Thanks Jim, hope it will be productive in our conversations, and useful to those examining their beliefs.

Agreed!

I think the same way

Thanks Derek, I really appreciate the kind feedback!

Thank you so much. Those kind words mean a great deal to me.

So thrilled to hear that! Thanks for letting me know. May God direct and guide you.

I’m in the exact same boat as you, I’m just trying to find Christ that’s it , if it’s orthodox I’ll go orthodox but if it’s not then I will be whatever Christ wants me to be. But I do believe Christ will reveal the path he wants me to go down.

@@rylanmayea55 My journey started when the man that led me to Christ went apostate and it was a bit of a shake up for me. I was deceived into believing things that were false and I started questioning everything except the Holy Trinity and the Resurrection. Those are absolutely unshakable...but everything else...I'm going to keep asking questions. The problem with theology though, is every single thing is connected to a thousand others which is overwhelming.

@@Aaryq Im going through a simillar situation you do, though my shake up was learning more about calvinism and through that learning there are a lot more views about christendom then id like.. i wonder how your journey is going now

​@@yeshuaki2125 I've had a lot of really good and productive conversations with my pastor. I'm enrolled in a theology program at a Christian college which means a lot of reading and a lot of writing. It's been useful in helping me discuss some of those ideas. I think once he realized I wasn't converting to orthodoxy and just trying to get a good grasp on why other types of Christians do what they do it he was less defensive. As things go right now, I still have about another year or year and a half of school, then it's off to seminary or something else. My original plan to join the military as a Baptist chaplain was just taken off the table due to recent medical complications so a lot of plans are being re-assessed.

Concordo, também penso a mesma coisa.

So glad you find value in my approach, thanks for saying that!

Agreed 💯 - this non-confrontational way is required these days as a sign of validity. These days we can all tell who's really insecure by their approach

@@WilliamFAlmeida Exactly, know your stuff and argue your case without seeing your opponents as antichrist. Catholicism and Orthodox have a long proud for them history, it is the water they swim in. Our goal isn't to drown them but to show them that they are drowning which can be difficult if they think they are floating on a cruise liner.

So many people are leaving prostantism for Catholic Church & E-Orthrodox Cause people want tradition 🙏🛐📖🛡️⚔️📿🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic

Fantastic quote from Lewis! He was such a genius.

Thanks very much! So glad it's been useful to you!

Thanks for the feedback -- as always, I appreciate your thoughtful input!

One problem while churches today are more pragmatic on Christianity (because I do believe that living out the faith, applications of scriptures and Christianity into your life) There’s 2000 years of Christendom to sift through that church pragmatism does overlook church history. That said the existence of caricatures come from the fundamentalists that twisted every original belief into “solo scriptura” or kjv only, etc

Thanks, I really appreciate this kind feedback!

Thanks so much Allan! Very kind of you to say.

Thanks, hope it’s helpful!

Thanks a lot! God bless you as well.

Thank you so much Richard! I am so glad they are an encouragement to you!

Thanks a lot, so glad it was useful! Yes, Perkins is great.

So glad it was helpful!

Great to hear, hope it helps!

So glad to hear that!

Thanks so much, so glad it was useful for you Josue!

Thanks, so glad to be connected!

Thanks James! And right on the money about how we critique others.

@@TruthUnites I'm a Scottish Arminian much of the first part of my theological education was fighting caricature of what I believe. Roger Olson is excellent on this

got it -- thanks a lot!

No way? When is this?

When is that!!!!!??

@@bakhtior2589 August 5th. If you go to Capturing Christianity, you will see that he is scheduled to debate a Catholic apologist on the papacy.

@@susanthgeorgethomas7942 August 5th. Capturing Christianity is hosting his debate against a Catholic apologist on the papacy.

so glad its been helpful!

KZfaq is a great place to connect and engage! I wish you the best!

Thanks for this. "Sola Scriptura is the principle operative for the Church, as opposed to individuals per se" -- I like that way of putting it.

Thanks for the comment Todd! Yeah, I really think the process of unlearning caricatures is to some degree a lifelong journey!

Thanks Dr Ortlund ! Since you are interested in the history of theology have you ever watched the videos of Ryan Reeves? He is reformed and I must say he was incredibly fair in his Reformation videos. And they strike a great balance between Academic depth and the broader swath needed for teaching at a more popular level. I think you could confidently refer your flock to these but naturally you would have to be the judge of that .

@@toddvoss52 Great recommendation! I know of Ryan and think highly of him but for some reason haven’t gotten around to his videos yet. This is a good reminder….

I’d be curious to find out!

@ Douglas Horch , I think sola scripura was their idea originally: “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC) "Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327). "We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

@@he7230 thanks for this.

@ Douglas Horch, you're welcome, here's some more: “What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC). “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.) "It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2

@@he7230 so based these references it's obvious there has always been the utmost priority placed on scripture...so Gavins description of Sola Scriptura seems an unarguable truth. Is it safe to say that there is no meaningful differance between this protestant understanding of sola scriptura and orthodoxy?

Thanks for this comment! I do believe in a visible church, but I don't see why the death of that church, rather than errors/idolatry, would be the only reason for separation. Perhaps you can elaborate. I've addressed the church's role in the canon in my "Sola Scriptura Defended" video. I think it is fair that these caricatures are indeed representative of many Prots -- I just feel that we also have to look at the historical and official Protestant views. And thanks for the kind words! I do hope to engage Catholics more -- I think dialogues with both Trent and Jimmy Akin are in the works. God bless!

@@TruthUnites great to hear, I look forward to those. I guess my first two points are sort of linked. Like if Scripture can be seen as subordinate to the authority of the true Church, which in turn derives its authority from Christ, then developments of doctrine which might not explicitly found in Scripture, but don’t contradict it-as I’d argue some Catholic doctrines probably fall in to(edit: I know that’s sort of what’s up for argument, I’d say the Catechism is heavily annotated to Scripture, not a knockdown argument but I think worth saying)-are not errors per se in my opinion, but are proper developments of sacred tradition and should be taken in with humble submission to the Church’s authority. So breaking away from that relationship seems to me to be placing something else ahead of the Church-whether that’s a very good thing like Scripture or something less authoritative like one’s own personal opinion-is disrupting the proper ordering of authority by claiming the Church is something that should be left, when maybe it’s more proper to say “how might I be wrong or how might I humbly work to affect change within the Church, rather than outside of it?” I guess it’s the inside/outside distinction for me, it’s how can someone who put themselves outside of the Church claim that the church they broke away from is still the True Church. It’s seems contradictory to me. I’ll refresh on your sola scriptura video, though I’m sure I’d still quarrel with the claim because I’m more of the mind of Scripture and Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church, of course. Really appreciate the response and hopefully I’ve made myself a little more clear.

I agree. Modern day Protestants often don't know much about historic Protestant views.

The Roman Catholic church & E-Orthrodox we are coming back to one soon" we have the Bible & Church Father's" While Look how the Methodist just split & many Prostestants are leaving to Go to Tradition & the Sacraments in the Roman Catholic & E-Orthrodox Christian faith & even the Anglicans believe in the Sacraments & Bishop's & the Pope Aka Simon Peter & the Apostles" The Bible Canons came from the Church Father's Catholic answers has good Books on it & Reason & Theology on KZfaq 🛐🛡️⚔️📖📿🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic

@Christos Kyrios Google Prostestants leaving for the Roman Catholic church & few go to the E-Orthrodox it's 📰🗞️

@Christos Kyrios & Methodist that are Lgbtq Woman pastors

@Christos Kyrios The Prostestant Sect's people are Mass leaving heck all the Apologists at Catholic answers are ex Prostestants & a few ex Orthodox

Hey Eric, you said what was on my mind! And I’m kind of finding that a lot… it seems that when I recover a more robust understanding of my Protestant doctrine (on some of these foundational issues) I can’t actually see much if any difference from the Catholic doctrine, except maybe some inconsequential differences in vocabulary (each side is always hesitant to use certain words), and maybe small differences in where they put the stress in the sentence, so to speak (so maybe intending to highlight a certain point, but still saying the same thing). Of course like you said, there are other things too, like the papacy, but when it comes to a lot of our core theological framework… if we Protestants get our feet under us there, like Dr. Ortlund does, I’m not sure we’re always saying something any different

And Dr. Ortlund, I REALLY appreciate your videos! But something I think you might miss because you have such a strong understanding of historical theology (actually no, you don’t miss it because that’s the whole point of your theological retrieval book-which I’ve bought but have not yet read!) is that… these things ARE what I’ve been taught in non-denominational evangelicalism. I WAS taught when I was baptized that it was merely a symbol, honestly just kinda a PSA that I’m a Christian! And I was told by the deacon preaching just last Sunday, several times, that I would NOT be judged by my works on judgment day (granted, he’s not a pastor, but he is a faithful member of and leader in the church, delivering the message). So… oftentimes, at least in low-Church Protestantism (my lifelong experience), this IS our theology. Hence your book, I suppose, haha… But my point is, some of these caricatures are false ONLY for those like yourself who have really dived in more than most, and thus you can see how disorienting it is for someone like me to then find that the truest expressions of the Protestant faith, often do line up pretty closely with the theology expressed in Catholicism. Thank you as always!

@@abbyschubert5637 great point, these views are definitely common at the popular-level, though not the historic Protestant views. Thanks for the feedback ... let me know what you think of the book!

Thanks eric! It seems to me that at Vatican 2 the RCC affirms Scripture, sacred tradition, and the teaching authority of the church as three sources standing alongside one another, in a way Protestants deny. Hope this helps!

Most of the catholics around me worship Mary as though she is a goddess, does that mean catholism teach this???? Absolutely not. Catholism teaches to asked the holy mother for prayers not pray to her. I believe you don't understand his point. Some reformed protestants think that if they simply say they are "Reborn" they are safe. No, that's not how the reformed view of being reborn works. Just like that, some protestants don't really understand their own faith and proclaim the holy eucharist to be mere symbols, which is absolutely false.

I don't know any Conservative Protestants who view Baptism as merely symbolic. Same with what you call Communion. Both are sacraments.

@@HearGodsWord Many Protestants might not view baptism as strictly symbolic, however, they also do not view it as something truly mystical and spiritual in and of itself. More often than not, if they don't view it as merely symbolic, they view it as merely a commandment to act on purely out of obedience. It is symbolic. It is a sign. It is an act of obedience. It is all these things. But most importantly, it is a mystical event which serves as the initiation of the believer into the Church, both physically and spiritually. To ignore the mystic element of this event and to dismiss it as essential to salvation is to miss the entire point of baptism in the first place. And this is precisely the view of baptism that most Protestants hold overwhelmingly with few exceptions.

@@aaronwolf4211 many and most Protestants? I'm doubting it.

@@HearGodsWord Throughout my life, I've been a member of multiple denominations - mainline, evangelical, and non-denominational - across multiple states. I've visited dozens of churches and know many people from across the entire protestant world. This has always been my experience. Any Protestants who view baptism as anything more than symbolic and/or an act of obedience are in a very small minority. The very fact that most Protestants wholesale reject infant baptism and only accept "believer's baptism" further validates this point.

I wouldn't say that is really unique to Lutheranism -- Anglicans have 39 Articles, Presbyterians have WCF, Baptists have 1689 London, etc. Perhaps its a point of distinction between historic Protestant traditions and some contemporary nondenominational churches (though they typically have a statement of faith, rather than a confession). I think the originating concern is still valid that we cite our sources when speaking of "Protestantism."

@@TruthUnites I realize this to be the case historically. And I realize this is anecdotal, but the SBC Baptist pastors I've interacted with either don't know of their historic Confession or they've not read it and it doesn't seem to function as a standard. Does the SBC subscribe to some type of Historic Confession in a way that is actually binding? I.e., Do pastors make any promise in their ordination vows to teach in accord with this standard?

@@marcuswilliams7448 yeah, that may be true for lots of SBC pastors; my goal in this video is just to show it's not "Protestantism." IOW, the goal is to retrieve our heritage, not abandon it for a non-Protestant tradition.

@@TruthUnites Yes. I think it is a commendable goal. At the end of the day, of course, I'd like all non-Roman Catholics and non-EOs to become Confessional Lutherans. But, it'd at least be nice to see other Protestants have an anchor.

@Christos Kyrios What Protestant groups who descend from the Confessions you listed actually abide by them? Or which of those Confessions actually have authority amongst them? I know of very few, if any. *Maybe* the Westminster Confession. The Book of Concord remains an authoritative Confession of many Lutherans. All pastors in the LCMS must vow a *quia* (Latin for "because") subscription to the Book of Concord; i.e., vow to teach according to it *because* it is the correct exposition of Holy Scripture. Do the other Confessions you list hold a similar place? If not, they simply become interesting historical relics, but nothing more.

Interesting point. Will think on this….

Solo scriptura has been the way the Bible was read in any church i assisted of evangelical mainstream christianity... Until ive reached 20 hears old i didnt know anything about the reformation and not many evangelicals know about it, its sad to say it...

​@@TruthUnites Great video as always - thanks for your work!

Mikaelex - good points. I hear you .

@@fabriziom9 in a church? So you didn’t have a pastor and elders and theological boundaries? That is just crazy! Wow! Usually there some form of Creed in my experience in most evangelical churches and some form of catechism. In a Eastern Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church you also read the scriptures on your own and there are crazy interpretations and most people don’t have a clue but then you have the creeds and councils which set the theological boundaries (recorded in the catechism).

Thanks for this Abby! I am going to do more on justification in the future so hopefully I can address this more then!

@@TruthUnites Thank you for taking the time to read and respond!! :D I look forward to it!

For real

I think we must agree to disagree on this one, friend, but I appreciate the feedback!

Hey Taylor! Just in town from a trip to Yosemite and saw this ... hope you guys are well. That's a fair pushback. The basic idea is that Ahab could claim institutional primacy over Elijah, but you are right that he would not have worshipped at the temple in Jerusalem, as this was after the split between Israel and Judah. I was speaking too generally there, my mistake. The larger point, however, is that Israel was still the people of God, and Ahab was the King of Israel, and as such could claim inheritance of the promises of God to his people. Hopefully the basic caricature I am trying to protect against, in terms of Protestants believing in a death of the church, was clear enough. Thanks for the engagement, and blessings to you guys.

@@TruthUnites Hey Gavin, welcome back. Lindsey and I have enjoyed following your channel (videos & comments!) over the last year. Congratulations on all your success. Yes, the point I commented on was rather banal in the context of the whole presentation, but I know that 1 Kings 16-19 is like pretty much your favorite OT spot, so I broke my blanket social media rule of non-engagement to query you. Thanks for the clarifying response. Hope to see you around soon.

@@tbojai Thanks! Yes, you know I love that part of I Kings lol. Take care!

interesting perspective! Would be curious to learn more why you felt that way sometime.

@@TruthUnites Sure, I would love to share!

@Christos Kyrios They don't have to. Not all mormons make the claim that the church went apostate immediately after the apostles but they have to believe that to reconcile their Mormonism and church history. Reading church history made me feel like a mormon, and wrestling with Catholicism directly made me feel like an atheist.

@Christos Kyrios I understand that but I don't know how I can personally reconcile that view.

@Michael Harrington. The opposite happened to me when studying church history Sir. It’s easy to see how the Fathers are not modern Protestants, but it’s equally as easy to see, (at least for me), how they are also not modern Roman Catholics.

hey Alex, for a Protestant response to Ignatius, you might be interested in my debate with Patrick Ramsey -- see the end of my opening speech, and then also my first rebuttal.

@@TruthUnites thank you for directing me to that, kind sir. I appreciate it! I will definitely give that debate a listen!

@@alexjurado6029 hope it useful!

@Christos Kyrios The terms “Bishop” and “Presbyter” being used interchangeably is a non-issue. I’m very surprised that Protestants always pose this as a serious problem, when it isn’t one at all. Dr. Ortlund actually unknowingly gave the solution to this supposed issue in his debate with Eastern Orthodox priest Patrick Ramsey. Dr. Ortlund said that, in the New Testament and other first century writings, the terms Bishop and Presbyter are used interchangeably in such a way that the higher office (Bishop) includes the lower office (Presbyter), but not vice versa. And that’s the key to this non-issue! All Bishops are Presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops. So it’s totally fine to call a Bishop a Presbyter, because that’s what a Bishop is - a Presbyter with an office - or as Father Patrick put it in the debate with Dr. Ortulund, an “arch-Presbyter.” It’s also incorrect to say that there wasn’t a Bishop in Rome in the first century. We know that Peter and Paul both died in Rome in the first century, and, they were, of course, both Apostles. And the Apostles were the original Bishops. We also have a complete list of the bishops of Rome, beginning with Peter, and we know that his first 3 successors (Linus, Cletus and Clement) all served as Bishops of Rome within the first century. Also, this list extends without any breaks to the present day, all the way from Peter to the current Bishop of Rome. In regards to the Protestant so-called bishops - and I mean this with all due respect - Protestant “bishops” are not true bishops. A true Bishop can trace his succession of office all the way back to one of the Apostles and ultimately to Jesus Christ. Protestants simply can’t make this claim since they can only be traced as far back as the 16th century, and not all the way back to Apostolic times. Just because someone calls himself a Bishop doesn’t make him a Bishop. Only a Presbyter who’s ordination by the laying on of hands that is traced back to Christ can succeed to the office of Bishop. You also contradicted yourself in your third and final point. First you said that the Catholic Church only counts Apostolic succession for those churches that are in communion with Rome (which is completely false, by the way) but then you give a list of all of the Churches that are not in communion with Rome, and you say that Rome recognizes their apostolic succession. So you’ve made two contradictory statements. So let me clarify…. Rome does indeed recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church as having valid and true Apostolic Succession. It also always recognized the Apostolic Succession of the Church of the East, even before that Church came back into communion with Rome. However, apostolic succession alone doesn’t make a Church part of the true Church. The other necessary marker is, as you’ve already pointed out by quoting Augustine, true doctrine. That’s why whenever an Eastern Christian Church wants to come back into communion with Rome, such as the 23 churches that have done so since the East/West schism, each Church has to submit a statement of faith to the Pope, which then has to be approved as orthodox by the magisterium in order for said church to be accepted back into communion with Rome. So valid apostolic succession and true doctrine are both essential. You can’t have one without the other and be part of the true, universal Church.

@Christos Kyrios Good, I’m glad we’re getting somewhere. You have no response to most of the points that I’ve made. I’m glad we’re narrowing it down. In regards to the monarchical episcopacy in Rome, the key word you used in your statement is “develop.” There is a difference between developing and not existing at all. And I have read the scholarship on the issue, as well as all of the refutations of it. I can provide some links if you’d like. And I did go back and re-read your comment, and you’re right; you didn’t contradict yourself - you were just pointing out what seemed to you like an apparent contradiction made by Rome. I see that now, and I apologize. It wasn’t clear in your original response, but I see it now that you’ve pointed it out. So now let me respond to that… The Catholic Church actually did recognize the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church after it had initially separated from Rome under Henry VIII. After all, they were all Catholic Bishops, Priests and Deacons one day, and were suddenly Anglican the next. So they did have valid apostolic succession. However, a problem arose not long after the schism from Rome, when the Puritans (who were Calvinist in belief) gained power in the state and began to change certain things in the Anglican Church. In particular, they started tampering with the Sacraments, including the Sacrament of Holy Orders. In order for a Sacrament to be valid, there must be 3 qualifications present: proper form, proper matter, and proper intent. It was the form that the Puritans changed, which made their rite of ordination to the Priesthood invalid. So all of the Anglican priests who were ordained using this new form were not valid priests at all. Only a validly ordained Priest can succeed to the office of Bishop. So eventually all of the Bishops who had been validly ordained as Priests died, leaving only the “priests” who were not really priests, therefore losing the apostolic succession of the Anglican Communion. So no, the Catholic Church doesn’t reject the apostolic succession of the Anglicans because of Protestant prejudice; Rome recognized it until the Anglicans lost it themselves because they stopped doing valid ordinations. This also invalidated all of their other sacraments, with the exception of the sacrament of baptism.

Likewise for the Catholics. It works both ways, even if you want to ignore it to make a caricature which doesn't apply to over 99% of Protestants

@@HearGodsWord Well I go on KZfaq and see a lot of vicious Catholic-hating stuff made by Protestants, and correlate it with what I have seen of Protestants prior to the Internet. Dr Ortlund may be trying to play by a better set of rules, but he is still obsessed with his own views and not seeing anything from the opposite point of view.

@@david_porthouse no Catholic hating here so a moot point really.

@@HearGodsWord You may need to work a bit harder to make it clear where you stand. All these debates or discussions are conducted in the English language but England itself is something of a battleground. I was born in Newcastle upon Tyne and my nearest big cathedral is in Durham, which I perceive to be under Protestant occupation. If a homosexual union is blessed in that Cathedral, then it's a desecration. Do I have any right to be consulted on this?

@@david_porthouse where I stand on what? That' irrelevant to your moaning. You're now just projecting.

@ktownbball ktownbball uh we have a catechism. So you can read it and know all the teachings. We can even get a straight answer on how to define sola scriptura from protestants

Bodily assumption, immaculate conception, papacy? Highly unlikely.

Protestantism in Nicene Catholicism

I don't get why you keep coming here posting the same rhetoric over and over again. They are not fruitful and honestly terrible arguments. Just because you say you don't engage in caricature doesn't mean that is true. Your arguments had been properly addressed yet you keep engaging in hateful anti protestant rhetoric. It's like people are talking to a brick wall with you. Instead of using your time bashing Protestantism why don't you take a close look at yourself in the mirror and examine your own self? Pride is a sin. Let's not get too prideful of traditions that we become blinded to see the truth!

@Christos Kyrios I totally agree, as faith alone and Scripture alone, are traditions of men! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@junkim5853 Not hateful as you bear false witness, but accurate! I am simply telling the Truth that, Scripture alone and faith alone, are not found in Holy Scripture or the Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon. These 2 articles found among all Protestant denominations, are not caricatures, but reality. Taught, but not practices, as Holy Scripture takes second place to the interpretations of each Protestant Pastor. You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 these 2 articles are not going to be found in all protestant denominations and theology varies from one protestant to another. It's undeniable that most protestant strayed off completely from the reformers and the Church we have today barely resembles anything from the reformation. Faith alone and scripture alone is found in scripture and an argument can be made that its found in tradition as well. You do have hatred in protestantism and you keep antagonizing protestants. Trust me go ask God if what you are doing is right because I don't think you are. You are shoving down your beliefs down protestants throats and refuse to listen and understand protestants.

@@junkim5853 You bear false witness that I have hated for Protestantantism! Refuting error is not hatred! Unless of course you also teach Paul hated the circumcised party for refuting their errors! Thankfully God shall judge the heart of each, and not you! "It is by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24)., for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, it is useless, ( 1 Corinthians 13:2). Holy Scripture itself, which came way after the Church authority was established by Jesus Christ, and 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! Yes, those 2 articles are found in All Protestant churches. Name one please that does not! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

You've added a 5th caricature. 🤣