when we reference that there are different views among Protestants, so some Protestants like the Anglicans and Lutherans have a different view of church government than like Presbyterians or Baptists and so forth, a lot of people say, well, that's the whole problem with Protestantism. Everyone is just kind of picking and choosing their own theology. Do you hear those concerns? And how would you interact with those?

Often, often, often. And the point is, I mean, the question is not where the differences are, but where the union is. Because in relation to, if we look at church history, There were people who were trying to excommunicate each other over what day to celebrate Easter. And it was those same believers who said, you know, cool your jets. We believe in the same God. We are able to partake in the same Eucharist. We're brothers.

Even though we disagree, we're still one church. And not everyone has to be the exact same. There is still unity there, even though it might not be as, visible as it used to be. And there have been many times in church history where the unity of the faith has not been all that visible. We see that in relation to the one of the ones that I always go to is the Aryan resurgence where a lot of visible churches denied the Nicene Creed. And it was pretty much Athanasius alone who defended the church and the unity of the church on the Nicene faith against the entire empire.

So just to, so to simply point out differences between Protestants is not an actual argument. And we could, and especially nowadays, when we can point out the differences between Roman Catholics nowadays on the head of the church, ask a, ask a papist, what do you think about Pope Francis? and you'll get as many different, many different opinions as there are papists. And talking to them about Vatican II, nervous ordo, or the new thing that's going on in Germany with the Catholic priests, Catholic bishops, you know, pretty much doing what the Church of England was doing and affirming same sex unions. You've got problems there too and divisions there. So there's that mean that Roman Catholic. Catholicism isn't unified. And even then, if we just take all of Christendom in and of itself, Christians disagree with each other all the time. I mean, you have Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and Coptic Orthodox, and they're debating with each other. And then all of them against the Protestants, if we're going to make that caricature, does that mean that since there are so many people disagreeing with one another, that Christianity isn't true? Absolutely not. The disagreements of people,

does not mean that the theory in it of itself or the belief in it of itself is false. I just got done teaching our kids this Sunday morning on relativism. And the argument was, well, since there are so many different religions that disagree with each other on things, then that means it doesn't matter, that it can just be true for you and not for me. And we demonstrated that just because people agree or disagree on something does not affect the actual truth of those claims. Yeah, it's a fascinating point. Yeah, it almost reminds me of Stephen Pinker. I read through, so he's like a secular thinker.

I read through his book, Enlightenment Now, and he makes this terrible argument against religion that he's basically saying religions disagree with each other, therefore religion is bad. I mean, if I'm summarizing, that really is that simple, that way doesn't state it with that few words. And some of these arguments against Protestantism as well seem to have a very simplistic way of thinking, as though the mere fact that there are disagreements is somehow determinative that the truth that can't be here or something like that. So it's, yeah, it's very problematic. How would, how would you respond to this? I think a lot of people have this general perception that Christianity in the second century or in the fourth century, it just looks really different from like your typical Protestant church

today. And so there's this general perception of whether it be a higher view of tradition or whether it be a more liturgical expression of worship or just a higher view of the authority of the church, this kind of thing. And I can understand how people would have that, but I don't agree with what is often inferred from that. But how would you respond to someone who would have a concern along those lines? And they're just saying Protestantism just isn't. You know, I've heard people say, the early church clearly isn't the Protestant church. How would you respond to that? Define what you mean by clearly. If it's just by appearances, then appearances can be deceiving. don't look simply at what things look like.

Because I've seen a whole lot of my fellow Protestant friends just be enamored with the liturgy of Rome or the liturgy of the East, primarily with the East, with all the smells and bells and the beauty of it all. And I admit, it's beautiful. But do the beliefs match up? Do the actual core beliefs about what it means to be saved and how we are united to Christ and how these things work out

does that actually match up? And I don't know whether or not that's valid in relation to comparing the ancient faith to, of course, Rome and the East. And I think that we have a stronger stake in relation to Protestantism. And because if you just simply look at appearances, then appearances can be deceiving. for example like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're high, high sabbatarians. And there were times when there were people in the early church who observed the Sabbath on Saturday.

Does that mean that they are closer to the ancient faith than all of us who believe in the Lord's Day and worship on the Lord's Day? Surely not. So simply looking at appearances does not actually help. As we just stated in the Old Testament, men look at a bit. appearances but God looks at the heart. That's a great point. And just to follow up myself as well, I like this distinction between the appearances versus the beliefs and the substance. And this is how I often, a distinction I'll often make in responding to this quip to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. Because, you know, a lot of times I think people are looking at the early church and they're

just looking at kind of external structure and things like this or even even language at times. But then in the meantime, there's like massive dogmas that are obligatory, universally obligatory today, like the assumption of Mary when I talk about a lot or the veneration of icons that are like universally and roundly opposed by the early Christians. And so it's like I think whereas, but a lot of the similarities you might say, but I would say that the externals of the church can change without it ceasing to be the church. So like, you know, the early church is in the Roman Empire. Well, after the Roman Empire goes away, the church changes significantly. You don't have an emperor calling ecumenical councils. The emperor is called the co-ruler with God over the church. But then the Roman Empire goes away and that goes away.

So, you know, things like that are, in my opinion, more accidental to the nature of the church. They're not essential. And so they come and they go. But a lot of times these appeals to continuity put all the focus on the externals. And less focus on the, so anyway, I'm just sort of, I guess. No, no, you're exactly right. And I mean, the, the, the, the, the Reformation confessions acknowledge that, that there are sometimes that the church has authority over different forms of worship.

The way that we worship, because of the discretion of the church and the wisdom in which a particular person lives in, there's wisdom there, as long as it is done by the word of God. I mean, this is, this is why you, you get debates. about, you know, how strictly you interpret those particular statements between the normative and the regulative principles of worship, but they still understand the same thing, that the church is free to determine its look in relation to worship. The last thing I wanted, that sort of area I wanted to cover with you is reformed theology. I know you have an interest in reform theology now. Am I right in understanding you're currently

in a Presbyterian context? I am. Okay. So tell us about kind of how, you, did you grow up in that context? How did you get interested in reform theology? What's your journey on those issues? Yeah, yeah. In relation to reform theology, I didn't necessarily start out as one who was confessionally reformed. It's sort of odd. My spiritual journey really began with my parents. My mom grew up in the Methodist. No, my mom grew up in the Holiness Church. My dad grew up in the Methodist Church. And when they got together and started having my brothers and I, I'm the little child, they raised us as Baptists. So I was raised in the primitive Baptist Church. And of course, some of them are Calvinistic in a sense. But I myself was a huge purveyor in libertarian free will

as I was going up. It was only until I got into apologetics and I basically stumbled across James White, who was doing a lot of work in relation to Islam and Roman Catholicism and things like that that I stumbled into reform theology. I brought it up to my mentors and they were independent fundamentalist Baptists and they absolutely hated any notion of reform theology. And so I basically became reformed by defending reform brothers and sisters because if I wanted to defend them, I needed to know what they believe and they drove me back to the scriptures. And it was in reading passages like Romans 9, John 644, that really fixed my perspective in relation to salvation. That salvation is not because of what I chose. The reason that I chose is because God chose me first.

And that led me even deeper into conformity to the reformed faith. Of course, becoming a reformed Baptist. When I had to take up an internship from my college, I chose for first prez, not only just because by God's providence, I literally stumbled into the job. But it was through working with my teaching orders there that I became convinced of infant baptism. And so I've been a Presbyterian for about four years now and now continuing and doing research with the ancient, the ancient reform writers, the reform scholastics. especially reading the conformists like Richard Hooker, James Usher, John Davenant. I'm becoming not only just more reformed, but of course becoming more English in my

perspective of reformed theology. Fascinating. Okay. Well, I want to hear more about that at some point. Let me ask you two more questions. One is how would you defend the reformed faith from the, you know, I have a lot of people who watch my YouTube channel and I've been surprised at how controversial Calvinism is, mainly because I've functioned in a lot of contexts before where it's just more known. And so even if people don't agree with it,

they have some kind of human contact with it. And I think for some people, Calvinism, they've just, they see it as this absolute monster, you know. How would you, so someone is concerned that reform theology is, has basically a bad view of God, you know, to put it at the, at the core concern. How would you help someone try to maybe just take a little more sympathetic look at it? Well, one, just simply look at what the Bible says. If your problem is just the language of election and predestination, then you're just going to have to get rid of the Bible because the Bible speaks about that. every Christian must have a perspective on election and predestination because it's in scripture. If you have a problem with reprobation, then we can talk about that and what it means for God to reprobate someone.

But these discussions have been had throughout a lot of church history. With the early church fathers, you particularly had them elevating the will because they're arguing against, you know, fatalists, which we would join directly with them in elevating the will. and human choice, because we are, we are rational creatures with a will in order to, you know, make decisions. The question is whether or not we actually have the moral capacity to actualize them. And even then, I'm, the very language that I'm using, I'm repeating the medevils, men like Anselm of Canterbury, Bonaventure, Aquinas.

When you read Aquinas, he is very Calvinistic in relation to his doctrine of predestination. He just doesn't use the term double predestination because for him, predestination is a part of providence. And so he is very similar to Calvin in relation to this. And what we see in the Reformation is simply an outworking of two perspectives in relation to election and predestination and Grace and Works coming out into a head fully in the Reformation, Rome taking one side and the reformers taking the other. So for and when you read the reform confessions, what election and predestination is supposed to do is not start you navel-gazing. If you're doing that, then you're not understanding predestination. Predestination is supposed to be a comfort to the Christian soul. How do I know that God loves me?

I know that God loves me because God has told me in his word that I, I have been chosen in love before I could ever give a first step. He loved me before I could ever love him. And so if you have a problem with reform theology, look at where your theology lies. Where did you start in relation to Christianity? Did you start with you thinking that you can make God happy? Or did God see you in your sin and in your shame and chose you anyway?

Last question about that following up. sometimes reformed Christians have a reputation for being a bit arrogant or pugnacious. And that grieves me because it seems to me that if you believe God chose me and it has nothing to do with me that that should humble you to the dust. And so one of the things I talk a lot about on my YouTube channel is trying to learn from others across our differences. As a person who's in a reformed from a reform perspective, would you like to comment on this at all of the need for us to have humility toward other Christians who have disagreements with us? Oh, most definitely. I've learned in relation to my own ministry that you, no man is an island,

and no denomination is an island. The reformed tradition in and of itself is a band of brothers. We love to call ourselves Calvinist, but Calvin learned from Bootser, Bullinger, Peter Marta Vermigli. These pioneers who now most of the reformed tradition has absolutely no idea who they were. These were the ones who influenced Calvin, Beza, Knox. These are the great men that formulated the reformed tradition in the way that we understand it today. And even then, they have a higher theology, I would argue, than most of the Puritans. So there's that. But nevertheless, as somebody who does a apologetics. I come across other Protestants who differ than me. I come across Armenians. I come across Lutherans. I come across Anglicans. And I even come across Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. And so you're going to have to find a way in order to get along with them. Because you are not the

center of the universe. What you, what the reformed tradition states is that you were plucked out of the milk and Meyer and put into a covenant family. And you are part of a body that is made up more than just you or people who look like you. And so you're going to have to understand that there are people who disagree with you, but yet believe in the same God that you do, worship the same Jesus that you do, proclaim the same Solafeita that you do, proclaim the same Sola Scripura that you do. So you're going to have to get along because if you don't, you are showing and demonstrating to yourself that you really have not believe the same things that you that you claim to confess. Great, great points.

Well, I'm really excited to see. I want to keep, yeah, keep me posted on how your thoughts keep developing about issues of church government and the Episcopate and that kind of stuff. I'd be curious for us to keep talking about that. I want to hear how that all shakes out for you as you keep going forward. But keep up the great work, Jeremiah. It's awesome to talk with you. For people who are watching this video, make sure you check out the links to see his work.

and anything you want to leave us with today? How about a word of encouragement? If someone's out there watching and they're discouraged in their faith, give us a word of encouragement to send us out. Scripture gives us a comforting word. Comforting from the words of Jesus. Jesus prays to the Father. And he says, Father, I thank you that you have hidden these things,

the truth of Scripture and the truth of who he is from the wise and the prudent and have given them to little children. Yes, this is wise in your sight, which shows that it. It's not because of the people who have studied, the people who put all this work and put pride in their work that are made effectual by God. It's not because of that. It's the lowly. It's the weak.

God chose the things that are lowly in the world in order to shame the wise. He then says in relation to his own sovereignty, no one knows the son except the father. And no one knows the father except the son and those whom the son chooses to reveal him. So he defines his own sovereignty. and yet he gives an open invitation to anyone. He says, come to me all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you,

for I am gentle and lowly in heart and you will find rest for your souls. If you are weary in your work in apologetics, in just living life, in your work for the ministry, Christ is here to give you rest. His yoke is easy. His burden is life. light. The things that we have in this world are hard. We live in a fallen world. We live with difficult

people. But our God is a God who loved us before we ever loved ourselves. In our sin and in our shame and in our rebellion, he died for us. It rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and now intercede for his people. He has given us his spirit to empower us for the work of ministry. He has given you everything that you need for life and godliness. Trust in him. rest in him and you will find him to be a perfect savior. Beautiful final word. Thanks so much, Jeremiah. Thanks for the great conversation.

God bless you and the great work you're doing. For everybody who's watching this, make sure to check out the links in the video description. Thanks for watching. Make sure like the video, share the video. We'll see you next time.