- 80
- 9 291
ActsApologist
Приєднався 6 гру 2014
Відео
Fall 2024 Bible Talk
Переглядів 621 день тому
Back in November I gave a talk about the Bible to the high schoolers who were on a retreat. I didn't record it at the time. So this is the same talk delivered sans audience in my living room.
1Corinthians Bible Study - Part 6 - Celibacy, Marriage, and Divorce
Переглядів 119 місяців тому
Today we start in on 1Corinthians 7. Write-up on Pornea Clause: actsapologist.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-did-jesus-teach-about-divorce.html
1Corinthians Bible Study - Part 5 - Sin in the Body
Переглядів 89 місяців тому
Today we tackle chapter 6 of 1st Corinthians.
1Corinthians Bible Study - Part 4 - Excommunication
Переглядів 109 місяців тому
Today we read through chapter 5 of 1st Corinthians.
1Corinthians Bible Study - Part 3 - Humility, Humility, Humility
Переглядів 199 місяців тому
Today we cover chapter 4 of Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
1Corinthians Bible Study - Part 2 - Bricks in God's Temple
Переглядів 1110 місяців тому
Today we continue in chapter 3 of 1Corinthians
1Corinthians Bible Study - Part 1 - Disunity and Folly
Переглядів 1310 місяців тому
Today we begin our Lenten journey through the first letter to the Corinthians. In this video we'll be covering chapter 1.
My Thoughts on Fiducia Supplicans
Переглядів 898Рік тому
Everyone seems to be weighing in on this document, so I will too. Did the Church changes its teachings? Is everything over?
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 14 - Closing Words
Переглядів 7Рік тому
Today we close out our study of Hebrews!
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 13 - Altar and Offering
Переглядів 3Рік тому
Today we start chapter 13 and ask; What is the altar which Christian eat from?
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 12 - Discipline and Holiness
Переглядів 10Рік тому
Today we finish off chapter 12 of Hebrews. More information on Purgatory mentions in the Bible: actsapologist.blogspot.com/2023/03/two-places-where-jesus-talks-about.html
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 11: The Cloud of Witnesses
Переглядів 3Рік тому
Today we do chapter 11 and start chapter 12.
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 10: The Possibility of Loss
Переглядів 24Рік тому
Today we cover the back half of Hebrews 10.
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 9: Closing the Argument
Переглядів 8Рік тому
Today we finish chapter 9 and begin chapter 10.
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 8: The Heavenly Temple and New Covenant
Переглядів 7Рік тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 8: The Heavenly Temple and New Covenant
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 7: Implications of the Priesthood of Melchizedek
Переглядів 162 роки тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 7: Implications of the Priesthood of Melchizedek
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 6: The Priesthood of Melchizedek
Переглядів 162 роки тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 6: The Priesthood of Melchizedek
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 5: Addressing the Audience
Переглядів 72 роки тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 5: Addressing the Audience
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 4: The High Priest
Переглядів 112 роки тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 4: The High Priest
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 3: Greater Than Moses, The Promised Rest
Переглядів 102 роки тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 3: Greater Than Moses, The Promised Rest
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 2: A True Man
Переглядів 82 роки тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 2: A True Man
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 1: More than an Angel
Переглядів 332 роки тому
Hebrews Bible Study - Part 1: More than an Angel
Easter Bible Study - Ephesians Part IV
Переглядів 123 роки тому
Easter Bible Study - Ephesians Part IV
Easter Bible Study - Ephesians Part III
Переглядів 83 роки тому
Easter Bible Study - Ephesians Part III
i remember this from the retreat!! also first
hey apologist why is your character one of the original xbox avatars form like 2001
@@dryluckycharms2264 : Because it looks uncannily like me. Also, 2007 was the peak gaming era. Better times, friend.
@@actsapologist1991 yes better times.
Great commentary. I wish more catholics would make such Bible Study videos.
I appreciate it! I wish I made more of them too. Need to get back to work on my series!
What you, and so many others fail to see is the attempt at compassionate outreach to this marginalized community and the reality of the reality of the relationship that exists between homosexual couples, sometimes for years or decades. These are people who have shared their entire lives together, been there for each other in times of sickness, addiction, loneliness and also joy, celebration, birthdays, trips etc. there are good aspects of a relationship between homosexuals. If two people are making the attempt to live a holier life the church welcomes that even if they come together to a priest to ask for help. They’ve done everything in their lives together. And now they’re ready to do maybe the hardest thing they’ve ever had to. This shows tremendous courage and should be applauded. More Christians should engage in self reflection and charity towards their fellow man. Jesus invited all the sinners to table with him first. He did not start by first going to the lost sheep with words of condemnation. And on top of this the priest is to use his own discernment in deciding whether or not this couple is honest and true in their desire to live a holier life. Last I checked Christ said “stop judging that you may not be judged.” Bishop Barron does a far better job at explaining the document than actsapologist.
So, what in your mind is the appropriate pastoral care of such a couple? The two people can be blessed with the intention of them achieving their laudable goal. But their relationship as such - which is currently an illicit romance - cannot be blessed. What more ought to be done?
Christ tells us how to judge, and warns that we are to be judged in the same way we judge others-- He never once commands His people to simply not judge at all. What foolishness. Jesus invited sinners to Him, _and specifically and explicitly called them to repent and sin no more._ He never once, not for a single moment, condoned any form of sin. If we are to condone or affirm sin, we are not loving those who are shackled by it. Rather, it is a self-deluding, lazy form of hatred to condone sin under the guise of fake, demonic "love", as defined by the wicked world rather than God or Creator, who Himself is the very source and definer and embodiment of what true love actually is. Real love is found in the truth, in Christ Himself. One cannot have both the world's false sin-loving lie of "love" and also true love, found in the truth and our Lord Jesus Christ.
@@GS-cj7rf when did I say the sexual dysfunction of homosexuality is not a sin or should be tolerated? When did I say it should be condoned? Read again what I said carefully because you won’t find it. You should really be charitable to others. Jesus did say judge not lest you be judged. We should be careful applying a standard to others we don’t even meet ourselves. You are acting like so many others, being emotional, not even reading and fully understanding what the church is saying in this issue. Then falsely accuse me of condoning sin. Not a Christian way to behave.
For the dirst time, someone actually describes an sporadic, spontaneous pastoral blessing is like. In Latin America, in certain areas, you might find prostitutes asking for a blessing when they run into a priest. I hope this pastoral realities never end up in Rome as I would not want the success of Saint Peter to consider whether the Church has the power to bless prostitutes.
That's a simple yes, the Church indeed has the power to bless prostitutes. Imagine, it can even bless politicians!
Of course the church has the power to bless prostitutes. Get off your high horse.
Somehow I missed the Denny's in the document. While slightly amusing, I fear this trivializes the intent of the document which does give examples such as: "a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage." Father Martin has done nothing against the document in my judgement. And honestly, it is hard to deny that his influence is not seen in the document. The Christian world has much room for growth in its understanding of LGBT(Qia+) issues. The document emphasizes that "pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as 'sinners' those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability." While keeping the German Bishops in check is certainly one intention of the document, providing greater pastoral care and a welcoming environment for the marginalized is clearly another.
In what ways do you think the Catholic Church needs to grow in its understanding of said issues?
@@actsapologist1991 Primarily in the area of compassion. Christians often use phrases such as, "Hate the sin, love the sinner," or, "God cannot bless sin." And we speak as though these "sinners" are not listening! While technically correct (we are all sinners), this language can come off as cavalier and hurtful. Father James Martin points out that we do not customarily use these phrases for other situations where people are not living in perfect accordance with Church teaching - say otherwise well-behaved teenagers not living in perfect chastity, or "quietly contracepting" married Catholic couples (60% of married Catholics) - or any "good" Church-going person with ordinary besetting sins such as gossip, covetousness, etc. So we can certainly grow in the area of compassion. There is also much room for the Church to grow in its appreciation of the physio-psychological component of LBGT orientations. It is not as simple as "sin". Often these are very holy people that simply have this one "orientation" that has historically placed them in the margins. Father Martin points out that there are many model Christians (and almost certainly some canonized Saints) that we know are/were Gay - individuals who did their best to live a chaste life. We have learned the hard way that so-called "conversion therapy" is on balance a disaster. The best place for such people (all people) is inside a loving Church. Wise and prudent pastoral care is needed. This, I believe, is the spirit and intention of the document. Finally, let's remember that the same Jesus who told the woman caught (trapped) in adultery, "Go and sin no more," also told his disciples to forgive "seventy times seven". God help us from acting as self-righteous, judgemental Pharisees who elevate our own status by looking with scorn on the sins of others.
@@quayscenes : With that in mind, what - to your understanding - is the best way to tell people in same-sex romances that their romance is illicit and sinful?
@@actsapologist1991 I am very cautious here. But let me say firstly, this is "above my paygrade" - I defer to the Magisterium. That said, I would positively affirm the Church's long standing teaching that the proper place for all sexual activity is within a Sacramental Marriage (one man, one woman, open to life, blessed by the Church). All other sexual acts (hetero-/homo-/other) fall short of that ideal and out to be confessed, albeit with a recognition of human weakness. Think of Saint Paul acknowledging human weakness by suggesting those who could not remain chaste in his "more perfect" single life (fully devoted to the things of God) ought to marry. Or think of Moses' writ of divorce that Jesus refers to as less than the ideal - but permitted because of hardness of heart. These are clear biblical examples where an "ideal" is stated but an imperfect human reality is acknowleded. In the Catholic tradition, sexual sins are treated as grave matter - by which many elevate instantly to "mortal" and therefore must be confessed before receiving communion. Witness the hyperfixation on masturbation by many in the Catholic apologetics world (see Jimmy Akin's random comment in his interview on Gospel Simplicity) - "awkward". Now, Bishop Barron's Word on Fire organization supposedly has a policy of not discussing "pelvic issues". Cardinal McElroy has gone further by explicitly stating that we should be less fixated on sexual sins. The Catechism foresaw this years ago with its pastoral instruction that, "one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability" (CCC 2352). That statement was specifically about masturbation but we now see similar language being applied to all sexual sin. This, in my opinion, is a healthy development. Uphold the ideal, have abundant grace and mercy towards the imperfect - which is all of us, to varying degrees, in our Christian journey.
@@quayscenes Well, what I would say here is that the Church (and churchmen) need to be able to teach uncomfortable, awkward, and painful truths. If they cannot, then the truth becomes a dead letter. A person can always complain that said truths are being said too frequently or with insufficient charity. However, if that same person cannot give a concrete recommendation about the proper frequency or manner of delivery - then that person becomes functionally indistinguishable from someone who simply wishes for the truth to never be spoken. My policy is that if a person cannot make a concrete recommendation of how to deliver a truth, then that person's critique of others' attempts is best ignored.
Great video! Glad I found your channel
Many thanks! I hope you appreciate my other stuff
The Denny's part really took this to the next level.
lol. Thanks!
😱 "promo sm"
Great Lent listening! Thank you
Calvinism is so messed up and a subjective truth.
3:06 - Are there different definitions of Sola Scriptura among Protestants? (The infant baptism example was on point.) 6:34 - Under a sola scriptura framework (as defined by Westminster Confession of Faith), salvation matters are clear. 7:40 - Does scripture clearly teach that slavery is wrong?
Good questions, all. Most Protestants will describe Sola Scriptura using similar language. However, they'll differ in the implications they draw from it. They all say Christians should limit doctrine to what the Bible teaches. But they have different criteria for what establishes a doctrine as being taught. Is it enough for it to be implied? Does it have to be stated outright? Regarding slavery - there is nothing in the New Testament which clearly bans slavery. There is explicit teaching which bans being cruel to slaves, but nothing which says, "Don't have slaves."
Thanks for taking time out to give a wider look at Justification and other related aspects. I have been reading up on it and your presentation like a few others goes into good detail. I will watch this a few times, and I pray more Catholics will watch this and become more conversant with the subject matter so as to give a reasoned defence for why we Catholics belief what we believe! Great work!!
You are very kind. Thank you.
Hey thanks for the wonderful presentation! Do you know if the slides are available so I can share? Thanks.
Part I: drive.google.com/file/d/1jewexHfnaTu6tveoa6cqlCHsonbXCwEu/view?usp=sharing Part 2: drive.google.com/file/d/1m3pCpVFcgykFgwF2kBZgM4JSm2Gp2rEv/view?usp=sharing
@@actsapologist1991 Awesome thanks! Any resource recommendations?
@@fiveadayproductions987 , My blog at actsapologist.blogspot.com/2015/03/index-of-posts.html
Hey hope all is well. Why can't I see your other videos/playlists?
You can find them here: ua-cam.com/channels/q64b2tnUH7WqCiDSivFSRw.htmlvideos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0
@@actsapologist1991 Hey only about 5 videos appear. E.g. your Justification Videos don't. Have you set your Channel like that or maybe it's me Thanks anyway some great videos especially on Justification.
Hey good video. On your Channel, I can't seem to access all your uploads. Would it be possible to make these more easily available?
I'm not sure what the issue is, but you can find them all here: ua-cam.com/channels/q64b2tnUH7WqCiDSivFSRw.htmlvideos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0
Thorough and organized. I actually liked this. I am reminded once again how the Catholic Church could have learned from Reformed thought as iron sharpens iron...but instead doubled down on many, many inconsistencies. (I think Calvinists could have benefitted from an in-church dialogue, as well, though they were never officially granted the chance. Unofficial attempts, like Ratisbon, actually produced results.) This presentation is so filled with non sequiturs, straw men, and question begging that it could serve as a fruitful exercise for Logic 101 students: pick out 100 or more fallacies. Extra credit for the one who brings in the most! You sound like a good person who simply doesn't know how to follow an argument. You're working with dogma as a starting point and then coming up with ad hoc reasons to believe something you didn't work out in your mind first. You didn't get here by pursuing truth. You worked from a given.
If you'd like, I'd be happy to hear some specific areas where you think my presentation was lacking.
Hey great video! I'm not sure if you read comments but I have a question about the thief on the cross. Is it correct in saying that the thief on the cross died under the old covenant because the new covenant was not in effect yet according to Heb 9:14-17? Jesus' death enacts the new covenant but Jesus promised salvation for the thief while he was clearly alive. Either way I agree that the thief on the cross is an exception.
Hmmm... that's an interesting idea. A few thoughts come to mind. First, the Good Thief presumably died after Jesus. So if you're saying the Good Thief was in the Old Covenant because Jesus hadn't completed His sacrifice, I'm not sure if that works. But perhaps what you intend is that he died prior to the institution of Christian baptism, so it couldn't be expected of him. I think that argument would have some traction, since it doesn't appear that Christian baptism really got started until after Pentacost. So yeah, good thought. Thanks!
Fantastic presentation! I learned so much! Thank you for the time and effort and passion you put into this.
It's my pleasure.
This is so well done it's clear and follows a chronological order, thank you
I'm so happy it helped!
I'm a catechist for high school age and we do small group sessions. I have an all girls group and each week I create 4×6 photo cards digitally and then print them at Walgreens so they can keep them. The theme I'm doing so far this year is the gifts of baptism and currently I'm on the theological virtues. I want them to be totally accurate, I listen to fr. Ripperger a lot and reference the catechism but would ever be willing to gloss over them on email to check them or help me if i get stuck on explaining something?
Oh just heard on your other video that your a youth minister haha, Cool! I would guess you are probably fairly busy already then lol so no pressure:)
Well, I stay pretty busy but I'm always happy to help. Just let me know. Thanks for your service in youth ministry! It's an important mission field.
Wow, this is amazing,,,all the detailed information you provide and the clarity and you make it easy to understand. This recording needs to get out to the public! Thank you so much for this. I will listen to it several more times! Thank you for your dedication and faith!,,!
I'm really happy you found it helpful! Feel free to check out my other videos, and let me know if there is something you'd like me to cover. I'm always looking for ideas!
Thank you for sharing your experiences for remaining a Catholic. But, they only seem to be 'External' reasons and you never mentioned about your 'Internal' reasons that deals with your faith and relationship with Christ.
Well... its odd the way my blogging and videoing occurs. I mosey around with no idea what to do next, when suddenly I feel like there's something I need to share. As of yet, this is as autobiographical as I've ever felt called to be. My inner affections are something which I'm not even sure how I'd translate to a public medium. At bottom ... I know Jesus Christ is alive and He listens to me when I pray. Not sure what else I'd say.
And trying to understand salvation from a Catholic perspective I have also come up with this syllogism: Premise 1: We can hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will (CCC 1821). Premise 2: God commands us to love neighbor by performing works of mercy (Matt 22:39, 25:31-46). Therefore we can hope for heaven if we do God's will in works of mercy.
So... I always try to keep a few instances in mind when discussing salvation. One of them is a guy who is Baptized and then dies immediately thereafter. According to the Catholic Church, that person is fully acceptable to God despite not doing any works of mercy. The real object of our hope should always be God's mercy obtained by faith and repentance. Our good works act towards our sanctification and hopefully keep us away from mortal sin.
Your diagram on the source of human merit is very helpful. God gives you the grace to do something. You cooperate with the grace, doing the thing. God rewards you for cooperating and doing the thing. You become more sanctified, and less likely to commit mortal sin.
Precisely.
I am a former Calvinist, now Catholic. I have been watching and re-watching your videos on salvation for several months. They have been very helpful to me. For a while I was stuck on how a failure to do good works (feed the hungry, clothe the naked) could lead to the loss of sanctifying grace, since only mortal sin (grievous matter, full knowledge, freely chosen) can separate one from God. I think I am finally getting a good grasp on it. Here is what I have come up with: Premise 1: The gift of the faith remains in those who do not sin against it (CCC 1815). Premise 2: Those who grievously fail to love neighbor (feed the hungry...) sin grievously (Matt 25:46). Therefore those who grievously fail to love neighbor lose the gift of faith through mortal sin.
Hmmmm.... the gift of faith is that by which be believe things revealed by God. The ways in which we sin against faith is by voluntary doubt, heresy, and apostasy (CCC 2088). So it's by doing THOSE things that a person forfeits faith. The one fails to love neighbor has sinned against Charity. And losing Charity is sufficient to render one's faith dead. Such is the case with Antinomianism. Even if though the person continues to believe in revealed truths, he will meet the fate of those who show up the wedding banquet with no garment.
ActsApologist , thank you for the clarification that it would be a sin against charity not faith. I totally get your analogy about the guy going straight to heaven if he gets hit by a bus as he steps out of the baptismal font. It was hard for me to understand how the "works of mercy" were not a checklist. Now I understand that grievous failures would be sins of omission. I think I understand now.
In my head I'm imagining a bus barreling through the wall of the church - taking the guy out immediately after baptism. Quite an image. The "mortal sin of omission" is a concept that explains a lot. Say there was a dying beggar on my doorstep - suppose his name is Lazarus - and I refused to help him until he died. Well, you know the rest of the story.
Dear Acts apologist, your teachings on UA-cam are very helpful to me. Thank you very much.
As they say at Chic-Fil-A, it's my pleasure. If you want to check out my blog, here's the link to that: actsapologist.blogspot.com/2015/03/index-of-posts.html If there is anything you want me to cover, feel free to let me know.
ActsApologist , thank you so much.
ActsApologist I have created a set of Quizlet cards to help me learn and present your information and to hopefully generate some dialogue with friends. I gave you credit as the source, but if you want me to make the set private, or delete it I will. You can see the set here : Quizlet.com/246667602/sola-scriptural-in-action-flash-cards/
Yeah, I don't mind. Good work!
I'm a former Protestant in RCIA now. Your 2pt video has been the most helpful out of all books and resources I own on Catholicism about the topic. The one thing I dont understand about Catholicism is salvation. However, after watching your videos, ive learned a ton more but im still kind of confused. Is it possible for you to layout the formula or process for salvation in Catholicism? Is the process: prevenient grace->baptism->justification/sanctifying grace->?->?->?. Maybe this way will help me understand the process more so I can research the individual parts to understand the whole. I will definitely rewatch your videos and jot down the catechism and council of Trent references. thanks
Sure thing. 1) Grace of God moves you to repent and believe the Gospel (while still retaining your free will) 2) You are baptized ... because Baptism is the doorway into salvation as designated by Jesus. 3) There are a number of Biblical descriptions for the effects of Baptism. You receive the circumcision of the heart. You have the love of God poured into your heart. You are made a partaker in the divine nature. You become an adopted child of God. Your sins are forgiven. All of this goes under the category of "having sanctifying grace." 4) Growth in the spirit. Also known in Protestant circles as sanctification. You grow in the relationship with God which you now have. 6) Endure till death. If you commit a mortal sin, repent and go to confession. Then keep enduring. 7) Die. And... Hoorah!
+ActsApologist Thank you for this. are there any tips to grow in sanctification? Im not confirmed yet not do I partake in the Eucharist or go to confession which are all great graces from God in the Sacraments. I attend Adoration sometimes, weekly Mass, pray, and read the sacred scripture. I realize I could and should do more reading and praying. Im wondering how do I acquire more of the fruits of the spirit from Galatians 5 and the 4 Cardinal virtues. I know these take much practice and a lifetime to truly become natural to a Christian.
You may consider reading a good book on the subject: www.barnesandnoble.com/p/the-fulfillment-of-all-desire-ralph-martin/1007986291/2677162295612?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Marketplace+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP3095&k_clickid=3x3095 If your parish has any ministries to the poor, to the imprisoned, or so on... you may want to volunteer for those. Myself, I do youth ministry.
Wonderful. I'm glad I've been of service.
4:22-how do you distinguish between the specific use of "faith" and the broader use?
That's a great question. The places where I propose that the author is using a more constrained view of "faith" is any time faith is mentioned as needing something else (namely love) to be complete. So, for instance, James said Abraham's faith was completed by his obedience, and in that same place he makes the comparison to demon's believing too. In Galatians 5:6, Paul specifically mentions the interplay between faith and love. And in 1 Corinthians 13:2, we see Paul does something similar, saying faith is useless without love. Those places where faith is being referred to in a more broad sense are those places where Paul is contrasting being saved through obedience to the Mosaic Law with being saved through faith in Christ. In that instance, he is proposing "faith" as something complete on its own and capable of saving us. That is why I conclude it is referring to "faith" which includes the other virtues. This is most evidence in Romans 1, where Paul refers to "the obedience of faith". Does this adequately answer the question?
Yes thank you, I've watched this video several times, a lot to take in when first familiarizing yourself. I've been contemplating converting to Catholicism for awhile now, your videos have been a great help to come back to when trying to work out understanding justification.
Wonderful to hear. Please let me know if you have any other questions!
Good video. Thanks.