Brian Holdsworth Doesn't Understand Either Protestantism or Catholicism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- In this video, I respond to Brian Holdsworth's video "A Question Protestants Can't Answer" -- See here: • A Question Protestants...
He argues that, for Catholics, God offers us a "peace treaty", in which, when we have faith, we are put in a "probationary period", in which we're put into a "probationary friendship" of God but there's a "residue of estrangement" still, and we have "suffering and death" left fully in tact as the consequence of sin. Why? "Because God's mercy does not exclude his justice"--which, Brian argues, is seen in suffering and death as instances of "some measure of estrangement from God." He says "if we're already saved and destined for heaven, why don't we go straight to heaven?"
Here's the problem: the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 1263, all punishments of sin are taken away. While certain consequences remain, as Brian says, yet all of sin's punishments--temporal and eternal--are utterly wiped away. That sin's consequences (e.g. illness, death, suffering) remain even for the Baptized was never disputed by the Reformers or Protestants in general (since, obviously, Christians die). Thus, when you are Baptized, you are put into a state of perfect friendship with God even on the Roman Catholic view, contrary to what Brian says about a "probationary" period of friendship in which "the residue of alienation" remains.
Brian also gets the Protestant view horribly wrong. I've covered it in other videos, and I do so again here.
I hope this video and the description here is helpful to you!
See also Gavin Ortlund's response here: • My Response to Brian H...
You're a great example of charity and working hard to understand the best cases for traditions, from their own creeds. Thanks for clarifying this for us- it's a lot of work that you're helping many to do very quickly. Great work.
I watched this (Holdsworth’s) video when it came out and haven’t been able to take him seriously since. I’m glad to see someone dealing with his ideas charitably.
Looking forward to watch this! You're always very precise, clear, and exact on your points - it's very helpful, easy to follow, and you're good at getting to the roots of disagreements instead of just cutting branches. I appreciate that a lot!
Excellent video! It shows how shallow so many pop-apologists' views on both their own traditions and ours can be. I will pray for Brian and for all those in his comment section under the same misapprehensions that he is.
Excellent video, friend!
Love the channel brother. Keep up the good work!
Well done brother, God bless you
That was helpfull.
Please make a short video addressing how the doctrine of justification relates with the doctrine of Last Judgment. I think there is some tension with those doctrines and there are a lot of ppls out there struggling with this.
I think an issue of disconnect is Roman Catholic rejection of penal substitution.
Their main model is Anselmian satisfaction and thus the cross can only ever satisfy (and propitiate) eternal debt, but there is a sense in which since Christ _has not_ been *punished* in our place, we still have to endure a kind of punishment (albeit temporal rather than eternal due to Christ's satisfaction).
Whether or not penal substitution is the correct way to see it or not, I think we all agree that Christ atoned for our sins. It doesn't seem to only be Calvinists that believe in limited atonement, Catholics believe in it in a different way. I was stunned that they believe that infant baptism only removes original sin. That's all Christ's atonement does for them. The rest of a Catholic's life, they are pretty much on a very precarious treadmill of grace, being doled out through their church. They believe they need to endure all sorts of punishment for their sins, even when they are confessed and forgiven. It doesn't end in this life, and must continue into the next life, where most of them need hard time in purgatory. Yet they say they don't work their way to heaven. And seem to think, because we believe Christ's atonement was full and complete, taking all our sins, that we think we just rest on our laurels and don't strive for holiness and good works. Holiness only comes through God, through Christ's purification in us, but our works do matter to show love and gratitude to God, and love for our fellow man, and ourselves.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Also worth mentioning about works - unconfessed, unrepentant sin takes us off the path toward God.
It amazes me how Catholicism thinks you lose Grace when you sin because why would you need Grace if you were always Obedient 😑, good content !
Catholics believe we break charity when we commit moral sin. Our love relationship with God is broken. And yes, this is also a fall from grace. But God's grace is always there for us, and his grace is the only reason we can repent, believe, and do good works. On Judgement Day God rewards his own good works done in and through us.
@AJMacDonaldJr
Here's the problem
1. Sin can no longer be imputed to a believer because our sins were imputed to Christ ( Romans 4:25/4:8)
2. God no longer remembers the believers sins ( Hebrews 10:17)
3. Righteousness is not until your next sin...Righteousness is based on Jesus's Obedience ( Romans 5:19)
@@AJMacDonaldJr Yes, there will be rewarding of good works. Charity is never broken though. I am unclear on how you are using the word charity though? How can God's charity (his love, his goodwill) towards us ever be broken? The bible clearly says that nothing can ever separate us from the love of God. Please prayerfully read Romans 8:31-39, and truly receive it.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Remember the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2 who had left their first love? Jesus called them to repentance, lest he remove their candlestick from it's place. There are many texts in the NT that speak of our need to continue in the faith, to build ourselves up in faith and love, which means we can also drift away from it over time if we're not careful. We need to keep our lamps burning brightly with the love of God that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us. Lest our love, and our lamps, be found in to have gone out on the day of judgement.
@@MaximusinthehouseIf you commit an unrepentant mortal sin, you're disconnecting yourself from the faith and salvation.
From St Isaac of Ninevah (Ascetical Homilies no. 51):
"Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. "He is good", He says, "to the evil and to the impious". How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth. Where, then, is God's justice, for while we are sinners Christ died for us!"
The Cross is not a contradiction of God's justice. It is a profound display of it. Jesus, in bearing our own sins, was rejected, scorned, beaten, scourged, tortured and killed, even "forsaken" by God himself. God does not fail to punish our wickedness by forgiving our sins. He already _did_ punish us, in his Son. Christ became sin for us.
I would say not to worry about thumbnails and algorithms
Thanks for that :)
A beautiful Catholic Taqqiya from Brian
Yeah I first saw Gavin Ortlunds response to Brian's video, and I did notice he neither understands Protestantism or Romanism. Beyond this his idea that Protestant soteriology makes God unjust because he let's the sinner go free hurts his own view. He believes that God let's the sinner go free because they do good things afterwards. How does this help justice? Does a good judge not punish a murderer because they give to charity?
In the Protestant understanding the just penalty which is due to the sinner is placed upon Christ.
Whereas Brian's view is Anselmian and therefore lacking. Because Christ merely does what we cannot do, but does not take the penalty we deserve.
If Brian wants to say that the Christian receives their penalty through life in temporal punishment then we have a deeper issue because the penalty for sin is death. So the Christian cannot be receiving the penalty throughout their life because they are alive.
Are you South Indian?
Any summation of Protestantism is characterature. Brian's characterature is an actual statement of many protestants in America and Canada when you take the conclusion of total depravity mixed with anyone could be saved and that humans sins and yet there is no clearly defined way that isn't suspect to second guessing by modern solipsistic thinking to repentance. We can call them something different, I don't think any modern protestant groups that did not start with the protestant rebels should have the title, but the thought process remains the same.
Excellent. Thanks for breaking this down for us to digest!
Sorry for Off topic question: Any suggestions on reading from some theologians on covenant theology who aren't explicitly "Calvinist"? Thank you so much. ❤
I agree. Thanks for this.
Wow, justice is a big talking point these days. If there's anything our lady of Fatima and Akita have told me, it's that many (including me) are enjoying GOD's merciful withholding of justice. A great chastisement has been repeatedly postponed. GOD is merciful, yes, but he is also just and this chastisement will come. It's in our creed. He WILL come again to judge the living and the dead. Please prepare for this and come to Jesus who is the new "Noah's ark". The flames from heaven shall pour forth and the Earth's mouth will open to digest those who are not ready. Repent, make confession, and come to the holy eucharist. I love you guys. Stay alert everyone.
awesome board games!
Thanks! My wife gets the credit for that completely, haha
Study the fathers, youll be Catholic by Easter
I have studied the fathers. I actually seriously thought about whether I should become Roman Catholic two years ago. Contrary to Newman, studying the fathers deeply is the reason I'm a convinced high church Anglican
@anglicanaesthetics2231 Beyond Augustine to include Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Polycarp, J Martyr or Origen? Because it's crystal clear what they believed.
@theneighborguy7236 Yup. Ive read them all, and even some of Clement in Greek. It's crystal clear that they didn't believe what the council of Trent teaches. See my videos on my channel.
@anglicanaesthetics2231 I will check them out, but tbh, when a protestant points to Trent, it's a running assumption that they're running away from the topic.
@@theneighborguy If the claim is that reading the fathers will make you Roman Catholic, and Trent is a classic summary of RC belief, then the only reason a Catholic would take that as a "cue" of running away is if they themselves haven't reckoned with the implications of RC teaching.
If you think the fathers lead you to Rome, you have to say that Tridentine doctrine stands in continuity with the fathers. But it simply doesn't.