God bless and guide and protect you and your loved ones always. Hope it is exciting and meaningful for you, it was for me to convert or technically revert. I kept wanting to be confirmed last week! Peace
8:30 I've noticed a lot of protestant arguments against Catholicism are not only untrue, but they tend to be what protestants themselves do. A common criticism of confession is that "Catholics believe you can knowingly do any sin as long as they just go to confession" (which isn't true and is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit known as presumption). Except Protestants also say faith alone is enough, which is essentially the same thing as presumption. Works show that you have faith - faith isn't just "belief". Without works, how would you even know you're following Christ?
No, what you are reffering to is mortal sin. When you commit a mortal sin you lose salvation until you repent. Blasphemey of The Holy Spirit is the rejection of God's grace. This means choosing to not be with God or not repenting. Hope this helps. 👍
@@levikolenz2812You can’t just repent, you have to go to Confession, confess your sins to Gods Priests, they either absolve them or not, then you get a penance for your sins. You have to do your penance to be forgiven by God. He instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation to have our sins committed after Baptism forgiven. 2 Cor 5:18-20, Jn20:21-23, Mt 16:18-19, 18:17-18
@@southernlady1109I believe this is technically incorrect, the forgiveness happens at the words of absolution, the penance is to remove the temporal consequences of sin (what must be purified in purgatory if it is not complete on earth) and usually the penance assigned is not sufficient to fully remove all temporal punishment. But I could be wrong, God Bless.
“Baptism isn’t necessary” is a quote that ticks my anger. I swear Protestants don’t read the entire chapters. I watched a Protestant baptist service and they read the story of The people who asked Paul “what should I do to be saved” and they stopped at “believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” but didn’t finish the chapter to show people that Paul baptised them after believing
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV proves that water baptism is not part of the gospel. Do you catholic blockheads ever rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)?
@@ROMANS3-25KJVand again, ignoring the preceding passages where Paul says he baptised people. He was responding to contentions among people who were placing importance on WHO baptised them. Saying they belonged to this or that disciple who baptised them. Your arrogant attitude is embarrasing, given how wrong you are.
@@simeonwaia do you semiramis worshipping pagan even understand dispensations? Paul clearly says in that verse, that it is not part of the gospel. Why are you pope cult followers such Bible blockheads?
@@ROMANS3-25KJV Protestant really likes to pick and choose verses but have a hard time reading all of the passages, you are like the Muhammadan who will just pick one verse like "Your God died on the cross" but doesn't like reading what happened after that. At best, You Prots are disingenuous, and at worst you are just dumb, which one is it?
3:00 another reason that the Thief on the cross argument doesn’t work is that Christ hadn’t instituted the sacrament yet. That wasn’t done until the Great Commission, just prior to his ascension.
Plus that, it never states whether the Good Thief was baptized or not. Everyone assumes he wasn't but, he knew who Jesus was and knew he was innocent. Seems he was the recipient of graces not bestowed on the other thief.
@@StringofPearls55 it is possible that he was baptized into John’s baptism, but we know for a fact that he was not baptized into Christ, as no one at the time of the crucifixion had been baptized into Christ.
One of my catechism teachers says that the blood and water from Jesus’ side was symbolic for baptism. So maybe in that sense he was baptized. Good question for my spiritual father
@@kingdomkid7225 you could Maine say that the blood and water from Christ’s side is atholic of baptism, but as far as saying that the Thief was baptized by that is stretching it. Two points, first being that the sacrament of baptism hadn’t been instituted yet. Second, there is no indication in scripture or Tradition that states this blood and water touched the Thief (St Dismus is the name he has been given I believe). You have to remember, in order to be physically baptized, the water must touch you.
@@kennethbergstrom3383 I see what you’re saying. I just wanted to open up the discussion on a thought I had. I def need to ask my Fr though. Thanks for the reply
More long form content please! I am investigating Catholicism and have found your videos the most helpful because you clearly break down difficult theology topics for laymen to understand. I would love to see more long form content posted. Thanks for all your efforts!
Check out Blue Collar Apologetics, and also Reason & Theology for excellent and pretty concise Catholic apologetics. I especially enjoy the former because he speaks plainly so anybody can understand him. He was Evangelical for around 30 (?) years and really knows scripture.
@@razoredge6130 no it definitely is Catholic. Catholics wrote the New Testament while inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus founded one Church and that Church wrote the New Testament, assembled the Bible, and distributed it. Besides that how would you even know which writings and manuscripts are scripture if you didn’t have the Church with the authority to tell you. You dont have to like it but you cant deny it.
@@KephasIsStPeter It was written by God and God used the church for his purpose but that doesn't mean we have to agree with the church on everything is says.
@@xsteality6653I would guess 2 chronicles as it sounds more reasonable given the horsemen. You do realize the infallibility of the Bible is on moral matters, not historical or scientific, right?
@@xsteality6653We are not Muslims that think the Bible are the literal words of God. What this means is that we understand that the manuscripts can have minor transmission errors that does not change the meaning of the text, which is what this most likely is a copyist error. The ratio of 4,000 horses to 1,400 chariots, as found in the 2 Chronicles passage, is much more reasonable than a ratio of 40,000 to 1,400 found in the 1 Kings text. In the Hebrew language, the visual difference between the two numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are rbym, while the consonants for the number 4 are rbh (the vowels were not written in the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged and have given the appearance of being forty thousand rather than four thousand. This transmission error work against your overall implied argument, as it shows the copyists were trying to copy the text perfectly and not interpret the text and modify it. Try again.
What do protestant think of this verse John: 6:53 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. " And they deny Most Holy Eucharist, Body, Blood, Sould and Divnity of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is offered only in Catholic Church. Hope your teaching touch hearts and souls of many protestant brothers and sisters and that they join one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
They believe it’s only symbolic or spiritual, but they ignore the part where Jesus says “for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” John 6:55
I've always found it intriguing that twice Jesus says no one can come to him unless granted by the Father. He says it just before The Bread of Life Discourse and after. He begins with: (John 6 43: 44) 43 Jesus answered them, ‘Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. And when no one believed him and they all turned away from him.... (John 6: 65): 65 And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.’ I've never heard any teaching on this, but I find it very profound. Especially since Protestants refuse to listen even after Jesus repeats and repeats himself. They explain away how they are the disiples who turned away from him because they didn't like a particular teaching.
They ignore Jn6:51-59, but they also ignore 1 Cor 11:23-29, The Last Supper when Jesus said He is the living bread, the bread He gives is His Flesh, unless we eat it, we will have no life in us. If we do eat it, He will raise us up to Heaven on the last day. If we eat it unworthily, we are liable & bring a sentence against ourselves for not discerning it to be His Body & Blood.
They believe its ALL just symbolic of Jesus’s word. Despite Jesus saying it wasn’t symbolic even when they accused him of cannibalism. They especially take the ‘do this in remembrance of me’ to a completely different meaning in order to back up this false belief. Its like if jesus said ‘eat this blueberry in remembrance of me’ the blueberry is still a blueberry not a symbol of a blueberry.
It never says the guy wasn’t baptized it’s just assumed the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized. The exception isn’t the rule for any catholic doctrine but the exception is the rule for the Protestant arguments
Most Prots think of salvation as something we can't forfeit under any circumstances. Since baptized people everywhere and always leave the faith Prots had to relativize baptism's effects. They wanted an un-losable salvation. They moved salvations over to "conversion," which is something that, in truth, happens repeatedly throughout life, but they redefined it as something that can only happen once, and which gives you the un-losable salvation they demand from Jesus, a salvation He doesn't actually offer.
Peter says the scripture can be difficult to understand ( especially Paul's writings), funny most distinctly protestant ideas usually come from letters like Hebrews or Romans.
Today i see mr . Cap talk some heresies "how infant baptizm doesnt count" I left comment that he must read bible amd not just things he heard fro someone who read bible and Twist it
Thief on the cross objection has 2 more rebuttals: 1. Jesus can do what he wants. If he wants to make an exception, he can at his leisure. The sacrament of baptism is a substitute for those of us not being executed next to Christ. 2. This is exceptionally damaging to the Sola Scriptura crowd: where does it say the thief hadn't been baptized by John prior to his execution? So even with the ability to make exceptions aside, it's entirely possible the thief was already baptized. Bonus: the necessity of baptism for salvation in the Gospel occurs mostly AFTER Christ died. Which ties in with the last part of 1 above.
Love that someone is defending our catholic faith. Una sola fe, un solo bautismo. Something I see is that when a catholic leaves the church the Protestant baptize them again, and the catholic church doesn’t as long as they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Efesios 4, 5. Sorry for my grammar Spanish is my first language. Love to see that our doctrine doesn’t change like the Protestants. Viva Cristo Rey.
The funny part is that these protestants don't understand that that Bible they read is thanks to the one true and apostolic church. With out the church no Bible and Christianity would have been lost. It like tearing off our are and hitting us with it. Their understanding of scripture is so watered down that they don't even understand baptism.
Also they removed 7 books from the bible that the holy spirit bless through the Pope or head bishop which became infallible word of God , the protestant's now read a fallible book .
@@michaelbledsoe4355 Huh? Who knew!? So if Catholics are pagans, why do you use their holy book that they preached from, prayed with and guarded for centuries?
@@ronaldeglewski3073 The Catholic Church gave The Holy Bible to the world. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, without Gods authority, rewrote it, deleted verses, chapters, books and changed wording to The Holy Bible & to The Ten Commandments. Changing a word here and there can negate the meaning of the verse. Revelation 22:18 For I call as witnesses all listeners of the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone will have added to these, God will add upon him the afflictions written in this book. Revelation 22:19 And if anyone will have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City, and from these things which have been written in this book. Jeremiah 26:2 “Thus says the Lord: Stand in the atrium of the house of the Lord, and speak to all the cities of Judah, from which they come to adore in the house of the Lord, all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. DO NOT CHOOSE TO SUBTRACT ANY WORD.”
@@michaelbledsoe4355 "The Protestant narrative that the Church started out faithful in Acts, figuring out the Canon of Scripture, figuring out the Creeds and then kept going and then corrupted along the way/at some point then needed to be restored/Reformed in the 16th century doesn't make sense. The reason is several of the things Protestants objected to in Catholicism were already settled before the first creed, before the first Council of Rome which was the first to determine the Canon. In other words you already have the Church hierarchy, Marian veneration, the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, Baptismal regeneration, etc. If you're going to say the Church corrupted drawing the line becomes tricky. If you draw it after the Canon and creeds you already have most of the things you don't like about Catholicism. If you draw it earlier like right after the death of the Apostles then the Church loses its authority to even determine the Canon of Scripture and the Creeds which the Catholic Church did then you're left without any kind of objective measure of the Canon or Creeds to determine Christian Orthodoxy." - Douglas Beaumont
@@stephenjohnson7915 thank you for that knowledge 🙏 I still attribute Luther to being the starting of the issue with Sola scriptura. Made everyone their own monolith
Your logic doesn't follow. That's not at all what Luther did. He simply exposed the atrocities of Rome and they didn't like it. That's why Benedict said that he was actually a preacher of the Gospel.
Amen, well done my dude...but of course as you are defending the fullness & beauty of the truth which is only in the ancient holy Catholic Church, Pax Vobis
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of *water AND the Spirit*, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
These protestants would know that the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of water are the same thing if they just read Ephesians 4:5 where Paul says one baptism, he never separated the two
It gets so old hearing ignorant comments from people who have not really looked into teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s easy to talk and talk but go do real research.
Great video but it's important to note that the thief on the cross died under the old covenant. He was not bound by New Covenant requirements, that alone should cease protestant chatter.
“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us **(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)** by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
Wanna know a secret? No protestant really believes in sola scriptura. They believe in their individual theology and prooftext scripture to make their theology work. Whenever they come up to a scripture reading that disagrees with their theology, theology wins not scripture. Dozens of easy examples prove this, the whole thesis of VOReason proves it. Romans 2 I think is a chapter of scripture that every protestant totally ignores, the core of the chapter is He will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life, 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but injustice, there will be wrath and fury. 9 context flows right into and out of this passage and there really is no way to reinterpret it to make sola fide work. So does the protestant adjust his beliefs since scripture is the ultimate authority? Or does he ignore this passage and cherry pick another verse out of context so he can ignore romans 2? If you truly followed sola scrip, what would you do?
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:25-27,
Ezekiel 36:25 [25]And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. The Douay Bible.
@Catholic1391 Physical Baptism is like Physical Circumcision neither can save anybody. We can only be saved by a spiritual baptism, and that is a work of God.
Sup bro! Just checking on you. Making sure you okay with all that truth you been talking this year. 😅 Anyway, Keep it up my dude. I myself am from southern Cali but moved to Florida just recently. Happy New Years! Where do we go from here bro? Let the Lord take the wheel! God Bless 🙏🏼💙♥️
As a member of the Church of Christ, we too believe that baptism is required for the remission of sins. As you said, those that have repented, believe may get baptized. Since those are the requirements, this would exclude infants/ young children. Since the cant repent or believe.
Hey, guys and girls. Check this out. Relevant to this discussion and it's pretty wild. So, the Bible says : "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." It corresponds to the washing of the earth in the flood with Noah and his family. Like our sins are washed away in baptism when tied with repentance or another's strong faith on our behalf. Isn't that neat? We had a question. Does baptism save? And the Bible told us... Yes, baptism saves. Woo!
Here’s a note I found in my interlinear Bible concerning the word “βαπτίζω”: Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.) This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Thanks for advertising several Traditionalist channels by attacking them on Lofton's channel. I went to the ones I hadnt known and subbed. Pax et Bonum.
Thank you! I do have some confusion and am genuinely interested in learning the truth based on scripture. Are all those who were baptized as babies then the elect? What about people who were baptized as babies and are not believers as adults?
Baptists have their own tradition that cuts off the teaching of the fathers that influences their interpretation of Scripture they also have Romaphobia fear or hate that is anything resembling catholic teaching.
Hey Alex, I hope you see my comment because I wanna defend the Catholic Church just as good as you to other troubled people that have a hard time understanding. Since this video was about Baptism I thought this question would be perfect timing. Many protestants always have some lack of faith and disagreements with the Catholic Church, which I’m sure you’ve experienced already, how would you go about answering this question: “where does it say in the Bible that infants/babies are to be baptized?” I always get asked this question but I wanna know how you would respond. Thank you for your time. God bless❤
Hey Alex! I thank God for you, you have helped me greatly, especially as I am currently going through RCIA… just one question for you regarding baptism in Acts chapter 19? Some disciples in Ephesus were baptised but didn’t receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. Would appreciate it if you could help me understand this passage, and why the disciples didn’t receive the Holy Spirit if we’re supposed to receive the Holy Spirit at baptism?
In that passage, they are talking about confirmation.. they had not received confirmation. (It's done by the imposition of hands) Baptism to receive Holy Spirit and Confirmation to be full in the Holy Spirit. It's similar but different.. different graces given
@@jesusmagana2458 awesome! Thank you for this… my experience of Christianity comes from an evangelical once saved, always saved, point of view… thanks for clarifying 🙏
There is also the oldest surviving papal decree in existence. It is the decree of Pope St. Siricius to Himerius. It holds tremendous significance. It constitutes another crushing blow to the false doctrine of ‘baptism of desire’. In his decree, Siricius infallibly teaches that all those who desire water baptism, but die without receiving it, will not be saved. He thus directly denies the concept of ‘baptism of desire’. The pope even speaks of people in danger and necessity who desire water baptism. He teaches that they cannot be saved without water baptism, which he identifies as the unique help of faith. He teaches that being baptized is their only hope of salvation. Pope St. Siricius’ decree is infallible, as our article on it proves. His decree also demonstrates that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, in addition to the Solemn Magisterium, directly contradicts the idea of ‘baptism of desire’. ua-cam.com/video/jLKQAi7e8Bk/v-deo.html
Baptism wasn't fully instituted at the Time of the thief on the Cross, the Apostles hadn't received the fullness of the Holy Spirit and received the great commission to go out and begin Jesus Church, also Jesus hadn't permanently risen and the Catholic Church hadn't been formally instituted to inforce the law, alot of variables going on not to mention, Jesus inforces the law but not bound by it.
When people bring up the thief on the cross not being baptized, they do so because they misunderstand what baptism gives. The thief on the cross had the word of Jesus. (As a side note: Jesus is the Living Water) It is in baptism that we have a direct promise from God in Christ. It is in baptism that we die with Him. Say, that's what the thief on the cross kind of did. Humm?
"Baptism isn't always getting dunked in water. It can be getting awakened to the fact Jesus is Lord and died for us." This is Luciferian, exchanging the idea of awakening or enlightenment for the sacrament of Baptism.
I think an easier way to put it, to help Protestants understand is to point to Romans 10:10: “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” Romans 10:10 The sacraments (particularly the sacraments of healing; baptism, reconciliation, & anointing of the sick) are a means of which that we profess our faith in Christ. I’ll also point to the woman who touched Jesus’ garment. We know she had true faith. But it wasn’t until she touched Jesus’ garment that she was healed. Now why did God make it so that she was not permitted to be healed until she touched His garment? Well I infer that the act of touching Jesus’ garment was the means of which she professed her faith in Jesus, and thus God graced her. And by this grace she was healed. As Jesus says to the woman that ut wasn’t His garment that saved her, but it was her faith. In the same way, we don’t believe that the water in baptism saves us, but it’s the profession of faith in Christ that takes place in baptism. And through this faith, we revive God’s grace. And by that grace, we are saved.
We don’t know if the good thieve was baptized or not but what we do know is the good thieve knew who Jesus was that is a important clue my guess is the good thieve was baptized.
So there's an exception to salvation ? So there's more than one way to salvation ? Consistent reading of scripture denies water baptism saves. Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (. v. 47). The New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of rituals are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation. In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26). A third possibility exists, as Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 ( that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized. Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687. Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirit's regenerating work ( Titus 3:4-8). I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (. 1 Corinthians 12:13). In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
These verses are our God and Savior, Jesus Christ speaking. John 3:5 Jesus responded: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
When you provided Mark 16:16 as a proof text as that is what it says... ( I agree) but...How do you go further in explaining the next verses in Mark 16:17-20 as well? Even tho those signs don't accompany everyone who believes??? But that's what it says??? I like the way you teach, tia
1:28-1:32 ----> 7:38-7:53 is your answer, there are no exceptions to baptism for the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption are inseparable from it (1 John 5:8 echoing John 3:5). The same language structure for 1 John 5:8 is used for the Trinity in the preceding verse, hence dividing the Spirit and the Blood from the water is tantamount to dividing the Trinity, the doctrine of the Antichrist. 1 John 5:7-8 "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." Pope St. Leo the Great: “For there are three who give testimony - Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one (1 John 5:4-8). In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of Baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.” (Dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451) 1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world."
It kills me that some Christians take the words of the apostles or their interpretations of them and put them higher than Our Lord and Savior. Jesus' words trumps all. If Jesus said we have to be baptised then we do. If he said he dies for all, its ALL! Not some small elect. If he says that Israel rejected him as he rode into Jerusalem, then they chose to reject. Not he chose them to reject!! (Y'all know whom I am speaking of in the protestant denominations out there who believe that).
Jesus taught that baptism is a requirement or else he wouldn’t have gotten baptized himself! (Matthew 3:13-17) Nor would he have told his followers to make disciples and to baptize them! (Matthew 28:19,20) The apostle Paul reaffirmed that teaching at 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now SAVING YOU.” So when a disciple gets baptized, he puts himself in line for salvation. True, salvation is “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” But those getting baptized must have faith that salvation is possible only because Jesus died a sacrificial death, was resurrected, and “is at God’s right hand,” having authority over the living and the dead. Baptism founded on such faith is what corresponds to ‘eight souls being safely carried through the water.’
I honestly don't know why protestants keep bringing up the thief on the cross, that happened before the great commission where Christ instituted baptism. I can just as well say that the thief didn't believe the Gospel (how could he Jesus did not die and rose from the grave yet) so please stop using it protestants it is lame.
The thief could’ve been baptized. It’s a non starter for either side. Sola scriptura believers can’t say he wasn’t baptized cause the Bible never explicitly says he wasn’t. He knew who Jesus was and had done nothing wrong proving he had been some what catechized leaving it possible he was in fact baptized. Also the thief died under the old covenant.
Benedictus Deus On the Beatific Vision of God Pope Benedict XII - 1334 Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment. Bingo about the thief dying under the old Covenant
I don't like the thief on the cross argument that pr*testants make. The whole point of baptism is to die with Jesus on the cross. There is no death on earth - past, present, or future - that comes any closer to the thief's literal death on the cross while being with Jesus.
I hate to say it but it’s the Protestants lack of understanding which is why I believe it’s dangerous to belief their teachings. They won’t keep you on the path, they lose their way. You need the true teachings for the book of the Catholic faith.
I’m not quite a Catholic (yet), but this video did help me tremendously with the topic of the Sacrament of Baptism. Thank you
God bless and guide and protect you and your loved ones always. Hope it is exciting and meaningful for you, it was for me to convert or technically revert. I kept wanting to be confirmed last week! Peace
The worst is debating Protestants who haven’t been baptized yet. Then they say “so you think I’m not saved?” Yes, the Bible says so
I'm going through the Catacism class right now. It's a long journey, but turning to Jesus has been the best decision after straying from the way.
8:30 I've noticed a lot of protestant arguments against Catholicism are not only untrue, but they tend to be what protestants themselves do. A common criticism of confession is that "Catholics believe you can knowingly do any sin as long as they just go to confession" (which isn't true and is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit known as presumption). Except Protestants also say faith alone is enough, which is essentially the same thing as presumption. Works show that you have faith - faith isn't just "belief". Without works, how would you even know you're following Christ?
No, what you are reffering to is mortal sin. When you commit a mortal sin you lose salvation until you repent. Blasphemey of The Holy Spirit is the rejection of God's grace. This means choosing to not be with God or not repenting. Hope this helps. 👍
@@levikolenz2812You can’t just repent, you have to go to Confession, confess your sins to Gods Priests, they either absolve them or not, then you get a penance for your sins. You have to do your penance to be forgiven by God. He instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation to have our sins committed after Baptism forgiven. 2 Cor 5:18-20, Jn20:21-23, Mt 16:18-19, 18:17-18
They do this a A LOT. Commit blasphemy to make a ‘point’ against Catholicism and they don’t even realize it very sadly!!!
@@southernlady1109I believe this is technically incorrect, the forgiveness happens at the words of absolution, the penance is to remove the temporal consequences of sin (what must be purified in purgatory if it is not complete on earth) and usually the penance assigned is not sufficient to fully remove all temporal punishment. But I could be wrong, God Bless.
@@Patrickshurina You're correct. The forgiveness happens at the absolution, not the penance.
I wish I could talk like you about our Religion! God bless you
Great video brother, I was fighting for my life in that comment section.
“Baptism isn’t necessary” is a quote that ticks my anger. I swear Protestants don’t read the entire chapters.
I watched a Protestant baptist service and they read the story of The people who asked Paul “what should I do to be saved” and they stopped at “believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” but didn’t finish the chapter to show people that Paul baptised them after believing
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV proves that water baptism is not part of the gospel. Do you catholic blockheads ever rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)?
@@ROMANS3-25KJVand again, ignoring the preceding passages where Paul says he baptised people.
He was responding to contentions among people who were placing importance on WHO baptised them. Saying they belonged to this or that disciple who baptised them.
Your arrogant attitude is embarrasing, given how wrong you are.
@@simeonwaia do you semiramis worshipping pagan even understand dispensations? Paul clearly says in that verse, that it is not part of the gospel. Why are you pope cult followers such Bible blockheads?
@@ROMANS3-25KJV Protestant really likes to pick and choose verses but have a hard time reading all of the passages, you are like the Muhammadan who will just pick one verse like "Your God died on the cross" but doesn't like reading what happened after that. At best, You Prots are disingenuous, and at worst you are just dumb, which one is it?
How many Protestant babies and young children have died without this Salvific Grace because of this stupidity?
God bless you more brother..
Keep up the good work Alex ✝️
3:00 another reason that the Thief on the cross argument doesn’t work is that Christ hadn’t instituted the sacrament yet. That wasn’t done until the Great Commission, just prior to his ascension.
Plus that, it never states whether the Good Thief was baptized or not. Everyone assumes he wasn't but, he knew who Jesus was and knew he was innocent. Seems he was the recipient of graces not bestowed on the other thief.
@@StringofPearls55 it is possible that he was baptized into John’s baptism, but we know for a fact that he was not baptized into Christ, as no one at the time of the crucifixion had been baptized into Christ.
One of my catechism teachers says that the blood and water from Jesus’ side was symbolic for baptism.
So maybe in that sense he was baptized.
Good question for my spiritual father
@@kingdomkid7225 you could Maine say that the blood and water from Christ’s side is atholic of baptism, but as far as saying that the Thief was baptized by that is stretching it. Two points, first being that the sacrament of baptism hadn’t been instituted yet. Second, there is no indication in scripture or Tradition that states this blood and water touched the Thief (St Dismus is the name he has been given I believe). You have to remember, in order to be physically baptized, the water must touch you.
@@kennethbergstrom3383 I see what you’re saying. I just wanted to open up the discussion on a thought I had. I def need to ask my Fr though. Thanks for the reply
More long form content please! I am investigating Catholicism and have found your videos the most helpful because you clearly break down difficult theology topics for laymen to understand. I would love to see more long form content posted. Thanks for all your efforts!
Check out Blue Collar Apologetics, and also Reason & Theology for excellent and pretty concise Catholic apologetics.
I especially enjoy the former because he speaks plainly so anybody can understand him. He was Evangelical for around 30 (?) years and really knows scripture.
Every single argument Protestants have come from misinterpreting a Catholic book, the Bible.
The Bible is made from the Catholic Church but the scripture wasn’t .
@@kevingonzalez8718The NT scriptures certainly was unless there was another Christian church that somehow existed during that time
The Bible is the word of God. It doesn't belong to a particular denomination.
@@razoredge6130 no it definitely is Catholic. Catholics wrote the New Testament while inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus founded one Church and that Church wrote the New Testament, assembled the Bible, and distributed it. Besides that how would you even know which writings and manuscripts are scripture if you didn’t have the Church with the authority to tell you. You dont have to like it but you cant deny it.
@@KephasIsStPeter It was written by God and God used the church for his purpose but that doesn't mean we have to agree with the church on everything is says.
Baptism is probably the most common thing im discussing with prots ,along with good works, purgatory and Christs Passion.
Baptism saves. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved! Mark 16:16
Since you quoting gospel, can you tell which one is correct kings 4:26 or chronicle 2nd 9:25?
@@xsteality6653I would guess 2 chronicles as it sounds more reasonable given the horsemen. You do realize the infallibility of the Bible is on moral matters, not historical or scientific, right?
@@xsteality6653We are not Muslims that think the Bible are the literal words of God. What this means is that we understand that the manuscripts can have minor transmission errors that does not change the meaning of the text, which is what this most likely is a copyist error. The ratio of 4,000 horses to 1,400 chariots, as found in the 2 Chronicles passage, is much more reasonable than a ratio of 40,000 to 1,400 found in the 1 Kings text. In the Hebrew language, the visual difference between the two numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are rbym, while the consonants for the number 4 are rbh (the vowels were not written in the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged and have given the appearance of being forty thousand rather than four thousand.
This transmission error work against your overall implied argument, as it shows the copyists were trying to copy the text perfectly and not interpret the text and modify it. Try again.
I heard Mark 16:9-20 i think were not found in the earliest manuscripts
@@trentshaner320 wow, you gonna sink to a new low! Just to justify your errors.
What do protestant think of this verse John: 6:53
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. "
And they deny Most Holy Eucharist, Body, Blood, Sould and Divnity of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is offered only in Catholic Church.
Hope your teaching touch hearts and souls of many protestant brothers and sisters and that they join one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
the Catholic, Orthodox and Assyrian Chruch is just way too based for them to handle😎
They believe it’s only symbolic or spiritual, but they ignore the part where Jesus says “for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
John 6:55
I've always found it intriguing that twice Jesus says no one can come to him unless granted by the Father. He says it just before The Bread of Life Discourse and after.
He begins with: (John 6 43: 44) 43 Jesus answered them, ‘Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.
And when no one believed him and they all turned away from him.... (John 6: 65):
65 And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.’
I've never heard any teaching on this, but I find it very profound. Especially since Protestants refuse to listen even after Jesus repeats and repeats himself. They explain away how they are the disiples who turned away from him because they didn't like a particular teaching.
They ignore Jn6:51-59, but they also ignore 1 Cor 11:23-29, The Last Supper when Jesus said He is the living bread, the bread He gives is His Flesh, unless we eat it, we will have no life in us. If we do eat it, He will raise us up to Heaven on the last day. If we eat it unworthily, we are liable & bring a sentence against ourselves for not discerning it to be His Body & Blood.
They believe its ALL just symbolic of Jesus’s word. Despite Jesus saying it wasn’t symbolic even when they accused him of cannibalism. They especially take the ‘do this in remembrance of me’ to a completely different meaning in order to back up this false belief. Its like if jesus said ‘eat this blueberry in remembrance of me’ the blueberry is still a blueberry not a symbol of a blueberry.
I hope you make a similar video about the Eucharist! People really think you dont need it to be saved 🤦🏽♀️
God bless you man, you helped inspire me to start contributing to my local parish
Thank you David Erhan! Glad to see you confront schismatics
It never says the guy wasn’t baptized it’s just assumed the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized. The exception isn’t the rule for any catholic doctrine but the exception is the rule for the Protestant arguments
Thank you for teaching me about my faith ! Catholic from Chicago IL
Most Prots think of salvation as something we can't forfeit under any circumstances. Since baptized people everywhere and always leave the faith Prots had to relativize baptism's effects. They wanted an un-losable salvation. They moved salvations over to "conversion," which is something that, in truth, happens repeatedly throughout life, but they redefined it as something that can only happen once, and which gives you the un-losable salvation they demand from Jesus, a salvation He doesn't actually offer.
Peter says the scripture can be difficult to understand ( especially Paul's writings), funny most distinctly protestant ideas usually come from letters like Hebrews or Romans.
Today i see mr . Cap talk some heresies "how infant baptizm doesnt count" I left comment that he must read bible amd not just things he heard fro someone who read bible and Twist it
You should receive an indulgence for taking the time to deal with all of those comments
Great responses!
Thief on the cross objection has 2 more rebuttals:
1. Jesus can do what he wants. If he wants to make an exception, he can at his leisure. The sacrament of baptism is a substitute for those of us not being executed next to Christ.
2. This is exceptionally damaging to the Sola Scriptura crowd: where does it say the thief hadn't been baptized by John prior to his execution? So even with the ability to make exceptions aside, it's entirely possible the thief was already baptized.
Bonus: the necessity of baptism for salvation in the Gospel occurs mostly AFTER Christ died. Which ties in with the last part of 1 above.
So many take one bible verse and apply it to what they want. That’s not how it works! It’s all or nothing.
"pray the rosary every day" --- Our Lady of Fatima --- 1917 - ⚔
Its sad that my dad have mpre faith in baptizm that "born again belivers" and he is in church like one per year btw please pray for him ❤
Love that someone is defending our catholic faith. Una sola fe, un solo bautismo.
Something I see is that when a catholic leaves the church the Protestant baptize them again, and the catholic church doesn’t as long as they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Efesios 4, 5.
Sorry for my grammar Spanish is my first language. Love to see that our doctrine doesn’t change like the Protestants. Viva Cristo Rey.
I don't know why protestant think they can interpret the Holy Bible, it's our books lol 2000 yrs handed down to us.
RIGHT?! They take the Scriptures, rip out books and then call US pagans! Fools!
😂 you are the bomb! Encouraging you Bro keep up the amazing ministry🙌🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Keep challenging wolves in sheep’s clothing (Protestants)
We support you!!!
Viva Cristo Rey ❤❤❤
The funny part is that these protestants don't understand that that Bible they read is thanks to the one true and apostolic church. With out the church no Bible and Christianity would have been lost. It like tearing off our are and hitting us with it. Their understanding of scripture is so watered down that they don't even understand baptism.
Also they removed 7 books from the bible that the holy spirit bless through the Pope or head bishop which became infallible word of God , the protestant's now read a fallible book .
We were Catholic before the 2nd council of Nicea where idolatry and paganism took over.
@@michaelbledsoe4355 Huh? Who knew!? So if Catholics are pagans, why do you use their holy book that they preached from, prayed with and guarded for centuries?
@@ronaldeglewski3073
The Catholic Church gave The Holy Bible to the world. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, without Gods authority, rewrote it, deleted verses, chapters, books and changed wording to The Holy Bible & to The Ten Commandments. Changing a word here and there can negate the meaning of the verse.
Revelation 22:18 For I call as witnesses all listeners of the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone will have added to these, God will add upon him the afflictions written in this book.
Revelation 22:19 And if anyone will have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City, and from these things which have been written in this book.
Jeremiah 26:2 “Thus says the Lord: Stand in the atrium of the house of the Lord, and speak to all the cities of Judah, from which they come to adore in the house of the Lord, all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. DO NOT CHOOSE TO SUBTRACT ANY WORD.”
@@michaelbledsoe4355 "The Protestant narrative that the Church started out faithful in Acts, figuring out the Canon of Scripture, figuring out the Creeds and then kept going and then corrupted along the way/at some point then needed to be restored/Reformed in the 16th century doesn't make sense. The reason is several of the things Protestants objected to in Catholicism were already settled before the first creed, before the first Council of Rome which was the first to determine the Canon. In other words you already have the Church hierarchy, Marian veneration, the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, Baptismal regeneration, etc. If you're going to say the Church corrupted drawing the line becomes tricky. If you draw it after the Canon and creeds you already have most of the things you don't like about Catholicism. If you draw it earlier like right after the death of the Apostles then the Church loses its authority to even determine the Canon of Scripture and the Creeds which the Catholic Church did then you're left without any kind of objective measure of the Canon or Creeds to determine Christian Orthodoxy." - Douglas Beaumont
Who were the first Protestant that screwed up the baptism? Luther kept baptism as a sacrament, so it must have been after him?
Not sure, but it's because of Luther opening the door for any average person to interpret the Bible how they want that created all these issues
I think Zwingli and the Anabaptists introduced the first really low view of the sacraments.
@@stephenjohnson7915 thank you for that knowledge 🙏 I still attribute Luther to being the starting of the issue with Sola scriptura. Made everyone their own monolith
Your logic doesn't follow. That's not at all what Luther did. He simply exposed the atrocities of Rome and they didn't like it. That's why Benedict said that he was actually a preacher of the Gospel.
@@dave1370He was a heretic no doubt. But he kept baptism as it was.
Thank you for the video. Estoy aprendiendo mucho
Amen, well done my dude...but of course as you are defending the fullness & beauty of the truth which is only in the ancient holy Catholic Church, Pax Vobis
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of *water AND the Spirit*, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
These protestants would know that the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of water are the same thing if they just read Ephesians 4:5 where Paul says one baptism, he never separated the two
But the sacrament of Christian Baptism wasn’t instituted until the great commission, no? So why is the thief on the cross even an argument?
Because people don't look that deep into it.
Acts 8:26-40 Philip and the Ethiopian: The first thing Philip did when the Ethiopian eunoch accepted Jesus Christ as his saviour, was baptise him.
It gets so old hearing ignorant comments from people who have not really looked into teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s easy to talk and talk but go do real research.
Great video but it's important to note that the thief on the cross died under the old covenant. He was not bound by New Covenant requirements, that alone should cease protestant chatter.
Great video brother 👌
“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us **(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)** by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
Have you seen the beautiful Lutheran Satire video on the thief on the cross and baptism? It’s perfect.
Dude, ever hear about the thief on the cross?
What part of ," Unless you are born of water and the Spirit you shall not enter the kingdom of God " Isn't clear ?
Good stuff. You nailed all the comments.
nonsense, friend -- catholicism isn't Christianity and they regularly block me and other Christians spreading Truth.
baptism is important because it is how we receive the holy spirit. and you can not be saved without the holy spirit
Wanna know a secret? No protestant really believes in sola scriptura. They believe in their individual theology and prooftext scripture to make their theology work. Whenever they come up to a scripture reading that disagrees with their theology, theology wins not scripture. Dozens of easy examples prove this, the whole thesis of VOReason proves it. Romans 2 I think is a chapter of scripture that every protestant totally ignores, the core of the chapter is He will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life, 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but injustice, there will be wrath and fury. 9
context flows right into and out of this passage and there really is no way to reinterpret it to make sola fide work. So does the protestant adjust his beliefs since scripture is the ultimate authority? Or does he ignore this passage and cherry pick another verse out of context so he can ignore romans 2? If you truly followed sola scrip, what would you do?
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:25-27,
And we do better than sprinkle water, we pour water three times.
Ezekiel 36:25
[25]And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols.
The Douay Bible.
@@Catholic1391 we!? God says He will cleanse you.
@@simuljustusetpeccator5547
We pour water with Christ authority. it's that simple
@Catholic1391 Physical Baptism is like Physical Circumcision neither can save anybody. We can only be saved by a spiritual baptism, and that is a work of God.
well done; keep up the good works; for they are essential in our walk with Jesus who is God
Sup bro! Just checking on you. Making sure you okay with all that truth you been talking this year. 😅 Anyway, Keep it up my dude. I myself am from southern Cali but moved to Florida just recently. Happy New Years! Where do we go from here bro? Let the Lord take the wheel! God Bless 🙏🏼💙♥️
As a member of the Church of Christ, we too believe that baptism is required for the remission of sins. As you said, those that have repented, believe may get baptized. Since those are the requirements, this would exclude infants/ young children. Since the cant repent or believe.
The church of a self made preacher only, Christ has his own church he himself started.
@@snoopy3587 from The same universal church from Romans 16:16
We are bound by the sacraments. God isnt. God can provide grace by any means through his divine will.
Hey, guys and girls. Check this out. Relevant to this discussion and it's pretty wild.
So, the Bible says : "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."
It corresponds to the washing of the earth in the flood with Noah and his family. Like our sins are washed away in baptism when tied with repentance or another's strong faith on our behalf.
Isn't that neat? We had a question. Does baptism save? And the Bible told us... Yes, baptism saves. Woo!
Here’s a note I found in my interlinear Bible concerning the word “βαπτίζω”:
Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)
This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
If the thief on cross hadn't heard that commandment to be baptized...
Thanks for advertising several Traditionalist channels by attacking them on Lofton's channel. I went to the ones I hadnt known and subbed. Pax et Bonum.
Good stuff right there!!!
Thank you! I do have some confusion and am genuinely interested in learning the truth based on scripture. Are all those who were baptized as babies then the elect? What about people who were baptized as babies and are not believers as adults?
Love it bro🙏
If baptism doesn't save? Is St. Peter wrong? Is Scripture, wrong?
Baptists have their own tradition that cuts off the teaching of the fathers that influences their interpretation of Scripture they also have Romaphobia fear or hate that is anything resembling catholic teaching.
Why havent you made a video in the past 9 days? I love your videos.
Thank you so much
Very awesome bro. Love it.
Jesus said to baptize in the name of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit
Hey Alex, I hope you see my comment because I wanna defend the Catholic Church just as good as you to other troubled people that have a hard time understanding. Since this video was about Baptism I thought this question would be perfect timing. Many protestants always have some lack of faith and disagreements with the Catholic Church, which I’m sure you’ve experienced already, how would you go about answering this question: “where does it say in the Bible that infants/babies are to be baptized?” I always get asked this question but I wanna know how you would respond. Thank you for your time. God bless❤
Good day brother! What is your stand about the recent fiducia supplicans? I am confused.
UA-cam channel, Blue Collar Apologetics, does a great job on this subject. He speaks plainly and is faithful to the Magisterium of the Holy Church.
Awesome video! Keep on going
Can you make a response to Scholastic Lutherans on the Saints?
They're right though.
Hey Alex! I thank God for you, you have helped me greatly, especially as I am currently going through RCIA… just one question for you regarding baptism in Acts chapter 19? Some disciples in Ephesus were baptised but didn’t receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. Would appreciate it if you could help me understand this passage, and why the disciples didn’t receive the Holy Spirit if we’re supposed to receive the Holy Spirit at baptism?
In that passage, they are talking about confirmation.. they had not received confirmation. (It's done by the imposition of hands)
Baptism to receive Holy Spirit and Confirmation to be full in the Holy Spirit. It's similar but different.. different graces given
@@jesusmagana2458 awesome! Thank you for this… my experience of Christianity comes from an evangelical once saved, always saved, point of view… thanks for clarifying 🙏
Yes I think we do
My mom was raised Catholic and had me baptized as a kid, does that count? If not what is the point?
(Genuinely asking my Catholic brethren)
I hope y'all realize that some Protestants, like Confessional Lutherans and Anglicans, believe that Baptism saves.
Emphasis on "some".
There is also the oldest surviving papal decree in existence. It is the decree of Pope St. Siricius to Himerius. It holds tremendous significance. It constitutes another crushing blow to the false doctrine of ‘baptism of desire’. In his decree, Siricius infallibly teaches that all those who desire water baptism, but die without receiving it, will not be saved. He thus directly denies the concept of ‘baptism of desire’. The pope even speaks of people in danger and necessity who desire water baptism. He teaches that they cannot be saved without water baptism, which he identifies as the unique help of faith. He teaches that being baptized is their only hope of salvation. Pope St. Siricius’ decree is infallible, as our article on it proves. His decree also demonstrates that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, in addition to the Solemn Magisterium, directly contradicts the idea of ‘baptism of desire’.
ua-cam.com/video/jLKQAi7e8Bk/v-deo.html
Baptism wasn't fully instituted at the Time of the thief on the Cross, the Apostles hadn't received the fullness of the Holy Spirit and received the great commission to go out and begin Jesus Church, also Jesus hadn't permanently risen and the Catholic Church hadn't been formally instituted to inforce the law, alot of variables going on not to mention, Jesus inforces the law but not bound by it.
As a SALVATION ARMY, we believe in the baptism of Holy Spirit and do not uss water baptism
It’s wiser to do what Jesus literally says to do in order to be saved.
When people bring up the thief on the cross not being baptized, they do so because they misunderstand what baptism gives.
The thief on the cross had the word of Jesus. (As a side note: Jesus is the Living Water)
It is in baptism that we have a direct promise from God in Christ. It is in baptism that we die with Him. Say, that's what the thief on the cross kind of did. Humm?
After baptism if doing sin
Then what use
Confession to a priest
But…. the Theif!😂😂😂
"Baptism isn't always getting dunked in water. It can be getting awakened to the fact Jesus is Lord and died for us." This is Luciferian, exchanging the idea of awakening or enlightenment for the sacrament of Baptism.
Amen ✝️
Wouldn't the theif also be under the Old Covenant? So he wouldn't need to be baptized.
I love how the video started off! lol I am going to make you all look dumb😂
🤣🤣🤣
I think an easier way to put it, to help Protestants understand is to point to Romans 10:10:
“For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.”
Romans 10:10
The sacraments (particularly the sacraments of healing; baptism, reconciliation, & anointing of the sick) are a means of which that we profess our faith in Christ. I’ll also point to the woman who touched Jesus’ garment. We know she had true faith. But it wasn’t until she touched Jesus’ garment that she was healed. Now why did God make it so that she was not permitted to be healed until she touched His garment? Well I infer that the act of touching Jesus’ garment was the means of which she professed her faith in Jesus, and thus God graced her. And by this grace she was healed.
As Jesus says to the woman that ut wasn’t His garment that saved her, but it was her faith. In the same way, we don’t believe that the water in baptism saves us, but it’s the profession of faith in Christ that takes place in baptism. And through this faith, we revive God’s grace. And by that grace, we are saved.
We don’t know if the good thieve was baptized or not but what we do know is the good thieve knew who Jesus was that is a important clue my guess is the good thieve was baptized.
So there's an exception to salvation ?
So there's more than one way to salvation ?
Consistent reading of scripture denies water baptism saves.
Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:
First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (. v. 47).
The New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of rituals are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.
With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
A third possibility exists, as Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47).
The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 ( that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13).
So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirit's regenerating work ( Titus 3:4-8).
I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (. 1 Corinthians 12:13).
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
These verses are our God and Savior, Jesus Christ speaking.
John 3:5 Jesus responded: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
When you provided Mark 16:16 as a proof text as that is what it says... ( I agree) but...How do you go further in explaining the next verses in Mark 16:17-20 as well? Even tho those signs don't accompany everyone who believes??? But that's what it says??? I like the way you teach, tia
1:28-1:32 ----> 7:38-7:53 is your answer, there are no exceptions to baptism for the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption are inseparable from it (1 John 5:8 echoing John 3:5). The same language structure for 1 John 5:8 is used for the Trinity in the preceding verse, hence dividing the Spirit and the Blood from the water is tantamount to dividing the Trinity, the doctrine of the Antichrist.
1 John 5:7-8 "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
Pope St. Leo the Great: “For there are three who give testimony - Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one (1 John 5:4-8). In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of Baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.” (Dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451)
1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world."
It kills me that some Christians take the words of the apostles or their interpretations of them and put them higher than Our Lord and Savior. Jesus' words trumps all. If Jesus said we have to be baptised then we do. If he said he dies for all, its ALL! Not some small elect. If he says that Israel rejected him as he rode into Jerusalem, then they chose to reject. Not he chose them to reject!! (Y'all know whom I am speaking of in the protestant denominations out there who believe that).
Jesus taught that baptism is a requirement or else he wouldn’t have gotten baptized himself! (Matthew 3:13-17) Nor would he have told his followers to make disciples and to baptize them! (Matthew 28:19,20) The apostle Paul reaffirmed that teaching at 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now SAVING YOU.” So when a disciple gets baptized, he puts himself in line for salvation.
True, salvation is “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” But those getting baptized must have faith that salvation is possible only because Jesus died a sacrificial death, was resurrected, and “is at God’s right hand,” having authority over the living and the dead. Baptism founded on such faith is what corresponds to ‘eight souls being safely carried through the water.’
I honestly don't know why protestants keep bringing up the thief on the cross, that happened before the great commission where Christ instituted baptism. I can just as well say that the thief didn't believe the Gospel (how could he Jesus did not die and rose from the grave yet) so please stop using it protestants it is lame.
The thief could’ve been baptized. It’s a non starter for either side. Sola scriptura believers can’t say he wasn’t baptized cause the Bible never explicitly says he wasn’t. He knew who Jesus was and had done nothing wrong proving he had been some what catechized leaving it possible he was in fact baptized. Also the thief died under the old covenant.
Benedictus Deus
On the Beatific Vision of God
Pope Benedict XII - 1334
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336
By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.
Bingo about the thief dying under the old Covenant
I don't like the thief on the cross argument that pr*testants make.
The whole point of baptism is to die with Jesus on the cross.
There is no death on earth - past, present, or future - that comes any closer to the thief's literal death on the cross while being with Jesus.
Jesus's final words while the world were baptise them in the name of the fathe, sin and holy spirit..
I hate to say it but it’s the Protestants lack of understanding which is why I believe it’s dangerous to belief their teachings. They won’t keep you on the path, they lose their way. You need the true teachings for the book of the Catholic faith.
New sub
1 Peter 3 compares Noah and his family in the ark to baptism. Noah was counted righteous before the flood.