Historical sequence is not doctrinal entailment: if Michael Todd is evidence against the Reformation, show where his theology actually follows from sola Scriptura.

As a Confessional Lutheran, you’re quickly becoming one of my favorite theology channels to listen to. God bless your ministry and thank you for defending traditional Protestant views.

4:44 I absolutely love the clinical, academic masterclasses. I can’t find anything like it anywhere else.

Myles you and your work here is genuinely a gift to all confessional protestants. I love how you use theologians and reformers from all camps. Keep em coming 💪

I love the theologians you use and how you use them. Your presentation structure is genuinely enjoyable and illuminating. May God continue to bless you and give you wisdom in your efforts.

His church literally looks like a concert stage.

Amazing videos! Thank you!

Absolutely excellent job showing how this guy's views are actually contrary to the Reformation generally and to Sola Scriptura specifically.

Hey brother.  I wanted to get hold of you. How do I do that?

So I did the turn off phone and pray thing. Here what I got. This was the first thing that came to my mind. Ready for it?
Micheal Todd is an idiot.
Not sure if that's from God or but I wrote it down.

Michael Todd’s conscience binds him to his interpretation of scripture.

I know it’s just a second video with this format (first half public, second half exclusive). I don’t disagree with your decision on this, but it feels really jarring when the public section of the video ends. It feels a bit too abrupt like my internet has gone out.

As a small suggestion, would you be able to add in an outro tune or clip for the public section, so it’s easier to tell if the public section is over?

I wonder why Protestants don't look at the papal abuses of the second half of the medieval era, which included popes having sex with other men's wives, issuing papal bulls that legislated enslavement, warring with rival popes while the general population languished in such biblical illiteracy that they could not even recite the ten commandments, torturing and burning alive those who challenged their authority (even after promising not to), and generally creating an atmosphere of intellectual and spiritual darkness from which there were increasingly few breaks as the centuries wove on--and after looking at this, proclaim, in the same spirit as these online Roman Catholics, that this is the fruit of the papacy, what you get when you give too much power to one man. This is how the world ran when the pope had unchallenged power. This is why we needed Sola scriptura. But no--it seems that on the internet, having bad details associated with your movement only counts when your movement is protestantism. This double standard is a product of an Internet culture that arose because nobody knows history. It makes me think we need to work harder to educate people on how church history with a supreme Pope actually looks.

Yet I do not think that would fix much, because the mentality behind such critiques is less about the facts and more about the vibes. The reality is, people have personally experienced these failures associated with protestantism, and they have not experienced the failures associated with unchallenged papacy. A world in which the pope has full political power and abuses it is just historical trivia to them, a distant story Protestants tell to smear them. Even if it's true, it isn't real to them, because it isn't what they have experienced. And people tend to take seriously that which they have experienced. So basically, as long as people rely on their own personal experience of reality, they will never really resolve the underlying debates, which depend on those pesky facts sitting just outside our personal experience of reality.

But is that how it should be? Should we not learn from history? And should we not make very careful arguments, always taking care to distinguish between what truly belongs to a tradition and what may only be incidentally connected to that tradition? I am not saying some of those problems cannot in fact be traced back to the papacy itself (it's unquestionable that some of them can). The point I'm making here is that if the Roman Catholics expect us to be fair to them, they must be fair to us. We must both be fair for this conversation to go anywhere.

You have an English Bible seemed to work

What did Luther mean by "private judgment"?

This is what i have been thinking of recently. The church needs structure . 1 unified faith. Luther set up the way for protestantism. But is this what Christ wanted? All these different and differing views?(yet same gospel) . I am a protestant. Can someone help with this ?

I’ve never listened to Todd before but listening to him reminded me of Doug Batchelor 🤢 the way that he twist the word backwards into his biases. The lack of references to the Bible scripture is just so bad.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianity  at least, not as I've known it.

Something i also want to point out; how many of you know what "Radio Maryja" was, and who Tadeusz Rydzyk was?

If you think megachurch abuses exist only in Protestantism - just wait till you see what happens when Catholicism gets to the mass media and political power.

The obsession over written scripture as "God speech" doesnt practically mean anything; Miles has no authority that tells him or Michael Todd what scripture MEANS and which interpretation is correct - is "Reformation Tradition" the new Holy Tradition?

Why can't Todd just assert Martin Luther's prerogative at Worms and claim his "conscience" and "reason" affirms HIS mega-church interpretation and his tradition is correct? What authority has any Protestant to assert their interpretation over Todd's?

Todd/Luther: "it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand."