I'm a runner and love to listen to podcasts while running. I normally listen to Gavin Ortlund, Being Lutheran, or Around the Table. I wanted to add some more breadth and expand my understanding of several traditions. Or any podcast lol I just want to spice things up a bit. Any good recommendations? Thank you! 🙏🏻✝️
I’m a 23 year old guy that has always been Catholic my whole life and I go to Church every Sunday morning. Lately I feel like I don’t belong in the church.
One of the big reasons is the Church’s stance on the death penalty and revenge. I feel that as a man, it is crucial to have the desire to take revenge and agree with the penalty of death for the betterment of society. Let’s say someone raped or murdered your wife. The natural desire is to kill the perpetrator. Yet, the Catholic Church says that you can’t take revenge because it’s a sin, and that if the perpetrator is caught, the government is not allowed to kill them either. So, you as a man need to delegate the decision of punishment for your wife’s rapist/murderer to the government, who will then house this person in a facility for the rest of their life (they also may be released), being fed, given a bed, etc. You then must also pray for the person who did this terrible thing. Also, all you can do to try and feel some sort of justice or consolation for this is pray that God comforts you. All of this is completely just and the right way to do things according to the Catholic Church.
To me, this is brainwashing. It is in a man’s nature to take revenge for this terrible thing done to his wife, yet society forces him to be docile like a slave. All of societies rules, even if they are made by “secular people” (who are also ironically religious seeing how laws are social constructs that we all agree to pretend exist) are based on religious rules written by men. God created our nature, but man-made religions tell us to go against it.
Another problem I have with Catholicism is the Pre-Cana nonsense. Naturally, if a man and a woman want to get “married” they would simply have sex, conceive a child, and stay together forever. This is how it was done before man-made society corrupted people’s minds. In Catholicism, the man and the woman have to go to counseling for several months before the wedding with a priest, who has never been married, will never be married, and will never have children. We have to go to him for wisdom on how to be a married couple? I also find it insane that they counsel us on money of all things. Money is fake, its value is in public trust. The fact that it’s used is why society’s youth are essentially slaves, forced to work for hours on end for fake money that they can use to buy mixtures of chemicals, drugs, and food dyes called food. Many will never be able to buy homes because their only asset is this valueless paper. They cannot naturally take resources to ensure the HEALTHY survival of their children because they have to follow religious rules that protect the old, weak population with more valueless paper than them.
It’s impossible today to survive without this paper, so we must get with the program, but the priests have the audacity to then ask the young people for donations while they are already barely surviving instead of actually working like slaves themselves. We work as slaves and pay tithes while the priest spends his day praying?
I don’t mean to come off as hostile. This is my opinion of the Church as of lately. If anyone wants to explain why they think I’m wrong, I welcome it.
I’m a web developer building an interactive Church Fathers website, and I’m trying to create an accurate visual map showing how the Fathers relate to one another.
The image I attached is just an AI-generated draft to communicate the concept. I know there are probably historical inaccuracies, missing figures, and connections that are either incorrect or too speculative.
Before I start building the site, I’d love input from people who know Church history better than I do.
I’m mainly looking for feedback on:
-Missing Church Fathers or important early Christian writers.
-Incorrect or questionable teacher/student relationships.
-Better ways to organize the map (Alexandrian, Antiochene, Latin, Syriac, Cappadocian, etc.).
The early Christian writings not attributed to anyone are just going to be underneath the map.
I’d really appreciate any feedback that could help make the structure as accurate as possible before I make it.
For almost the entire history of the church birth control was viewed universally by Christians as sinful. It is designed to reject God’s design for sex and treats the miracle of life as some sort of unwanted side effect.
Birth control is a rebellion against God that society chose to embrace for the sake of lust.
Since the birth control pill was invented, Christendom experienced a moral decline at a horrifying rate. As people began to create a mental barrier between sex and pregnancy, abortion became in demand as millions of women now saw pregnancy as nothing but an inconvenience.
Fornication skyrocketed as people everywhere no longer saw the need to raise children with their sexual parters and the reign of the Christian family came to an end in the West as marriage rates declined significantly.
Now, thanks to birth control almost nobody is waiting until marriage and millions upon millions of people are damning their souls through unrepented sexual sin.
The fact that so many Protestant churches somehow think that this evil is “fine” as long as it is used within marriage shows how fast we are willing to cave to the devil when his works become the norm.
Yes, this means that married Christians are called to have many children. No, that is not an easy task. Christianity has NEVER been about following the path of least resistance and doing what it is easiest.
Currently, the only Protestants I am aware of that ban all forms of birth control among members are Laestadians.
It’s time for ALL Protestant denominations to repent of this terrible sin and correct their doctrine on this grave matter. I was formerly active in the LCMS for many years but could no longer stay in good conscience when this error was being taught by the synod despite the clear objections of many pastors and lay people.
so I saw RZ's video on the reformed view on baptism and I'm confused on how, according tp the theory of baptismal efficacy, if baptism by water doesn't do anything and it's just used to show that you will be saved, why then should it still be done (based on the assumption that baptismal efficacy is true). Why should baptism still be argued as essential for salvation instead of having the baptist outlook of "since the water doesn't actually do anything, no need to get baptised or only do it if you're a believer". also, I don't get the whole "if you do end up believing, the batism was effective, if not, it wasn't". If someone could explain I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
Since people don't know much about the subject but are very interested, let me explain the controversy in a neutral way.
1. Why did the Pope stop everything he was doing to judge the SSPX and declare them excommunicated, when there are so many people committing sinful acts and the Pope doesn't do anything?
He didn't. In Roman Catholicism, you can be excommunicated by the Church after a formal judgment, or you can be automatically excommunicated by the action you perform, such as striking the Pope, procuring an abortion, ordaining a woman to the priesthood, or consecrating a priest as a bishop without a papal mandate.
When they performed that action, they were automatically excommunicated; the Vatican later only issued a report explaining what had happened, rather than issuing a new excommunication.
2. How can the SSPX believe the Pope is infallible, but not accept this decision from him?
As I explained, there was no "decision" this week (though there were in the past); the Vatican merely explained a fact that had already occurred.
Furthermore, the SSPX does believe in the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but that doesn't mean the Pope is infallible, but merely that the Pope can protect the faith in some circumstances infallibly, by making a pronouncement to be viewed as definitive, but there are rare pronouncements.
3. How can the SSPX believe that Vatican II is a valid council if they oppose it, considering that valid councils are infallible?
A council's infallibility applies to its theological proclamations, not necessarily to every single thing said within it. A council is also a way for the Church to implement changes in governance with the participation of all bishops worldwide.
Let me give you an example using a council we all agree on: the Council of Nicaea. It includes a proclamation of what the faith is (the Nicene Creed), but it also contains a bunch of governing rules about how the Church ought to operate. For instance, the first canon forbids men from becoming priests if they have self-castrated. Such governing rules can be considered changed later under new circumstances, whereas the Nicene Creed is infallible.
The SSPX views the doctrinal affirmations of Vatican II as infallible, as they believe those parts merely repeated earlier definitions. However, they believe the governing rules and disciplinary changes defined in the council are flawed and need to be changed. The most obvious example is the change in the liturgy, but there are others, such as how the Church promotes the human concept of freedom of religion.
4. Even if the Pope is not speaking infallibly, since the SSPX views him as a valid Pope with ordinary authority, why don't they obey him?
The SSPX argues that due to the current crisis of faith in the Church, they are allowed to bypass canonical rulings. They cite Canon 1752 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that "the salvation of souls is the supreme law," and they maintain that this is the ultimate framework in which all other laws must be observed.
5. Why didn't the Pope just declare this priestly fraternity dissolved?
He did, in 1975 (the bishop who gave formal approval was overruled, and the Pope agreed), but the fraternity continued to operate unlawfully. They maintain that the crisis of faith in the Church makes their continued existence necessary and justified.
If you want to know more about the details, this video of a Ready to Haverst (an independent baptist) explain it in a neutral way:
Not a Catholic, but I am curious how Catholics as well as others in this community view these current events.
Hey, this is my first post here, but i’ve wanted to share this niche youtube channel here, becouse i think this guy deserves more views
So I read that the common opinion is that Samson managed to break all three of his Nazarite vows; The abstinence of wine from the wedding ceremony, touching the donkey's jawbone and eating honey out of the corpse of a lion, and then finally his haircut.
But that middle one, simply touching a dead animal..If that broke one of his Nazarite vows, does that mean that to keep these vows he would have to be a vegetarian? Was Samuel then a vegetarian? I can't to seem to find anything on this
Was watching a movie and there was a scene of a guy crying over a sunset. Never been anywhere near crying over something like that. Curious if anyone else has been
What do people think of James White? By my flair you probably guess my opinion of him, but I'm curious what Protestant, both reconquista and not think of him.
A Question from John 11
One of the criticisms often levelled against the Reformed understanding of John 3:16 is that it supposedly “limits” the meaning of the word world.
But before we rush to conclusions, shouldn’t we allow John’s own Gospel to explain John’s language?
In John 11:49–52, Caiaphas, the high priest, unknowingly prophesies concerning the death of Christ:
“It is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”
John then immediately explains the true meaning of Caiaphas’s words:
“…and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”
Notice that John doesn’t simply repeat Caiaphas’s statement; he interprets it.
The purpose of Christ’s death is described as gathering into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
This raises an important question.
If Christ died for every individual without exception, why does John explain Caiaphas’s prophecy in terms of gathering the children of God?
Furthermore, I don’t believe “the nation” refers merely to the Jews living in Jerusalem or Judea. Caiaphas was speaking as Israel’s high priest, and “the nation” naturally includes the Jewish people as a whole, including those living throughout the diaspora. If that is the case, then John’s words, “not for the nation only,” cannot simply mean “more Jews living elsewhere.”
John is expanding the scope beyond Israel to God’s children scattered among the nations.
That seems to fit the wider message of John’s Gospel. God’s saving purpose is no longer confined to Israel but extends to His people from every tribe, tongue, and nation.
None of this denies John 3:16. Rather, it asks how John himself explains the purpose of Christ’s death.
So my question is this:
When John interprets Caiaphas’s prophecy, is he describing Christ’s death as being for every individual without exception?
Or is he describing Christ’s death as gathering together the children of God who are scattered abroad?
I’d be interested to hear how others understand John’s explanation of Caiaphas’s prophecy from the text itself.
Are Catholics welcome in Operation Reconquista?
RZ has said that he went from a position of schism is bad cause we lose our institutions but is not sinful, to now viewing schism as sinful.
But what does that mean exactly ? Is he saying there is no salvation outside of the mainline churches ? even adding caveats like catholics do ?
Or does he mean that schism is sin, and we should want to void sinning, but since Christ has paid for our sins, it's not like it'll change anything for our salvation.
I ask this case I've seen one of his videos in he says that people came to him fearing to be in the wrong denomination, and he showed them a verse in Romans that he hinted at saying that you're not condemned for your sins anymore, saying that this is a good pastoral approach.
And he had a discussion with Ryan from Needgod dot net who is a easy believism apologist, in which RZ conceded that we should strive to stop sinning (Ryan agrees), but even if we still sin, that doesn't change anything for our salvation.
But now all this emphasis on schism being sinful, I think he's trying to suggest that people who are in non-mainline churches are showing evidence that they aren't saved, even if the final judgment is only known to God.
Am I wrong ? If yes, what does it mean that schism is sin ? what is in at stake here ?
Hi! I am a 1689 Reformed Baptist. I go to a Reformed Baptist church that used to be IFB, therefore not a part of a denomination just by default.
Please send your best insult to me based on this information!
(In christian love, of course)
I got curious after my Holiness movement poll (also nice to see some other Nazarenes on here). This'll be very US centric because the Baptist groups I'm familiar with are all US-based. But if you're a Baptist outside the US, hi :)
For those who believe in jurisdiction, what would ideal jurisdiction in the US look like? National churches? Individual state churches? Something else? Thanks!
Unlike the Reformation Rescue, We Will Not Be Rescued
It is a strange and sorrowful sight to see the modern church, once rescued from darkness by the light of the Reformers, who led the movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church, which they believed had become corrupted in doctrine, practice, and authority.
Their efforts gave rise to the Protestant Reformation, that reshaped Christianity and Western history. Greats like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox, and their inspiration brought humanity out of the dark ages, but now we see with great sadness, the church that once preached the gospel drifts again toward the very errors from which it was delivered, only this time beneath brighter lights and louder music.
These men and some women of faith fought to restore the church to her foundation, Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Sola Gratia (Grace alone), Sola Fide (Faith alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (To the glory of God alone). These were not slogans, they were lifelines thrown into a sea of superstition, idol worship, and priestly control.
In this our beginning on the New Calvinism community, I put it to you that today, much of modern Christianity has exchanged those lifelines for sensations.
Movements promising fresh revelation, new apostles, and prophetic power have shifted the focus of the church from the Word of God in Scripture, the very Word that was made available and preached to the world over the last four hundred years.
We have gone from the truth of Christ declaring that His Word is sufficient for all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), to the modern rise of self-proclaimed apostles and prophets.
They rebuild the prophetic structure, new mediators, new revelations, new authority, now clothed not in papal robes but in Pentecostal fervor. From Azusa Street and beyond, they trampled the earth.
This drift, and their way, rises again with hostility toward those who will not bow to the spirit of the age, the Calvinist, the repentant, the Reformed believer who insists that Scripture alone is the voice of God. These faithful witnesses that once thundered through Europe now often speak in whispers.
It is not hard to see, in such silencing, a shadow of that prophetic image in Revelation 11, the two witnesses whose testimony torments the nations until the Beast is permitted for a time to silence them.
God tells us in that very chapter who those witnesses are, and the Reformed Church has long understood those witnesses to represent the true Church and her faithful preaching of the Word, the candlesticks that were represented in the tabernacle and in the temple’s Holy of Hollies, and God’s first witness, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And now it is the Bible, given to us for truth and salvation.
With the second witness the Holy Spirit of God! Christians filled with the Holy Spirit, standing before the world in sackcloth and bearing witness to Christ. This is what is happening to the church of the Reformers, they are slowly being killed.
Their death is the world’s temporary triumph, when truth seems extinguished and the faithful are despised. Yet their resurrection comes when the Word of God again thunders forth and the Spirit revives His people.
So it has ever been.
The truth may be struck down, but it will not stay buried. The witnesses rise again when the Word is opened anew.
What the church needs today is not a new revelation, but another rescue, a return to the one already given. The gospel that turned Europe upside down in the sixteenth century is the same gospel that can turn hearts right side up today.
The Spirit of God does not build His church upon spectacle, but upon Scripture, and that Scripture is Calvinism, while the Christ who reigns calls to His people:
But I have one question above all the others.
If the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20),
Then why does so much of the modern Church seem determined to lay that foundation all over again?
Key References:
2 Timothy 4:3–4, “They will not endure sound teaching but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”
2 Peter 1:3, “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.”
Galatians 1:8, “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you let him be accursed.”
Revelation 11:3–12, The two witnesses slain and raised again.
John 8:31–32, “If you continue in My word, you are truly My disciples.
“If you continue in My word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
— John 8:31–32