@@MrCarlosVillasenor Yes she is Virgin: Isaiah 7:14: ..."The Virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel". Luke 1:34: "How can this be, since I have no relation with a man?" (Why would she said that if she was betrothed to Joseph? Unless she had a vow of virginity..) She was sinless because she is the Mother of God. Luke 1:43: " And how does this happen to me, that the Mother of My Lord should come to me?" Do You suppose God would take flesh from a sinful woman? Please it's basic Theology. Why is the sinless condition so difficult to accept? Adan and Eve were sinless before the fall....
@@jorgebauerleonmARy iS tHe nEw eVe. Your making up stuff using typology. You have to do this out of thin air because their is 0 biblical evidence. Just stop. Don't add or take away from GOD's word. I know that's a foreign concept to a Catholic.
This is the same 2019 Catholic Answers conference where Trent Horn brought me and my book up, “Why Protestant Bibles are smaller.“ I considered it an honor to be mentioned alongside someone of the caliber and faithful dedication to the word of God and to our Lord Jesus Christ as Dr. James White, when Trent referenced both of us at the conference. I also debated Trent Hoen, as well as Gary Michuta, last year on the old testament canon. Before the Catholic Answers Forums was shut down, I was pleased to read that there were Catholics who believed that I won the debate against Trent Horn. It’s one thing when a Catholic believes the Catholic debate wins. You expect that. Same thing when a protestant believes the protestant debater won. But it’s pretty objective when you hear a devout Catholic who even stated he loves Trent Horn and follows him, but acknowledged that he lost the debate. That was extremely encouraging to read. In fact, I still have a screenshot of one of the Catholics who stated that. Keep defending the faith Dr. White. It is reaching the lost, including a lot of Catholics, including myself who used to be Catholic but left the Catholic Church, and I am now born again. #solafide #solascriptura
hey God bless you bro, thank you for your hard and meticulous work. Just found you on another brother's channel. Im trying to sharpen myself in the RCC area. I'm an ex roman myself
@Jaime Pira according to Rome, which is a bit subjective and circular. You might be an interesting thing for you to know that a Catholic from Catholic Answers believed that I won my debate against Trent Horn.
What brought you out of Catholicism? I seem to see a lot of protestants joining the RCC. What shocked me was a large amount of pastors going in. Their reasoning was largely the lack of structure in the protestant world, divisions, and they somehow convinced themselves that it was the original church as Rome claims. I thought w/ so many pastors going in, that this might be more correct than I knew, and that maybe RCC doctrine wasn't as bad as I'd heard, but not properly checked out for myself. After over a year of going to many Catholic sources and testimonies, it seems to be pretty on par w/ the protestant view and actually worse. I think the average Christian, incl. a lot of Catholics has little idea the dodgy and not blblical doctrines, many made dogma. I didn't even realize until recently that the immaculate conception was about Mary being sinless. Always thought it was about Jesus, so thought it was common ground I had w/ CAtholics. So the Marian dogmas are actually far worse and more deeply rooted than I ever knew.
@@mike_AD I'm always interested in finding out why people left the RCC? There's seems a large amount of Christians joining Rome. Not sure if it's more going in than going out, but it seems it might be that way?
The point on sola ecclesia at 26:20 is so true, and found everywhere in conversation with Catholics. It's the 'insulating" or perhaps better said, "isolating" doctrine that has only itself as both cause and effect. Completely circular.
It is nice to be able to comment. A lot of protestant sites turn off the comments, which gives the Catholic channels a big advantage, as they tend to leave comments on. I've noticed this w/ debates. Alpha and Omega will post these great older debates, but turns comments off. There's a number of CAtholic channels that post the debates and it's a big old echo chamber of support. The hapless protestant that wanders in to comments just gets dogpiled and it tends not to last long.
@@Ninos-j2c But we are commanded not to speak to the dead even if they are dead believers. Samuel was a believer but when Saul contacted him after death he said Why have you disturbed me by calling me up.
@@Ninos-j2c Catholic trope, not even remotely the same thing. Praying for someone is not the same thing as praying TO someone. Praying to the dead saints is a gross act of idolatry. Not to mention when someone prays for someone else they still take it to Christ who intercede on behalf of man.
@@Ninos-j2c You know, in this Marxist culture war where we are living post reality I will say I am as Reformed as they come, but if a RC says we need to uphold the family, stop babies from being killed, stop children from being indoctrinated I will link arms with that person.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Mormons teach that Jesus was married to Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, and Mary Magdalene at the wedding at Cana? There is absolutely no Biblical support for that.
I will admit that I kind of get annoyed by Trent horn when he talks because I know that he is lying when he talks however the one that really genuinely made me angry was that gay pastor who stated that Jesus was a racist.
Well the twit who said that is speaking a load of rubbish. You have a right to be angry at the man for making that claim. Jesus wasn’t racist, in fact, his interaction with the Syro Phoenician woman shows that. Essentially I learned from a video when Sam Shamoun addressed this issue, he highlighted that Jesus referred to the woman as a puppy, a house dog, not an unclean dog. The explanation makes sense because the puppy is eager for food but it has to be patient. Jesus is telling the woman to be patient, Israel is his first priority and the Gentiles can be dealt with later. It’s fascinating.
@@person6768 So why Orthodox Christians also pray to Mary? Why do the Eastern Churches and Oriental Orthodox Christians also pray to pray? Why do some Anglo churches pray to Mary? If you are Christian, and praying to Mary is a "Roman Catholic" thing, then why are all these other churches also asking for the intercession of Mary and the saints? Why is it that every church that has apostolic succession or can trace their church at least more than 1000 years, pray to Mary? Why is it only the churches, ranging from 500 to 50 years old, dont? Its almost as if protestants are out of the loop. And no, youre not just "Christian" as if that title only applies to you, youre protestant.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 he has mentioned that he would only be interested in doing a debate if they were willing to talk about Francis...aka francis bash.
@@1984SheepDog White seems to have done a lot of debates in his decades of doing them, some topics a few times w/ different apologists. Francis seems to be a topic trad Catholics pretty upset about and willing to discuss. I can see why apologists would want to avoid that. His followers seem to be the most liberal, or authority adhering Catholics. I knew something was up when a very progressive atheist I knew was hoping Francis would be selected. I was shocked that she'd care about a pope, but she rightly thought she'd have someone much more in her camp to change the church from w/in. Imagine my shock when this turned out to be right, more and more all the time.
@@benh580 He mentioned quite some times that eschatology is not a topic he's very keen to debate. He recentley wrote a blog about it though on his website aomin.org, just google "Eschatology Will Matter Soon-In A Way We Did Not See Coming"
@@benh580 _"what's post mil? Does that mean the tribulation already happened? Never heard of that. Wouldn't that technically be post tribulation?"_ Eh, I think it is different enough that pre- vs post- trib doesn't make as much sense. A postmil will identify the Kingdom of God as the Church. Some mean it as a (potentially) still future Church age where most of the world is converted, others take it as starting during Jesus's ministry on earth or shortly after; like at the cross, or resurrection, or Pentecost, etc. (I look at e.g. Luke 11: 20 where Jesus says casting out demons would be a sign that the kingdom of God is come, right as he is busy casting out demons as an indicator that the kingdom was established during his ministry.) Most Post- and A-mil people see the events during the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70 as the prophesied tribulation, taking literally Jesus's words that it would happen to the generation he was speaking to. Some will say it is still future, or that AD 70 and a still future event might both be the fulfillment of the tribulation. So is it Pre-trib? Post-trib? Mid-trib? That sort of label just isn't as big a deal as it is to the premil/dispy circles.
Catholic apologists rely too much on typology and justify it by appealing to other things Mary was not sinless, well that wasn’t spoken of in the Christ for centuries either and I’m like huh?
@@duckymomo7935 "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." - Luke 1:28 To be full of grace, is to be without sin. Therefore she was sinless. Typology is a reference that the ancient jews, the apostolic fathers, the early Church fathers, and now apologetics use. Jesus himself used typology when explaining the Messiah and the Son of God (see the book of Isiah). You can't fully understand the new testament without the old testament. And you cant understand both without historical context.
@@ratatoskr9366 lol yeah that’s just ridiculous. That’s the problem with Catholics, take one verse and stretch it miles long. Full of grace means sinless? Where does it say that? Makes no sense at all. The Bible says Mary is blessed AMONG women. Catholics be like: SEE! She’s the MOST BLESSED WOMAN EVER! QUEEEEN of the Universe! Ridiculous!
@@KnightFel "In Luke 1:28... This grace is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene,” which means to fill or endow with grace." "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God." -Eph 2:8 Full of grace = fully of God's gift of salvation. Therefore sinless. No one with sin can enter God's kingdom. "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?" - 1 Cor 6:9 These are basic theological concepts, I really mean no offense, but it's like debating with a flat earther. And hate to break it to you bud, but EVERY Christian since the time of the Apostles has believed in the intercessions of Mary. Even Protestant fathers John Calvin and Martin Luther. So I'm not sure where modern non-denominational Protestants gained more wisdom than every Christian who ever existed. So the problem does not lie with Catholics, who uphold 2000 years of tradition and can trace their roots back to Christ, it's with Protestants who rely on sola scriptura and know nothing of tradition and the Chruch's history, the Church that God founded (Matthew 16:18). And it's funny that you are harking on Catholics but literally every other rite, every eastern Chruch, and the Orthodox Church believe in the intercessions of Mary. The reason is obvious: they can trace their origins and traditions back to the Apostles while your whole ideology most likely comes from 1960s America.
White stick is always Irenaeus and his recapitulation theory, saying no one these days believes in said theory. It's well and alive in the Orthodox Church though.
Strange how Christian debates appear to be the same as how Christians talk to muslims or atheists. Someone once said: " We all think we are right and everyone opposing is wrong till we find out we were wrong. Then we start again that we are right and everyone opposing is wrong..." GOD please help us
Or, as the Bible puts it: Prov 27: 17 "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." Prov 18: 17 "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." It is quite Biblical to discuss and debate ideas and is a normative practice in Christianity.
@@oracleoftroy I agree but sometimes it appears as if Christians throw their iron into each other in a manner wich makes the edge of their swords become dull.
Someone is right though, to argue like your wrong is to argue for something you don't believe, which is way dumber and pointless. Of course we talk to people like they're wrong and of course they talk to us like we're wrong but remember someone is right. Only one who shouldn't argue this way ironically is the atheist because if they're right then nothing we do matters at all. We could throw every third child in a fire to the cookie monster and it would just be something people do.
@@Coins1985 as you and I have discussed, you don’t see too many canon lists in the early church. However, as early as the mid-4th century, you have Athanasius of Alexandria enumerating all 27 books of the New Testament. In the context that he writes, he’s referring to it as if it’s been a known fact for a long time. In other words, he’s not writing as if it was a fairly new canon, but that it had been around for quite some time. And the 39 book old testament canon is enumerated as early as Origen of Alexandria in the early third century. It is no coincidence that both of them are from Alexandria, which demonstrates that the 27 book New Testament Canon in all likelihood can be traced back to the third century as well, if not earlier. And the same 39 book old testament canon of Athanasius can be traced back as far as the second century, which references back to the first century. The reason why we have to address the Old and New Testament canons separately, is because the old testament had been written before the first century, while the New Testament wasn’t. So, naturally you’re going to find completed old testament lists in the infant church, before you’re going to find a completed new testament list, since the latter was written much later. But what you don’t find is an exact 73 book canon identical to the Catholic Bible until the 15th century, and even then it was rejected by later Catholics including cardinals in the Catholic Church. And it wasn’t even defined until the council of Trent in response to the protestant reformation. This means that Luthers smaller biblical canon that was identical to the canons of Origen and Athanasius existed before the officially defined catholic canon of the Council of Trent which was convened after Luther died.
In my opinion Dr. White’s debate with Trent on the perseverance of the saints was one of his toughest. I would almost go as far to say Trent won that one. Would love to see a rematch
It was very close. I thought the second cross examination was going to James initially but then Trent turned the tables. I’m on James’ side but I’m tempted to say Trent squeaked by in a very good debate.
Pfftt. If you don’t trust Christ, I totally see the appeal. White’s mannerisms and attitude put me off, but there’s no defense of Roman doctrines. They’re evolving tho, so I’ll wait.
@@deadalivemaniac Me and my Catholic spouse just watched an old debate on whether Mary had other children that White did w/ Mr. Matatics. While Matatics pulled a lot of tricks out his RCC hat, Neil had to admit that White was a better debater for that one. He was disturbed by some of the facts that White pulled up, but still stayed convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary. He was shaken in his convictions though and has been convinced lately to the sola sciptura side. We've been watching a lot on church history and I'm trying to find content from every angle to get a fair overall assessment. That has really changed his mind on the claims of Rome. He also didn't know about crazy stuff like Treasury of Merit and is now uncomfortable w/ praying to Mary, saints and angels. The Marion dogmas run deep and are so dear and emotional to them. I've shared how I can't believe them and why, w/out pushing him in any way not to believe them himself. I not only don't want to cause discord, I don't want to be the crusher of dearly held beliefs. If he lets go of those beliefs, it needs to be w/ the leading of the Holy Spirit. I'd like to find this debate w/ Trent Horn you mention. I found one on a Catholic channel, where comments are always open and it was a big victory dance of defeat against White. Which one would expect on a Catholic channel. Though I did see the odd muslim or protestant weighing in to say it wasn't White's best debate and I do know Trent can be pretty good.
Perseverance of the saints is not a useful doctrine I cannot tell you who is a genuine Christian or not and thus I cannot guess their salvific status. For this reason it can appear that someone lost their faith when in fact they weren’t Christian to begin with except I couldn’t tell you that at the time.
@@ratatoskr9366 A Catholic can actually be saved of course. I do think Trent probably is because the basis of salvation isn’t the Eucharist or any kind of holy communion of any kind but simply believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Repent and believe which basically means to change your mind, about sin, about God, about salvation itself and put your trust in Christ. I think there’s more saved than most people lead on. I think what really confuses me sometimes is whether or not MarryOlogy is a damn about heresy or not. Things not example scripturally but are a part of church tradition today. I think they can coexist so long as the heart is fixated on Christ is there complete and full savior. Some Catholics do believe that Marry is salvific. That is incorrect and nowhere listed in scripture. But yeah you know I don’t know. Three months ago I was digging into that a whole lot and trying to figure out the nuances of it. My wife is Catholic and her whole family is Catholic and we’re raising our girls Catholic and Baptist. We’re going to teach our daughters Christ first and everything else after that is secondary
@@ratatoskr9366 I have become recently a huge fan of the Catholic Church before 1215. In fact I think the Catholic Church before 1215 what is the exact church that originated from the Hebrew church in Jerusalem in the first century. I can’t get enough of Augustines writing. He is a genius and his backstory of conversion is so identifiable. I mean I came from sexual sin of an obsessive nature and so did he and just reading his thoughts on scripture and how high he holds scripture above tradition is amazing
@@ratatoskr9366 Sorry I think I forgot to answer the last part of your question. Salvation simply according to Jesus and the apostles is to believe in Jesus. It’s outlined in John chapter 6 about three times. John chapter 3 and John chapter 4 with the woman at the well. And of course Paul outlines it hundreds of times in Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, but it’s essentially two steps that belong together but it’s not necessarily a ritual or prayer or anything like that. A lot of people think that salvation is a transaction from something called a sinners prayer. No doubt sometimes that does work but it can’t come from the idea that the prayer does anything. Salvation is given when you believe in Christ. But in order to believe in Christ you must see that your sin is wrong. Jesus once said and mark that you must repent and believe. Repent often times also gets a sort of translational hatchet job where people think it’s turning from sin where are you don’t sin anymore. That’s certainly the goal of the true believer but repentance is a realization. It’s a change in the nature within. The best way to describe it is realizing that God is real. For me repentance was my mind changing first to believe in Jesus and then repentance as a believer has been a process of turning from sin as I’m guided by the new nature given from the Holy Spirit. So as a believer I am on a path guided by God in belief in the son. Salvation is not something that must be sustained by my own fleshly actions through participation in the Eucharist but the strength in salvation by means of salvation and growth as a believer or someone who is saved is strengthened by some of those actions. For instance I don’t believe the physical form of Jesus is present in the Eucharist but the Eucharist in the original sense of the last supper is intrinsically important to the faith. Wear some things that it wipes away sins in fact it’s actually somewhat the other way around. Participating in communion of the representation of Christ in the Eucharist by means of remembrance is a process by which we come to it in a state of forgiveness already. I’m actually in full agreements that communion should be a frequent participating act. The Catholic Church actually didn’t do communion once a week for most of its existence. That only started in the 1500s. Before then it was annually. I believe constant prayer and having the mind set on Christ even in a default state is intricate and very important. “Our father“ is a fantastic prayer if the praying party is fixated on Christ rather than the prayer but uses the prayer as a starting point for communication. We have to remember that Matthew 6:7 was a template for prayer not a commandment to repeat that prayer. There’s nothing wrong with repeating that prayer but as I said it must come from the heart the actions and will of the believer. For instance any Catholic participating in the Eucharist, as long as their heart comes to the Eucharist in a forgiven state I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. But anyone who believes that Christ is physically represented again is in grave error according to Hebrews 9. Is that dimmable? I think it is because they’re ignoring the one time sacrifice of Christ on the cross and what it represents. Historically even in the Torah the forgiveness of sins required blood every time. We cannot re-sacrifice Christ in an imaginary ritual without real blood otherwise the sacrifice means nothing. That’s why the one time sacrifice 2000 years ago covers all of our sins past present and future for all the time for those that believe in the son. Remember the conversation between Jesus and the woman/Samarian woman at the well. Sumerians were shunned from Israel and not given access to the temple to pray. But Jesus says to her that the time has come in as even now that you will not worship in a temple or mountain but in spirit and truth. Because God is spirit there is no need to be in a localized location as they used to do in the days of Moses. Congregating groups for the church is commanded by scripture but it is not required for salvation. Salvation is a personal relationship between us and Jesus or rather God through Jesus. We all have heard those terrifying words in scripture “depart from me for I never knew you“. Sometimes people use that particular scripture to browbeat people into submission of scripture without really understanding context. If you really pay attention to that scripture, is knowing God and if you read all John six eludes quite cleverly to an idea of knowing Christ through his teachings. We achieve salvation by choosing Christ. Salvation is not given by consuming the represented transubstantiated idea of Christ. No John six does say that eating his flesh and blood is life but it’s not life in the sense of eternal life but life in the sense of life on earth and his flesh and blood he’s not literal but metaphorical meaning his teachings. He is the bread of life. It means what he represents and what he’s bringing to earth is salvation and salvation is the bread of life. He uses eating is a metaphorical term for consuming mentally. I mean I use this argument all the time with atheist because they often like to rag on people back to them being primitive and then when I show them this passage they’re kind of stepping back like what the hell lol. Jesus knew the primitive mind back then needed help transitioning from literal to figurative. It’s the same thing with Matthew 5:29. He’s not saying cut off your limbs and gouge out your eyes. He says it but he means it metaphorically in terms of the extreme approach to guarding against sin.
@@bobbyrice2858 Catholics believe salvation is through Christ alone. If you've been told different then you've been lied to or told by someone who does not understand Catholic doctrine. The Church understands that we are all sinners in need of a savior (Rom 5:12-21). We are inheritors of original sin and all its consequences, and by actual sin we distance ourselves from God. We can’t save ourselves, but we don’t need to: Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through Jesus alone (Acts 4:12), since he is the “one mediator between God and man” (1 Tm 2:5-6). The saving grace won by Jesus is offered as a free gift to us, accessible through repentance, faith, and baptism. We turn away from our sins, we are sorry for them, and we believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel. Repentance shows our willingness to turn from things that keep us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace necessary to have faith and to live it. This belief is more than just “head knowledge.” Even the demons have that (Jas 2:19). It’s more than just believing you’re saved. Even the Pharisees had that (Jn 5:39). True, saving faith is one lived and exhibited daily: It is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26). Sometimes the Church is accused of teaching “salvation by works,” but this is an empty accusation. This idea has been consistently condemned by the Church. Good works are required by God because he requires obedience to his commands (Mt 6:1-21, 1 Cor 3:8, 13-15) and promises to reward us with eternal life if we obey (Mt 25:34-40, Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10, Jas 1:12). But even our obedience is impossible without God’s grace; even our good works are God’s gift (Rom 5:5, Phil 2:13). This is the real biblical plan of salvation.
So comparing the immaculate conception to the Trinity, Both of which have very minor scriptural attestation, Is wrong because the immaculate conception can't be read in any meaningful way into scripture. Yet at the same time, James literally goes back into church history and make the Bible and Church History squeal in an attempt to try to get both parties ro teach justification by faith alone when they clearly never taught it. By his own standards and definitions he is literally calling the kettle black. The cognitive dissonance is unreal.
@@geckoniner5625 Nobody doubts Jesus' divinity. It's the deity of the holy spirit that has no scriptural attestation. Even the scriptures you provide do not say it. Now you might be able to get a divine implication based on scriptures but nothing truly explicit like you get with Christ. So using sola scriptura as a criteria, There's no reason to think the Holy Spirit is meant to be deity.
Imagine thinking that if something is infallibly proclaimed by the Church, it has to have the same amount of evidence as anything else infallibly proclaimed by the Church. This is pathetic scholarship. 3 minutes in and I can't finish this, it's so poor.
Well Markle you are watching this with the expectation that James has something between his ears. Except the only thing that is there is heresy hot air and vacancy.
Its mentioned a lot on Catholic Answers because protestantism has ejected so much of the traditions. No one in the early centuries decided, "Hey, lets do the Bible alone and eject everything else" because such an idea before or shortly after the creation of the Bible is ludicrous.
James goes on to say that he doesn't need support from early church fathers, he can use the Bible alone. Okay, lets try that, but if alternate interpretations are plausible then we have to have a decider - who better then the original interpreters: the early church fathers. Infant baptism is plausible, early church fathers almost unanimously believe in infant baptism, therefore James should support infant baptism.
@Pedro Lourenço Do you believe in infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, real presence in the Eucharist, confession before communion, and church authority as was unanimous in the early centuries?
@Pedro Lourenço What kind of real presence do you believe in? Transubstantiation is the furthest you can take real presence and I see no hints of backing off this strict position for at least a thousand years. Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1, A.D. 110 That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend his body and blood, which he poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. Augustine Sermons 227 The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. Augustine Sermons 234:2 What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ. Augustine Sermons 272 How this [“And he was carried in his own hands”] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands, when referring to his own body, he said: “This is my body.” For he carried that body in his hands. Augustine Psalms 33:1:10 Was not Christ immolated only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. Augustine Letters 98:9 Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him. Augustine City of God 10:20 By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. Augustine Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57 Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church. Augustine Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110 But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the fathers that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death. Augustine Sermons 172:2 ...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no ones eats that flesh unless first he adores it; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring. Augustine Psalms 98:9
@Pedro Lourenço On confession: But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions ... The Didache James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is very powerful in its effect. John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
Do me a favor and read John 6. Even the apostles were like "This is a hard teaching." Jesus tripled down and did not back off even to the detriment of many followers leaving him.
Nice to be able to comment and to thank you James for all your hard work. You've taught me an incredible amount over the past two years.
Same
Sadly for Mr White "Full of Grace" doesn't mean anything
@@jorgebauerleondoes it mean she’s forever virgin and sinless? 🤦🏽♂️
Yes she’s special and blessed but she’s not perfect like Christ.
@@MrCarlosVillasenor Yes she is Virgin: Isaiah 7:14: ..."The Virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel". Luke 1:34: "How can this be, since I have no relation with a man?" (Why would she said that if she was betrothed to Joseph? Unless she had a vow of virginity..) She was sinless because she is the Mother of God. Luke 1:43: " And how does this happen to me, that the Mother of My Lord should come to me?" Do You suppose God would take flesh from a sinful woman? Please it's basic Theology. Why is the sinless condition so difficult to accept? Adan and Eve were sinless before the fall....
@@jorgebauerleonmARy iS tHe nEw eVe. Your making up stuff using typology. You have to do this out of thin air because their is 0 biblical evidence. Just stop. Don't add or take away from GOD's word. I know that's a foreign concept to a Catholic.
This is the same 2019 Catholic Answers conference where Trent Horn brought me and my book up, “Why Protestant Bibles are smaller.“ I considered it an honor to be mentioned alongside someone of the caliber and faithful dedication to the word of God and to our Lord Jesus Christ as Dr. James White, when Trent referenced both of us at the conference.
I also debated Trent Hoen, as well as Gary Michuta, last year on the old testament canon. Before the Catholic Answers Forums was shut down, I was pleased to read that there were Catholics who believed that I won the debate against Trent Horn. It’s one thing when a Catholic believes the Catholic debate wins. You expect that. Same thing when a protestant believes the protestant debater won. But it’s pretty objective when you hear a devout Catholic who even stated he loves Trent Horn and follows him, but acknowledged that he lost the debate. That was extremely encouraging to read. In fact, I still have a screenshot of one of the Catholics who stated that.
Keep defending the faith Dr. White. It is reaching the lost, including a lot of Catholics, including myself who used to be Catholic but left the Catholic Church, and I am now born again. #solafide #solascriptura
hey God bless you bro, thank you for your hard and meticulous work. Just found you on another brother's channel. Im trying to sharpen myself in the RCC area. I'm an ex roman myself
@Jaime Pira according to Rome, which is a bit subjective and circular. You might be an interesting thing for you to know that a Catholic from Catholic Answers believed that I won my debate against Trent Horn.
What brought you out of Catholicism? I seem to see a lot of protestants joining the RCC. What shocked me was a large amount of pastors going in. Their reasoning was largely the lack of structure in the protestant world, divisions, and they somehow convinced themselves that it was the original church as Rome claims. I thought w/ so many pastors going in, that this might be more correct than I knew, and that maybe RCC doctrine wasn't as bad as I'd heard, but not properly checked out for myself. After over a year of going to many Catholic sources and testimonies, it seems to be pretty on par w/ the protestant view and actually worse. I think the average Christian, incl. a lot of Catholics has little idea the dodgy and not blblical doctrines, many made dogma. I didn't even realize until recently that the immaculate conception was about Mary being sinless. Always thought it was about Jesus, so thought it was common ground I had w/ CAtholics. So the Marian dogmas are actually far worse and more deeply rooted than I ever knew.
@@mike_AD I'm always interested in finding out why people left the RCC? There's seems a large amount of Christians joining Rome. Not sure if it's more going in than going out, but it seems it might be that way?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 not everyone is a public figure. I know of several people who left Rome.
Yes! Glad we can comment. I really appreciate your content.
You have a fantastic ministry on church history.Catholic apologists are desperate and perverse. We need you brother.
Thumbs up for open comments.
The point on sola ecclesia at 26:20 is so true, and found everywhere in conversation with Catholics. It's the 'insulating" or perhaps better said, "isolating" doctrine that has only itself as both cause and effect. Completely circular.
It is nice to be able to comment. A lot of protestant sites turn off the comments, which gives the Catholic channels a big advantage, as they tend to leave comments on. I've noticed this w/ debates. Alpha and Omega will post these great older debates, but turns comments off. There's a number of CAtholic channels that post the debates and it's a big old echo chamber of support. The hapless protestant that wanders in to comments just gets dogpiled and it tends not to last long.
You won’t find Mary at all in the last half New testament yet we are to pray to her. Or she is praying? Very confusing
They pray to all the saints. It's a slap in the face to the one mediator, Christ.
We ask her to pray for us. That’s what we mean by “praying to the Saints”. We ask them to pray for us.
@@Ninos-j2c But we are commanded not to speak to the dead even if they are dead believers. Samuel was a believer but when Saul contacted him after death he said Why have you disturbed me by calling me up.
@@Ninos-j2c Catholic trope, not even remotely the same thing. Praying for someone is not the same thing as praying TO someone. Praying to the dead saints is a gross act of idolatry. Not to mention when someone prays for someone else they still take it to Christ who intercede on behalf of man.
@@Ninos-j2c You know, in this Marxist culture war where we are living post reality I will say I am as Reformed as they come, but if a RC says we need to uphold the family, stop babies from being killed, stop children from being indoctrinated I will link arms with that person.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Mormons teach that Jesus was married to Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, and Mary Magdalene at the wedding at Cana? There is absolutely no Biblical support for that.
@@rohan7224 John 7:3
@@isaacmartin2046has absolutely nothing to do with what the person asked lol
Trent makes a good argument for Sola scriptora and the doctrines of grace.
I will admit that I kind of get annoyed by Trent horn when he talks because I know that he is lying when he talks however the one that really genuinely made me angry was that gay pastor who stated that Jesus was a racist.
Well the twit who said that is speaking a load of rubbish. You have a right to be angry at the man for making that claim.
Jesus wasn’t racist, in fact, his interaction with the Syro Phoenician woman shows that.
Essentially I learned from a video when Sam Shamoun addressed this issue, he highlighted that Jesus referred to the woman as a puppy, a house dog, not an unclean dog. The explanation makes sense because the puppy is eager for food but it has to be patient.
Jesus is telling the woman to be patient, Israel is his first priority and the Gentiles can be dealt with later. It’s fascinating.
Pray the rosary
We will never pray to somebody other than God. No matter how hard people push, we're Christians your Catholics.
@@person6768 It's OK. The Blessed Mother loves you anyway.
@@person6768 So why Orthodox Christians also pray to Mary? Why do the Eastern Churches and Oriental Orthodox Christians also pray to pray? Why do some Anglo churches pray to Mary?
If you are Christian, and praying to Mary is a "Roman Catholic" thing, then why are all these other churches also asking for the intercession of Mary and the saints? Why is it that every church that has apostolic succession or can trace their church at least more than 1000 years, pray to Mary? Why is it only the churches, ranging from 500 to 50 years old, dont? Its almost as if protestants are out of the loop.
And no, youre not just "Christian" as if that title only applies to you, youre protestant.
Does Dr White have any video debating the sabbath? Either sunday vs saturday or sabatarian vs non-sabatarian?
He does not, he does address some of the Adventist claims but they're on sermon audio.... they're from like 2008
@@acolytes777 I really wish he would.... I go to a 1689 LBC church and I am really struggling with the sabbath right now.
@@elijahmthompson2313 Voddie Baucham has an awesome sermon on this topic that Dr. White would agree with highly recommend you checking that out
@@elijahmthompson2313
ua-cam.com/video/zBijTJTETHU/v-deo.html
Message starts at 45:30
@@justinnewquist6111 i listened to that... its not exactly what Im looking for. I get the sense that he is not sabbatarian
Starting to think that Mr. White is doing all these videos recently in lieu of accepting a debate with Trent or Jimmy Akin.
Why bother? Seriously. Mother Church no longer knows what it believes.
@@KristiLEvans1 why bother what if the catholic made the same claims if one side is sure the other is wrong we have a commandment to square them away
How many debates does he have to do?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 he has mentioned that he would only be interested in doing a debate if they were willing to talk about Francis...aka francis bash.
@@1984SheepDog White seems to have done a lot of debates in his decades of doing them, some topics a few times w/ different apologists. Francis seems to be a topic trad Catholics pretty upset about and willing to discuss. I can see why apologists would want to avoid that. His followers seem to be the most liberal, or authority adhering Catholics. I knew something was up when a very progressive atheist I knew was hoping Francis would be selected. I was shocked that she'd care about a pope, but she rightly thought she'd have someone much more in her camp to change the church from w/in. Imagine my shock when this turned out to be right, more and more all the time.
Which Protestant Church is True, so that one can join, ?
All that follow God's Word. The ones Peter, Paul, and James started.
Theres no ONE Protestant Universal church, its the physical and spiritual house that keeps the Word of God, that are God breathed
Does dr white have any videos discussing the pre/post trib debate?
Not that I know of. I’m not so sure that’s something he debates much
@Open Debate what's post mil? Does that mean the tribulation already happened? Never heard of that. Wouldn't that technically be post tribulation?
@@benh580 He mentioned quite some times that eschatology is not a topic he's very keen to debate. He recentley wrote a blog about it though on his website aomin.org, just google "Eschatology Will Matter Soon-In A Way We Did Not See Coming"
@@mawa89g thanks I search for that
@@benh580 _"what's post mil? Does that mean the tribulation already happened? Never heard of that. Wouldn't that technically be post tribulation?"_
Eh, I think it is different enough that pre- vs post- trib doesn't make as much sense.
A postmil will identify the Kingdom of God as the Church. Some mean it as a (potentially) still future Church age where most of the world is converted, others take it as starting during Jesus's ministry on earth or shortly after; like at the cross, or resurrection, or Pentecost, etc. (I look at e.g. Luke 11: 20 where Jesus says casting out demons would be a sign that the kingdom of God is come, right as he is busy casting out demons as an indicator that the kingdom was established during his ministry.)
Most Post- and A-mil people see the events during the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70 as the prophesied tribulation, taking literally Jesus's words that it would happen to the generation he was speaking to. Some will say it is still future, or that AD 70 and a still future event might both be the fulfillment of the tribulation.
So is it Pre-trib? Post-trib? Mid-trib? That sort of label just isn't as big a deal as it is to the premil/dispy circles.
James's beard reminds me of a censor bar. XD
Trent "Red Herring" Horn
Example please
Catholic apologists rely too much on typology and justify it by appealing to other things
Mary was not sinless, well that wasn’t spoken of in the Christ for centuries either and I’m like huh?
@@duckymomo7935 "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
- Luke 1:28
To be full of grace, is to be without sin. Therefore she was sinless.
Typology is a reference that the ancient jews, the apostolic fathers, the early Church fathers, and now apologetics use.
Jesus himself used typology when explaining the Messiah and the Son of God (see the book of Isiah). You can't fully understand the new testament without the old testament. And you cant understand both without historical context.
@@ratatoskr9366 lol yeah that’s just ridiculous. That’s the problem with Catholics, take one verse and stretch it miles long. Full of grace means sinless? Where does it say that? Makes no sense at all.
The Bible says Mary is blessed AMONG women. Catholics be like: SEE! She’s the MOST BLESSED WOMAN EVER! QUEEEEN of the Universe!
Ridiculous!
@@KnightFel "In Luke 1:28... This grace is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene,” which means to fill or endow with grace."
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God."
-Eph 2:8
Full of grace = fully of God's gift of salvation. Therefore sinless.
No one with sin can enter God's kingdom.
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?"
- 1 Cor 6:9
These are basic theological concepts, I really mean no offense, but it's like debating with a flat earther.
And hate to break it to you bud, but EVERY Christian since the time of the Apostles has believed in the intercessions of Mary. Even Protestant fathers John Calvin and Martin Luther. So I'm not sure where modern non-denominational Protestants gained more wisdom than every Christian who ever existed.
So the problem does not lie with Catholics, who uphold 2000 years of tradition and can trace their roots back to Christ, it's with Protestants who rely on sola scriptura and know nothing of tradition and the Chruch's history, the Church that God founded (Matthew 16:18).
And it's funny that you are harking on Catholics but literally every other rite, every eastern Chruch, and the Orthodox Church believe in the intercessions of Mary. The reason is obvious: they can trace their origins and traditions back to the Apostles while your whole ideology most likely comes from 1960s America.
Watched white debate horn on losing salvation and white lost definitely
No not really
White stick is always
Irenaeus and his recapitulation theory, saying no one these days believes in said theory. It's well and alive in the Orthodox Church though.
White's shtick is reading the early church fathers as who they actually are, not redefining their term to fit modern "infallible" tradition s
Does EO believe that Jesus died in his 50s?
Strange how Christian debates appear to be the same as how Christians talk to muslims or atheists.
Someone once said: " We all think we are right and everyone opposing is wrong till we find out we were wrong. Then we start again that we are right and everyone opposing is wrong..."
GOD please help us
Or, as the Bible puts it:
Prov 27: 17 "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another."
Prov 18: 17 "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
It is quite Biblical to discuss and debate ideas and is a normative practice in Christianity.
@@oracleoftroy I agree but sometimes it appears as if Christians throw their iron into each other in a manner wich makes the edge of their swords become dull.
You’re assuming that Dr. White is actually dealing with a Christian…🤷🏻♂️
Well, heresy should be called out. There are minor things we disagree with and talk about, but this video deals with some serious issues
Someone is right though, to argue like your wrong is to argue for something you don't believe, which is way dumber and pointless. Of course we talk to people like they're wrong and of course they talk to us like we're wrong but remember someone is right. Only one who shouldn't argue this way ironically is the atheist because if they're right then nothing we do matters at all. We could throw every third child in a fire to the cookie monster and it would just be something people do.
Is there any reference to the 66 book Canon in early Church history? As James White says...."I'll take just one!!"
No
@@extrasticc1165 Exactly
@@Coins1985 as you and I have discussed, you don’t see too many canon lists in the early church. However, as early as the mid-4th century, you have Athanasius of Alexandria enumerating all 27 books of the New Testament. In the context that he writes, he’s referring to it as if it’s been a known fact for a long time. In other words, he’s not writing as if it was a fairly new canon, but that it had been around for quite some time. And the 39 book old testament canon is enumerated as early as Origen of Alexandria in the early third century.
It is no coincidence that both of them are from Alexandria, which demonstrates that the 27 book New Testament Canon in all likelihood can be traced back to the third century as well, if not earlier. And the same 39 book old testament canon of Athanasius can be traced back as far as the second century, which references back to the first century.
The reason why we have to address the Old and New Testament canons separately, is because the old testament had been written before the first century, while the New Testament wasn’t. So, naturally you’re going to find completed old testament lists in the infant church, before you’re going to find a completed new testament list, since the latter was written much later.
But what you don’t find is an exact 73 book canon identical to the Catholic Bible until the 15th century, and even then it was rejected by later Catholics including cardinals in the Catholic Church. And it wasn’t even defined until the council of Trent in response to the protestant reformation. This means that Luthers smaller biblical canon that was identical to the canons of Origen and Athanasius existed before the officially defined catholic canon of the Council of Trent which was convened after Luther died.
@@BornAgainRN You realize though that Athanasius still refers to the deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture?
@@Coins1985 that is not the point of his list.
25:10
In my opinion Dr. White’s debate with Trent on the perseverance of the saints was one of his toughest. I would almost go as far to say Trent won that one. Would love to see a rematch
It was very close. I thought the second cross examination was going to James initially but then Trent turned the tables. I’m on James’ side but I’m tempted to say Trent squeaked by in a very good debate.
Pfftt. If you don’t trust Christ, I totally see the appeal. White’s mannerisms and attitude put me off, but there’s no defense of Roman doctrines. They’re evolving tho, so I’ll wait.
@@deadalivemaniac Me and my Catholic spouse just watched an old debate on whether Mary had other children that White did w/ Mr. Matatics. While Matatics pulled a lot of tricks out his RCC hat, Neil had to admit that White was a better debater for that one. He was disturbed by some of the facts that White pulled up, but still stayed convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary. He was shaken in his convictions though and has been convinced lately to the sola sciptura side. We've been watching a lot on church history and I'm trying to find content from every angle to get a fair overall assessment. That has really changed his mind on the claims of Rome. He also didn't know about crazy stuff like Treasury of Merit and is now uncomfortable w/ praying to Mary, saints and angels. The Marion dogmas run deep and are so dear and emotional to them. I've shared how I can't believe them and why, w/out pushing him in any way not to believe them himself. I not only don't want to cause discord, I don't want to be the crusher of dearly held beliefs. If he lets go of those beliefs, it needs to be w/ the leading of the Holy Spirit.
I'd like to find this debate w/ Trent Horn you mention. I found one on a Catholic channel, where comments are always open and it was a big victory dance of defeat against White. Which one would expect on a Catholic channel. Though I did see the odd muslim or protestant weighing in to say it wasn't White's best debate and I do know Trent can be pretty good.
Perseverance of the saints is not a useful doctrine
I cannot tell you who is a genuine Christian or not and thus I cannot guess their salvific status. For this reason it can appear that someone lost their faith when in fact they weren’t Christian to begin with except I couldn’t tell you that at the time.
WHAT *clap* SO *clap* EVER!
White do you think Trent is saved?
Can I ask you why you wouldn't think a Catholic is saved? What do you believe salvation is and how is it defined?
@@ratatoskr9366 A Catholic can actually be saved of course. I do think Trent probably is because the basis of salvation isn’t the Eucharist or any kind of holy communion of any kind but simply believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Repent and believe which basically means to change your mind, about sin, about God, about salvation itself and put your trust in Christ. I think there’s more saved than most people lead on. I think what really confuses me sometimes is whether or not MarryOlogy is a damn about heresy or not. Things not example scripturally but are a part of church tradition today. I think they can coexist so long as the heart is fixated on Christ is there complete and full savior. Some Catholics do believe that Marry is salvific. That is incorrect and nowhere listed in scripture. But yeah you know I don’t know. Three months ago I was digging into that a whole lot and trying to figure out the nuances of it. My wife is Catholic and her whole family is Catholic and we’re raising our girls Catholic and Baptist. We’re going to teach our daughters Christ first and everything else after that is secondary
@@ratatoskr9366 I have become recently a huge fan of the Catholic Church before 1215. In fact I think the Catholic Church before 1215 what is the exact church that originated from the Hebrew church in Jerusalem in the first century. I can’t get enough of Augustines writing. He is a genius and his backstory of conversion is so identifiable. I mean I came from sexual sin of an obsessive nature and so did he and just reading his thoughts on scripture and how high he holds scripture above tradition is amazing
@@ratatoskr9366 Sorry I think I forgot to answer the last part of your question. Salvation simply according to Jesus and the apostles is to believe in Jesus. It’s outlined in John chapter 6 about three times. John chapter 3 and John chapter 4 with the woman at the well. And of course Paul outlines it hundreds of times in Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, but it’s essentially two steps that belong together but it’s not necessarily a ritual or prayer or anything like that. A lot of people think that salvation is a transaction from something called a sinners prayer. No doubt sometimes that does work but it can’t come from the idea that the prayer does anything. Salvation is given when you believe in Christ. But in order to believe in Christ you must see that your sin is wrong. Jesus once said and mark that you must repent and believe. Repent often times also gets a sort of translational hatchet job where people think it’s turning from sin where are you don’t sin anymore. That’s certainly the goal of the true believer but repentance is a realization. It’s a change in the nature within. The best way to describe it is realizing that God is real. For me repentance was my mind changing first to believe in Jesus and then repentance as a believer has been a process of turning from sin as I’m guided by the new nature given from the Holy Spirit. So as a believer I am on a path guided by God in belief in the son.
Salvation is not something that must be sustained by my own fleshly actions through participation in the Eucharist but the strength in salvation by means of salvation and growth as a believer or someone who is saved is strengthened by some of those actions. For instance I don’t believe the physical form of Jesus is present in the Eucharist but the Eucharist in the original sense of the last supper is intrinsically important to the faith. Wear some things that it wipes away sins in fact it’s actually somewhat the other way around. Participating in communion of the representation of Christ in the Eucharist by means of remembrance is a process by which we come to it in a state of forgiveness already. I’m actually in full agreements that communion should be a frequent participating act. The Catholic Church actually didn’t do communion once a week for most of its existence. That only started in the 1500s. Before then it was annually. I believe constant prayer and having the mind set on Christ even in a default state is intricate and very important. “Our father“ is a fantastic prayer if the praying party is fixated on Christ rather than the prayer but uses the prayer as a starting point for communication.
We have to remember that Matthew 6:7 was a template for prayer not a commandment to repeat that prayer. There’s nothing wrong with repeating that prayer but as I said it must come from the heart the actions and will of the believer. For instance any Catholic participating in the Eucharist, as long as their heart comes to the Eucharist in a forgiven state I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. But anyone who believes that Christ is physically represented again is in grave error according to Hebrews 9. Is that dimmable? I think it is because they’re ignoring the one time sacrifice of Christ on the cross and what it represents. Historically even in the Torah the forgiveness of sins required blood every time. We cannot re-sacrifice Christ in an imaginary ritual without real blood otherwise the sacrifice means nothing. That’s why the one time sacrifice 2000 years ago covers all of our sins past present and future for all the time for those that believe in the son.
Remember the conversation between Jesus and the woman/Samarian woman at the well. Sumerians were shunned from Israel and not given access to the temple to pray. But Jesus says to her that the time has come in as even now that you will not worship in a temple or mountain but in spirit and truth. Because God is spirit there is no need to be in a localized location as they used to do in the days of Moses. Congregating groups for the church is commanded by scripture but it is not required for salvation. Salvation is a personal relationship between us and Jesus or rather God through Jesus. We all have heard those terrifying words in scripture “depart from me for I never knew you“. Sometimes people use that particular scripture to browbeat people into submission of scripture without really understanding context. If you really pay attention to that scripture, is knowing God and if you read all John six eludes quite cleverly to an idea of knowing Christ through his teachings. We achieve salvation by choosing Christ. Salvation is not given by consuming the represented transubstantiated idea of Christ. No John six does say that eating his flesh and blood is life but it’s not life in the sense of eternal life but life in the sense of life on earth and his flesh and blood he’s not literal but metaphorical meaning his teachings. He is the bread of life. It means what he represents and what he’s bringing to earth is salvation and salvation is the bread of life. He uses eating is a metaphorical term for consuming mentally. I mean I use this argument all the time with atheist because they often like to rag on people back to them being primitive and then when I show them this passage they’re kind of stepping back like what the hell lol. Jesus knew the primitive mind back then needed help transitioning from literal to figurative. It’s the same thing with Matthew 5:29. He’s not saying cut off your limbs and gouge out your eyes. He says it but he means it metaphorically in terms of the extreme approach to guarding against sin.
@@bobbyrice2858 Catholics believe salvation is through Christ alone. If you've been told different then you've been lied to or told by someone who does not understand Catholic doctrine.
The Church understands that we are all sinners in need of a savior (Rom 5:12-21). We are inheritors of original sin and all its consequences, and by actual sin we distance ourselves from God. We can’t save ourselves, but we don’t need to: Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through Jesus alone (Acts 4:12), since he is the “one mediator between God and man” (1 Tm 2:5-6).
The saving grace won by Jesus is offered as a free gift to us, accessible through repentance, faith, and baptism. We turn away from our sins, we are sorry for them, and we believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel. Repentance shows our willingness to turn from things that keep us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace necessary to have faith and to live it. This belief is more than just “head knowledge.” Even the demons have that (Jas 2:19). It’s more than just believing you’re saved. Even the Pharisees had that (Jn 5:39). True, saving faith is one lived and exhibited daily: It is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26).
Sometimes the Church is accused of teaching “salvation by works,” but this is an empty accusation. This idea has been consistently condemned by the Church. Good works are required by God because he requires obedience to his commands (Mt 6:1-21, 1 Cor 3:8, 13-15) and promises to reward us with eternal life if we obey (Mt 25:34-40, Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10, Jas 1:12). But even our obedience is impossible without God’s grace; even our good works are God’s gift (Rom 5:5, Phil 2:13). This is the real biblical plan of salvation.
So comparing the immaculate conception to the Trinity, Both of which have very minor scriptural attestation, Is wrong because the immaculate conception can't be read in any meaningful way into scripture.
Yet at the same time, James literally goes back into church history and make the Bible and Church History squeal in an attempt to try to get both parties ro teach justification by faith alone when they clearly never taught it.
By his own standards and definitions he is literally calling the kettle black. The cognitive dissonance is unreal.
Find me one scripture where it states Mary’s conception
@@geckoniner5625
I can't. Find me one scripture that states God exists in a Trinity.
@@thepalegalilean Establishing Christ Deity John 1-3, recognizing distinction luke 23:24, establishing the Holy Ghost/Spirit Acts 2:38, Mathew 3:11, Romans 8:26.
@@geckoniner5625
Nobody doubts Jesus' divinity. It's the deity of the holy spirit that has no scriptural attestation.
Even the scriptures you provide do not say it.
Now you might be able to get a divine implication based on scriptures but nothing truly explicit like you get with Christ.
So using sola scriptura as a criteria, There's no reason to think the Holy Spirit is meant to be deity.
@@thepalegalilean I just gave a handful of verses proving its deity. Lat scripture is Joel 2:28, establishing the Holy Spirit as Deity.
Imagine thinking that if something is infallibly proclaimed by the Church, it has to have the same amount of evidence as anything else infallibly proclaimed by the Church. This is pathetic scholarship. 3 minutes in and I can't finish this, it's so poor.
What is infallibly proclaimed?
Well Markle you are watching this with the expectation that James has something between his ears. Except the only thing that is there is heresy hot air and vacancy.
You mean any evidence?
@@thepalegalilean poor baby is mad 😡
@Glaurung89
Uh, no. It's just that James boy is quite uneducated when it comes to issues between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Its mentioned a lot on Catholic Answers because protestantism has ejected so much of the traditions. No one in the early centuries decided, "Hey, lets do the Bible alone and eject everything else" because such an idea before or shortly after the creation of the Bible is ludicrous.
James goes on to say that he doesn't need support from early church fathers, he can use the Bible alone. Okay, lets try that, but if alternate interpretations are plausible then we have to have a decider - who better then the original interpreters: the early church fathers. Infant baptism is plausible, early church fathers almost unanimously believe in infant baptism, therefore James should support infant baptism.
@Pedro Lourenço Do you believe in infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, real presence in the Eucharist, confession before communion, and church authority as was unanimous in the early centuries?
@Pedro Lourenço What kind of real presence do you believe in? Transubstantiation is the furthest you can take real presence and I see no hints of backing off this strict position for at least a thousand years.
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Ignatius
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1, A.D. 110
That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend his body and blood, which he poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins.
Augustine
Sermons 227
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.
Augustine
Sermons 234:2
What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ.
Augustine
Sermons 272
How this [“And he was carried in his own hands”] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands, when referring to his own body, he said: “This is my body.” For he carried that body in his hands.
Augustine
Psalms 33:1:10
Was not Christ immolated only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated.
Augustine
Letters 98:9
Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.
Augustine
City of God 10:20
By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.
Augustine
Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57
Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church.
Augustine
Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110
But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the fathers that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.
Augustine
Sermons 172:2
...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no ones eats that flesh unless first he adores it; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.
Augustine
Psalms 98:9
@Pedro Lourenço On confession:
But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions ...
The Didache
James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is very powerful in its effect.
John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
Do me a favor and read John 6. Even the apostles were like "This is a hard teaching." Jesus tripled down and did not back off even to the detriment of many followers leaving him.