What Would It Take for Me to Become a Protestant?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2022
- In this video, I talk about the main doctrine that I would need to accept in in order for me to become a Protestant and one essential question this Protestant doctrine is unable to answer.
--
If you want to help me continue to make videos like this, consider supporting this channel at / seanhussey .
------------------------------- Theme Song -------------------------------
Song: Make a Way
Artist: Connor Flanagan
Album: Skyscrapers
LINK: open.spotify.com/track/1WJr8e... - Розваги
Love the video, Sean! I was raised by a practicing Catholic mom and Protestant dad. I went to the Catholic Church as a child and left after Confirmation to join the Lutheran church (looking to deepen my knowledge of scripture and relationship with Jesus). I was happy attending the Lutheran church. Just 2 years ago, Jesus called me back to the Catholic Church. While the authority of the Church and importance of Tradition was attractive when leaving fragmented Protestantism, the one thing that TRULY led me back to Catholicism was the Eucharist. I never fully joined the Lutheran church because I knew that the one, true Eucharist was in the Catholic Church. Anything other than that was, to me, a representation of Jesus' body and blood. After 15 years of wandering, I went to confession and received the Eucharist in the Catholic Church again. It felt like the first time, and I've never looked back. Thanks for the videos and for helping me in my discernment. God bless you!
I needed this kinds of video to gain knowledge to defend myself against the protestants surrounding me.....keep on making videos ❤️
Hi Sean- appreciate the clear and gracious video. It’s videos like these that are beneficial to good conversation on both sides.
Great video!!!
Great job thank you fir making this video
Oh. This is totally click bait lol. But totally have bitten the hook. Good job 👏 👍
It really is 😆 but hopefully he draws in Protestant to convert to Catholicism in Jesus name 🙏
As I Watch some of your vedios I love it❤❤❤
As someone with lots of Protestant friends, this is super helpful and a great explanation of why I can't trust Sola Scriptura as a doctrine. Love the Catholic truths in this video, but where's the cold brews??? 🍺
My brother, what a great video!
As a protestant myself, I disagree with some of your points, but I also have firm belief that there are catholic which are my brothers and sisters, and people whose faith I admire are Catholic. Listenning to it, I would like to actually sit and have a nice chat with you, because you are not trying to deceive or manipulate, I truly seems to me that this is your conclusion and conviction.
My view (and of many protestants) is a bit different than what you showcased, I believe there was indeed a concret set of OT cannon, the TaNaKh, which Jesus affirms in verses throughout the NT, and my research on the NT canon gave me assurance of the process, specially when looking at 1 Tm 3:16, which not only says that Scripture is inspired by God, but also in vv 17 that Scripture can throughly prepare a disciple for every good work (it is sufficient).
I hope you continue to do your ministry, and even though we disagree, you are also trying to save lives, and talk about Jesus!
Peace be with you
Excellent video. The cornerstone of Protestantism is Sola Scriptura, and you've provided some very good arguments why it's not an infalible doctrine. Sola Fide is a bit harder to argue against, but as I asked a Baptist friend of mine, "If baptism isn't necessary for salvation, then why did *Jesus* tell the Apostles go out and baptize people?" (Emphasis mine)
Sola Fide is not hard to argue either.
@@voxangeli9205True, but it isn't quite as self-contradicting as Sola Scriptura. Arguing against Sola Scriptura is shooting fish in a barrel.
@@paulnebeling2068, ok.
However, you can point out that the only Bible verse that mentions the phrase “faith alone” is only at James 2:24 which says, “You see how a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
(By works, James refers to “works of love” or “acts of love” or “acts of charity” which is different from “works of the law” as the requirements in the Mosaic Law in the old covenant (which Martin Luther mistakenly understood as to be one and the same).
God bless you, fellow Catholic Christian!
@@voxangeli9205Thank you. I look to James for the saying that faith without works is dead. I wasn't aware of this passage.
@@paulnebeling2068 , you’re welcome.
You must remember though that Protestants still have their way of going around and circumventing with that verse…
Good luck and God bless.
Do you know James White? He explains the logic of there being two canons therefore sola scriptura and explains that this matter has to be looked into theologically and not historically as most people do (thus tradition). His channel is Alpha and Omega Ministries on UA-cam. I also heard that he will be debating Trent Horn of Catholic Answers in February on sola scriptura. I am looking forward to it.
Also thanks for the great work.
Bro your vedios are very good
I love it
I am a Catholic priest
God bless you
We need like you people to spread Gospel
I love your faith on Catholic church
Good video. I think you are wrong in asserting that oral Tradition is somehow not an infallible guide, but assume that is "for the sake of argument"
Hi Chris, thanks for watching! It sounds like we agree. If you listen back, I actually did not say that Sacred Tradition is not an infallible guide. I was careful to say that Tradition is infallible because it is the word of God, but oral Tradition is not inspired in the same way that Scripture is. As the Catechism states, the apostolic preaching is expressed “in a special way in the inspired books” (CCC #77). But you’re right, I was mostly trying to grant the uniqueness of Scripture for the sake of argument.
Really appreciate you watching and commenting, brother.
It all comes down to authority. Sola scriptura is just a smoke-screen to import your existing tradition.
Not Sola Scriptura, The Eucharist is the one obstacle he can't get past.
This always loses me a bit. The Catholic Church officially regards tradition and scripture as equal? That’s bold to say the least.
@@CartwrightFour No, it's a more of a material sufficiency view. The Church is the authentic interpreter of scripture to maintain orthodoxy. It is also clear some authority is necessary from God outside the Bible to decide the Canon. How do we know which books are supposed to be in the Bible? And the Church with authority preceded the new testament, so the protestant position has to be that was extinguished, but that is not found in the Bible.
@@CartwrightFour Scripture is from Tradition
I think you're wrong. Tradition exist before the scripture, it's not importing the tradition but returning to original essences of scripture
Can Catholics hold to prima scriptura?
I'm confused, what do Protestants mean when Catholics worship Mother Mary ?
Have you considered Orthodoxy?
This is (unintentionally?) a bit of a red herring. Protestants and Catholics regard Scripture as authoritative, but both cannot be certain regarding the canon. Yet Scripture alone is our authority.
Catholics are certain of the canon because it was set by the one holy catholic and apostolic church that Jesus left behind. Protestants think that they are certain of the canon but of course do not know the history of the canon or early church.
There are protestants who don't hold to 'sola scriptura'.
If the canon was correct and inspired the next question would be which denomination lol. Following your feelings? 😂 This is why we have facts over feelings. This generation is the extreme version of the Christian denominations - all feelings and look how crazy it has become. We have churches/denominations that corrupt the meaning of marriage, genders, etc.
Only the Catholic church reads the signs of time (Vatican council II) and interpret the bible and gives the moral teaching to the world but not the other churches
You didn't mention the magisterium. That's the 3rd pillar of the Catholic Church.
There's so many reasons why I can't be protestant. The main reason is because protestants don't believe what Jesus teaches about the holy eucharist they all walk away in John 6:66 just like protestants of today, walk away from Jesus because it's to hard for them to understand.
I love my catholic brothers and sisters.
also the pope... kept me away from being catholic.
Sola fide/sola scriptura is wrong and Jesus shows us why. His life and death involved tremendous WORK; from preaching, to healing, to His scourging, to carrying His cross, to His nailing to the wood, to His ultimate agonizing death on the cross.
Also, His parable of the good Samaritan is a story of love and WORK.
Every Bishop in the Anglican, Roman, Eastern, and Lutheran Traditions can trace his line all the way back to the Apostles just as much as the Bishop of Rome.
Rome denies that we are part of the Church. Unam Sanctam gives no allowance for that, even with the Eastern Orthodox. Vatican I reaffirms this. Lumen Gentium reaffirms this. Literally, your tradition damns us to hell for not being in communion with Francis.
The issues with your citing of St Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for your side:
1) St Paul nowhere says what those oral traditions are; there is no indication that they were not eventually written in, say, the Gospels.
2) You can do nothing more than assert that any particular oral tradition (especially any unique to Rome) is one of the traditions to which St Paul is referring. I'd believe in Vatican I if it were Apostolic (as it claims of itself). It's clearly not. Where is your infallible list of these infallible oral traditions?
The Canon of Scripture is not a doctrine. Scripture itself is the starting point; all doctrine comes from it. It is Prolegomena. This challenge is akin to saying, "How do you know the Law of Non-Contradiction is true? You have to assume it in order to affirm it." You also don't want to go this route: by your claims, since Rome did not "infallibly" declare the Canon until, at best, Florence (and more likely Trent), you apparently had no assurance of what the New Testament was about 1,400-1,500 years. Jesus repeatedly spoke in the Gospels to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and constantly pointed them to the Scriptures, despite no "infallible authority" declaring an infallible Canon. You simply asserted "they weren't holding to Sola Scripura at the time!" Okay: what other infallible authorities outside of Scripture were there at the time? You also have not defended well the idea that not infallibly knowing the Canon of Scripture is not a problem for your side. As well, you don't have an infallible list of the infallible doctrines that are not found in Scripture.
The Deuterocanon is literally in our Bibles. It's in our Lectionaries. Look up the Lectionary readings for any Book of Common Prayer; you'll see a lot of readings from the Deuterocanon.
Hi there, sorry I am very uneducated about most of the topics you spoke about in your comment but am just wondering if you’re Catholic? I’m so torn about what is the truth and don’t want to follow a false doctrine and I’m just so unsure about what truly is the way to eternal life with the Lord. I’m sorry if it’s completely off topic im just interested in your standpoint as I struggled to understand most of your comment due to my lack of knowledge
@@georgitzu3150 I'm not a Roman Catholic, but an Anglo-Catholic. My channel has a lot of videos that will help you out.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Ah okay thank you so much
the other catholic churches has different. cannons.so why roman catholic cannon above other catholic branches,
Catholics did not have an infallible canon until Trent
According to many catholics not even Jesus nor His apostles had an infallible canon either
Rome had a fallible canon until Trent
“According to some Catholics “
Don’t use Protestant hierarchy and pluralistic approach on Catholicism
Use what the Vatican teaches
And the Church does not teach that
AD 1546: At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.😘😘
@@biblealone9201 Trent elevated your extra 7 books (were not considered Scripture by the Jews at the time of Christ) to Scripture. Your church did not have an infallible canon for itself until then.
@@Justas399 sorry pee wee you only have pie in the sky BS They are in the Septuagint. According to Jewish Encyclopedia, the Septuagint is "The oldest and most important of all the [Bible] versions made by Jews"
Ha, so you are saying that Jesus celebrated books that were not of God? He celebrated Hanukkah (1 and 2 Maccabees), He had a bar mitzvah (Baruch). I could go on to list each book, but I'm pretty sure you are too blinded by the lies you have been told to even pay heed to the examples of Jesus believing they are the inspired word of God.
if you were to actually look at the Torah you would find all seven of these books to be present. Are you going to deny that Jews celebrate the story of the Maccabees (Hanukkah)? Are you going to continue lying by saying that Jews do not read from the book Baruch at a bar mitzvah? It is you who has been deceived. Prove me wrong if you think you can.
@YAJUN YUAN exactly
The Church received it
It didn’t compile the Bible to suite its agenda
It simply found out who wrote it
When it was written and why
Unlike Protestants
The church has authority to interprete it
You are in the complete and now you want to go to the incomplete. It is your choice.
Click bait. Ciao.
If you study the Scriptures and compare them with catholic doctrines you will find they are not in sync. For example, Christ nor His apostles taught the Marian dogmas nor established an office of a papacy in the NT. You will find in the 1st century no one taught these doctrines.
No one taught sola scripture either until the 1500s
@@jt55652 Do you know what Sola Scriptura means and implies? If so, can you tell me?
@@Justas399 Scriture alone and it implies that anyone can read the bible and interpret for themselves and the holyspirit will guide to truth so now for someone to accept it thier truth is authoritative not a church which is why their are so many "demon"inations
@@jt55652 That is not what Sola Scriptura means nor implies.
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states that the Scriptures ALONE are the inspired-inerrant Word of God and therefore the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church.
No man, no insitution is equal or greater in authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399 well thats just the problem a person came up with idea and its not found in scripture so...am I putting my trust in my interpretation because I belive in the trinity but trinity not found in scripture so do I stop believing in the trinity ?