That is what helped me to become Catholic. I have never, not once in my entire life, had to defend myself against a Catholic as a Protestant, but as soon as I said I wanted to become Catholic, oh wow, fireworks! It has never stopped.
@@2196logan probably because it's so clearly shown in Scripture, that people think you've lost your mind. few things are as clear as how evil catholicism is.
lol. Yes , we take shots from Atheists from Protestants from Muslims. That’s one of the things that led me to the Catholic Church. Protestant Pope John MacArthur said Catholics were not Christians he said to study early church history. I took his seminar on the history of the Bible - quoting early Christian. I thought that was great so I looked them early Christian’s up. I read about Saint Ignatius of Antioch- bishop of Antioch 😮 wow. I am the heretic he talked about.
@@2196logan I don't defend, I'll say the truth on Catholic teaching and in the same breath tell the Protestant to ""F" off, you don't represent someone I want to socialize much less eat at the same table with, I'll be praying for your conversion." Then go about my business. Do unto others as they do unto you.
Great comment. I think that this is something the Church shares in common with Jesus. He was hated by many on the basis of lies and distortions. There are 'four marks' of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic) but this incessant lying about the Church is really another 'mark' of the truth that She is the Bride of Christ. They hate and lie about Her as much as they did about Him.
One of the issues that annoyed me when I was part of the evangelical Protestant church is they targeted weak people from mainline christian churches, mostly Catholic because let’s be honest, most Catholics are not properly catechized because they are more culturally catholic than practicing Catholics. I soon realized strong and biblically educated Protestants eventually become Catholic and weak biblically uneducated Catholics become Protestant. I’m thankful for my 10 + years in the Protestant community, it made me stronger as a Christian, strong enough to dig deep and search for truth which led me back to the one True Church that Jesus left us.
@@nicklippa6969 “Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”” Romans 3:4 So all the traditions and non biblical teachings and beliefs of Catholicism are lies… Plus only God’s word is true….
The issue that annoyed me was they wouldn’t quit, indeed whoever was speaking could not help themselves from telling us “Catholics believe” or “the Catholic Church teaches”. WOW, thou shalt not bear false witness. And that’s what 99% of it was and whether it was intentional or ignorance really doesn’t matter. I put my faith in Christ and His Church.
It’s laughable because protestantism itself is a heresy. Only Catholicism and Orthodoxy have apostolic succession and a claim to the beginning if you’re not one of these two then it’s Protestant nonsense.
@ Thanks, very kind of you Sir. My trip to the Catholic church is long and winding. Baptized as a baby into secular family I encounted God speaking to my heart in 1999/2000. Lived hedonistically for many years, ventured into or tried the Baptist church, SDA, evangelical, Word of faith, a clergy-free church, Reformed, Eastern Orthodoxy for many years. Visited Mt Athos twice, Kyivan caves, monasteries in Greece, Valaam, Meteora and now Lourdes. Realized that EO is regional, national and ethnic. A union of national churches and not an entity as Orthodox apologists pretend. I have found no objective evidence for the often stated claim that 'Eastern Orthodoxy (as it operates today) is the Church Jesus founded'. That claim is untenable. Orthodox books are often omitting stuff about the ancient church when it concerns Rome's role and they are really gaslighting. EO zealots are also very much disturbingly anti-Western and that not in a constructive way. It's very hard to debate an Eastern Orthodox because they are fiercely convinced from the get-got that Catholicism is wrong. They are not so united as they like to show us. There's also an embarassing anti-intellectualism in certain circles and a overly focus on all things monastic which I think is unhealthy. Sure, the Divine Liturgies are reverent and magnificent but honestly, I find absolutely nothing wrong with the modern Latin rite if served reverently. As I said, I have been to Athos. Most EO parishes here cater to their respective ethnic group and are very insular. Besides, this is the West and we must fight for our own and not throw it away wholesale. This is my country but most Eastern Orthodox here do not serve in the language of the land despite being here for a generation. The Catholic church has one bishop, a cardinal actually. The EO has many bishops over the same land area, overlapping jurisdictions all serving largely their own ethnic group. How can my family grow in the faith if they don't understand what is said or sung. American EO converts know next to nothing and has seemingly little knowledge and empathy about us Europe converts who are not originally from Orthodox territories. I am Swedish, EO since 2017.
@@brenttnerves1443 Thank you. That's also a big difference between EO and Catholics online, you are to an overwhelming degree much more cordial, polite and caring. You don't play the blame game.
The Catholic Church Fathers determined what was Divinely inspired to be Sacred Scripture. Therefore, only the Catholic Church has authority to interpret Sacred Scripture. Christ gave us a Catholic Church, that subsequently gave us the Holy Bible.
When I was serving in Afghanistan back in ‘02, there was a moment when the female soldiers were speaking to some of the local female patients. They were trying to convince the women that they didn’t have to wear a burka or be subject to their husbands. I recall distinctly laughing to myself at the level of ignorance they were suffering from. These afghan women looked at these soldiers as infidels. Their advice was about as useful as a fart in a hailstorm. So it is when trying to talk to a headstrong Protestant. Some of them don’t even consider Catholics Christians. It is almost as fruitful as beating your head against a wall. It is only fruitful if the Holy Spirit has softened their heart. As we read in the scriptures on the road to Emmaus, then He opened up their minds to understand the scriptures. They had been with Christ much of His ministry. They had been close to Him but didn’t recognize Him or understand the connections made from the Tenakh. Once they sever themselves from the Pilar and bulwark of Truth, they twist the scriptures to their own destruction. Please pray for their salvation and for our unity. Divided we are less effective in spreading the gospel. Our world needs to know the Truth.
May God bless you and your family, my brother in Christ. Please receive my brotherly affection from Canterbury. I too face severe accusations by those in the radical reformer tradition who call us heretics and false believers.
"Solas Scriptura" does not give us the 'oral' teaching the apostles handed down. For this we have to read the early church fathers, the pre-Nicene writings.
@@LukeFerguson0 awww you went from *they’re wrong* to *they wrong but they agree with me* No they didn’t. Not a single Church father believes scripture is the only authority God gave us. You may find references where they find scripture as an authority but everytime they will refer to the Church and tradition as also being authorities. You should actually read the Church Fathers instead of watching Gavin Ortlund’s revisionist view of them.
The Sacred Scripture is not the pillar and bulwark of truth. As St. Paul said, "If I am not to delay, you may know ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. 1st Timothy 3:15. Divine Revelation cannot be solely on Sacred Scripture alone. It has to be Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him). Besides, St. Peter himself, the Bible is not meant for private interpretation which can lead to erroneous doctrine.
@@andreeattieh2963 thats not what I asked. Catholics, like politicians, can never give a straight answer. The art of lying. BTW 70% of the bible is old testament, torah and tanach, nothing to do with catholics, apart from some grevious alterations. The new testament, is, lets say, claimed to be compiled by catholic councils. Again, sith many added verses and passages. We may never know what they didnt include. We have some insight with Marcion, who took it upon himself to be the arbiter of many manuscripts tho, and threw out, at his discretion, what he deemed non scripture. The catholic church has done the same. Yet even still, with the NT as we have it, is ample scripture enough to compare what is catholicism and the chasm of difference between Christianity as preached by Jesus and the Apostles.
Romans 3:23 Mary was born under the bloodline of Adam . Hence she inherited original sin . Try not to think of Mary as being some piece of trash because she had a sin nature . That is not what the sin nature produced and Mary the mother of Jesus was a woman born with a sin nature in need of a savior. Absolutely no reason to have Mary born without sin.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072your talking absolute nonsense. The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and they spoke. Why don’t protestant’s say this was wrong? If Mary can speak to an angel so can I. Also the reason we know it was the Archangel Gabriel is because a demon would never appear to Mary knowing full well her Immaculate Conception! So in your arrogance you know better than the two thousand year old holy Catholic Church. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was infallibly defined by his Holiness pope St Pius IX in 1854. Read about Lourdes my friend. Also protestant’s are NOT Christian and protestant”baptism”is INVALID because there’s ONLY ONE CHURCH the holy Catholic Church.
@@simonslater9024 Easy brother, Protestant baptism is good as long as it is done under the name of the father son and Holy Spirit. Jude 1:24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy We can also argue for Mary under Matthew 7:15-23 True and False Prophets 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. That hits all angels first. The fruit of Mary’s womb is Jesus, giving good fruit Second test their fruit? What has sola scriptura done, but create division in the body of Christ. I do it to and get upset- see you at the confession line brother. Love you
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 Excuse me, You underestimate the power of God who can prevent anyone of us from ever committing a sin. Mary was sinless her entire life as Jesus was without sin. You did not answer the question and I don't acknowledge Protestant relativistic teaching and weak philosophy having 30+ different denominations each with their own interpretation of Scripture. Only Protestants produce pastors like Jim Jones and the People's Temple and David Koresh of the Branch Davidians. Cults, Cults, Cults.
Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 1. The implication of Luke 1:28 is that if she is already full of grace then she can't also be a sinner. 2. The Early Church viewed Mary as the new Tabernacle. Uzzah was killed for touching the Tabernacle and David danced before it and john leapt at Mary's greetings. 3. The Early Church reconciled that yes Mary did need to be saved and yes she was by the cross but the grace of the cross and salvation was given to her at conception making her pre-saved and why the angel could say full of grace. 4. Rev 12:1 is Mary.
@@shanahendricks9831 using catholic logic would lock anybody up. Ohh he forgave sins, therefore he is GOD. Hmm but the apostles forgave sins?. Ohh they were given that authority by Jesus so they arent God. But Jesus was given that authority by GOD? silence......
Apostolic succession... Romans 10:15--"And how can men preach unless they are sent?" The Father sent the Son; the Son sent the Apostles (guided by the Holy Spirit). Who did the Apostles send? Who did they send? So on, and so forth. Apostolic succession can only be false if St. Paul in his written letters (Scripture) is wrong.
One had to be witness of Jesus resurrection to be an apostle. The rest were called elders. Paul claims his " apostleship" because of a vision and a voice. Jesus says certain traits would follow an apostles. Miracles of healing, stepping on serpents, drinking poison etc... Would any of your priests like to be put to the test?
@@astutik8909 So, are you saying the Jesus's divine authority was extinguished at the death of the last Apostle? If that's the case, who would have the divine authority to determine what belongs in Scripture? Additionally, if there is no divine authority remaining on earth, then the world is in chaos (and Sacred Scripture cannot organize it alone; too many interpretations). If the world is in chaos, despite Christ establishing his Church, then the Church Christ founded failed. If that's the true conclusion, I would not become protestant, but agnostic.
@defendusinbattle907 it is true. Read Acts 1 v 22 and the whole account surrounding it. Verse 26, they cast lots to determine out of the ones who were witness. Then after that, they appointed elders. Acts 14 v 23. Read all of Acts. It doesnt take long at all. The world is not in complete chaos because most western countries laws are founded on the 10 commandments, tho sadly, theyre being eroded with every passing generation. The main theme of our life is basically summarised by 2 commandments of God. 1, love the LORD thy GOD with all our heart mind and soul, 2, and love thy neighbour as thy self.
@@astutik8909 The main theme is to worship God. How to do this was instructed in the accounts of the Last Supper, the only time that Jesus mentions the New Covenant. "Do this in remembrance," should remind you of "Remember the sabbath." It's the form of worship that is demanded upon us. Remember how in John 6 all of those followers that walked away because they refused to believe that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life? Jesus did not correct them. He doubled down. Now, the first aspect you state (loving God) is shown through the worship of him. Only the Catholic Church (and a few schismatic faiths...that's another discussion) follows the command on how to worship. Think of why the Israelites were to leave Egypt; it was to go worship. "Let my people go!!!"
Ignoring the Church's Authority and oral tradition, while pointing to the Bible alone is just as nonsense as having your original Toyota manual in the glovebox and ignoring all further announcements, recalls, etc. from the Car Manufacturer saying: "The original manual is enough for me! Do not talk to me, or contact me ever again!" You cannot deny the right of the car company to communicate with their customers anytime they feel necessary, even long time after buying their products. Same with the Church. The Bible is just the original "Manual".
Doctrines and "infallible statements" have never "contradicted" each other. As doctrines are examined more thoroughly over the centuries, the church comes to understand them more deeply, but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
Those that argue against Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium must understand that non-believers use the same argument against Sacred Scripture. If Tradition and Magisterium can be negated then so can Scripture. Sola Scriptura makes about as much sense to me as Caffeine-Free Mountain Dew.
Darkness hates Light. Untruth of any degree, including that of the Protestants, will always be aggressively anti-Catholic because True Authentic Catholicism is 100% Absolute Truth. Welcome to God-Jesus' Army!! The going can sometimes be awful but the reward is the Awesome One himself!!
I am protestant. I listen because spiritually, I am eclectic and hear the Father's voice in many different arenas. Divisiveness is ungodly. Be who you are, and believe what the Spirit urges. What others think of me is none of my concern. God bless you for your good work here.
The serpent was the first protestant..lying and planting the seeds of doubt in Adam and Eve's hearts. Thanks so much Cameron for defending the truth of Catholicism !!
A Seventh-day Adventist startled me when we discussed soul sleep. I quoted St. Justin Martyr's second-century First Apology to show that Justin believed our souls would stay awake after we died. The Adventist replied, "That doesn't matter. We have the Bible." St. Justin lived soon after Christ died. So, he probably talked with some people who spoke with Our Lord. Who's more likely to be right about souls, Justin or the Adventist? Dr. William Lane Craig says he believes in two condemned heresies: Monothelitism and Apollinarianism. Monothelites believe Christ's divine will is his only will. But the Catholic Church teaches that a human nature includes a human body, a human intellect, and a human will. Apollinarians think God the Son acted as Our Lord's soul. Dr. Craig doubts he should agree with the council or councils that condemned those. That's because he takes doctrines to the "bar of Scripture." Would he tell us that the council(s) ignored the Bible when they rejected those heresies? Craig is a brilliant, honest, sincere, and humble scholar who unknowingly falsifies sola scriptura.
It’s true that there isn’t an infallible list of all of the infallible statements of the Catholic Church, however; there is the “Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals” by: Heinrich Denzinger. This book as far as I can tell has every infallible statement of the Church from the time of the Apostles through 2008 with Dignitas personae (at least in its 43rd edition published in 2012). This book is an invaluable resource for the study of Church doctrine.
I've encountered this infallible list argument and it such a cop out since 'lists' do not legimitize what has been rendered legitimate. It is therefore redundant and an ad hoc standard that no one recognizes
@@renomtv I completely agree with you, but I think there is some value in knowing which doctrines, statements, etc. are infallible. It can be helpful for apologetics and for one’s self study. The plethora of Catholic writings and statements can be overwhelming, especially for someone that wasn’t raised Catholic or raised as an educated Catholic. I know for me when I was looking into the Catholic faith, I didn’t know where to start or how to discern what is an infallible statement or not.
@kisstune It's usually a redneck, and usually a Baptist. There are some branches of protestants who don't really talk about other denominations at all.
Acts 15:12 The crowd fell silent when Sts Barnabas and Paul started speaking... "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them: St. John Chrysostom in speaking on the nature of St. Paul's care for the Churches. "His soul too was distracted, and his thoughts divided. For even if nothing from without had assailed him; yet the war within was enough, those waves on waves, that sleet of cares, that war of thoughts." " though it is difficult enough for one to look after a single house, St. Paul had "the care not of a single house, but of cities and peoples and nations and of the whole world" (Homily 12). If St. Paul was given such care of all the Churches, then primacy in the Church would logically belong, not to St. Peter, but to St. Paul and, by implication, to his successors. However, St. Paul was not speaking of an institutional prerogative, but of a burden imposed on him by the nature of his ministry. St. Theophylact of Ochrid explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew that the words, "I will give unto thee,""...were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles," since Christ also said, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." (St. John 20:23.) The translator of his homily points out the verb "remit" is in the second person plural, and therefore refers to all of the Apostles. As for Matthew 16:18, St. Theophylact, along with St. John Chrysostom and the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Fathers, interprets the words "this rock" to denote St. Peters confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, and not his person. Any other interpretation would violate the Christocentric nature of the Church and the Scriptural affirmation that "Christ is the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23) and the "head of the Body" (Colossians 1:18) You mentioned St Augustine, but there are clear disagreements even among the Fathers as to why many do not agree with the supremacy of the Roman See.
The statement, "There is no infallible list of infallible teachings undermines sola scriptura." If there is no infallible list of infallible books, how do we know which ones are infallible and therefore, how can you trust the infallibility of scripture? Great video, Cameron. God bless you.
We don't actually need an infallible list of infallible books, or of infallible doctrine. All we need is that what we have be sufficient for the salvation of souls. And it seems based on my experience that while scripture contains everything we need to be saved, we also need some to tell us no when we start blinding ourselves to truth.
The believers in the old testament had no problem trusting scripture without an infallible interpreter or infallible list of books. Why should we suddenly have a problem trusting them? Secondly, there was no "infallible" list of books until the Council of Trent in the 1500s. The councils in the 4th century were NOT infallible, they were local councils. How were Christians able to function all that time if they didn't have an infallible list of books?
@mikekukovec4386 oh yes they did! Have you even read the old testament? They could barely go a single generation without a prophet to guide them. And yes, prophets have the charism of infallibility which operating in their official capacity. The intertestamental period was a bit better, but during that time they violated the scriptures quite a bit.
@mikekukovec4386 to the second one, I don't think you quite understand the "list of books" issue. We as Catholics believe that the tradition of the church has provided us an accurate and trustworthy collection of books. Protestants decided to throw a bunch out and clip a couple of the remaining ones down. This is something that cannot be done without some sort of authority. Which you can never seem to produce to justify what you did. The council of Trent didn't invent the list, but merely condemned deviation from the list tradition had already provided. You not only claim the authority to change this list, you are exercising that authority over what you claim to be your sole authority. A paradox. Truly, if scripture were your authority you wouldn't dare to caste aside a single letter. Yet you threw entire books out, than claim to only do as scripture commands. Obviously this isn't a personal accusation of hipocricy. I'm sure you've never even thought of this obvious contradiction. But your religion contains this contradiction at it's heart. That it both claims the authority to reject a book as scripture, and also claims to submit to no authority except scripture. An impossible controdiction. The "no infallible list of infallible books" is merely a low IQ attempt to illustrate this contradiction. It's not something you can try and turn back on us, because our structure of authority is living and can actually answer questions, or tell us no when we get something wrong.
@@marvalice3455 both old testament canons were part of traditions. Protestants didn't just "throw them out", and Roman Catholics didn't "add them in". They both appealed to different traditions. Luther appealed to the tradition that the deuterocanonical books were just that, a second canon. Useful for edification but not inspired, "second tier scripture" if you will. Rome just removed that category all together. Sola Scriptura doesn't claim the Bible to be the sole authority. It claims the Bible to be the sole INFALLIBLE authority. Your church still absolutely has real authority over you, just like parents have authority over a child. Parents can be wrong, and that doesn't make their authority any less real. To your "impossible contradiction", why do you assume I've never heard this argument before? This isn't a new thing, it's like day 1 Roman Catholic apologetic stuff. We didn't throw anything out. We also don't claim to be the authority on which books belong in the canon. The church has the responsibility to discern the canon, and the church contains other people than just the Romans. It would be like saying Congress has the responsibility to make laws, and then a handful of congressmen claiming it's actually only their laws that matter. You're part of the church, you're not THE church. I really like talking with people who call my tradition an obvious contradiction and say I have a low IQ. Pretty sure that's what Jesus wanted.
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" and "I of Cephas" and "I of Christ " . Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:12-13
4:06 “no infallible list of infallible statements”..prod owns himself spectactularly..all together catholics, “there’s no infallible list of infallible books”, there are 73 books canonised by the church
I think this is actually supposed to be a response to the "if Sola scriptura is true how do you know which books are true?" Polemic. This is a common issue with inexperienced debaters. They try to spring a trap for an argument which is not at play,and by doing so commit to a position which is very problematic for them in the long run.
@marvalice3455 you got nothing but proddy pomposity..the church canonised the traditional books in 382..1150 years later prods took out 7 to copy the talmudists..so, give me the 67 prooftexts that tell me the kjv contains only and all scripture..or stay in sunday school where the 10 yo are impressed w your vainglory
@@marvalice3455your unfounded bumptiousness may awe your 9 yo sunday schoolers, but you're just another cathedral-stealing usurers' minion to me - don't wait for the long-term! give me the 66 prooftexts that prove your kjv is all scripture and the 67th that proves it is the only scripture
@marvalice3445 your unfounded bumptiousness may cow your 9 yo sunday school, but you’re just another cathedral-stealing usurers’ toady to me..what long-term? give me the 66 prooftexts for the kjv now, and the 67th that proves nothing else is!
@@marvalice3455your unfounded bumptiousness may awe your 9 yo sunday schoolers, but to me you're just a usurers' minion, following a priapic german heretic to hell..skip the long-term and give me the 66 prooftexts for the kjv as all scripture..and the 67th prooftext that it is only scripture
So tell them what they want to hear even when it contradicts your principals, than get state sponsorship which you secure by promising the government control over the local churchs? Nah. I think I'll pass on that.
Pope Benedict XVI says that Catholics should be delighted whenever non-Catholics do what is good or embrace what is true. The pope was reflecting on a passage from the Gospel of Mark, in which “a man who was not among the followers of Jesus had cast out demons in his name” and “the Apostle John, young and zealous, wants to stop him, but Jesus will not allow him.” Pope Benedict said: “Members of the Church should not feel jealousy, but should rejoice if someone from outside the community does good in the name of Christ...” The pope quoted St. Augustine, 4-5th century saint: “Just as one can find that which is not Catholic in the Catholic Church, one can also find something that may be Catholic outside of the Catholic Church.” This, the Pope said, is what Jesus wishes to explain to his disciples, that “good and even miraculous things” can happen outside their circle when others “cooperate with the Kingdom of God” even in small gestures such as “offering a simple glass of water to a missionary.” “The tendency toward jealousy can exist within the Church when Catholics resent holiness and goodness being attained by non-Catholics. Instead we should all be able to always appreciate and respect each other, praising the Lord when he acts in the Church and in the world.”
You don't need an _infallible_ list of infallible statements. You only need to know _Dogma_ dogma requires private interpretation like an engineer requires private interpretation of blueprints.
Yeah Protestant don’t read the scriptures.. apostolic succession is ingrained in the scriptures.. Just ask him when the last time some one laid hands on his Paster for the office of teaching.
The truth is that protestants can't even agree amongst themselves which of their MANY heresies are the ones they agree with this week. As they say "The creed of innovators is never fixed..." The 40,000+ churches alone should be the clue for them, but as it says in Hebrews 8:10-13 [Douay-Rheims] 10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: ****I will give my laws into their mind, and I will write them in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:**** 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them: 12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. 13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.
@paulcapaccio9905 now you lost me completely, the BIRGIN MARY is no longer a virgin so who exactly is saddened? Also how would you know lol please pray for yourself so that God may reveal to you the error of your ways.
Could you give one example of anybody in the scriotures praying to Mary??? Given catholics claim it was a tradition. Surely any tradition would have been recorded. Anything not recorded, could only mean it was not important.
@@astutik8909 What does pray mean? It means to ask, or request. Was it not requested of her to bear the Son of God? Her reply was, "Let it be done according to thy word." In that statement, she interceded for the entire world. After all, what if she said, "No"??? One might even say that through the angel Gabriel, God the Father prayed to Mary; after all, to bear the Son of God was not a demand, but a request. If you really want an example, compare Luke 1 with 2 Samual 6. What is St. Luke trying to tell us?
@@defendusinbattle907 why would you ask a dead Mary, when you can ask GOD? Are you afraid GOD wont hear you? Or even worse, asking an idol statue? That is the very definition of idolatry. BTW, Mary wasnt asked, she was told.
@@astutik8909 If Mary asks to God for me, it is worth more than a million of my prayers. Why? He selected her to be the Queen. Remember, in Jewish tradition, the King's first queen is his Mother, and since Jesus Christ is king, who is the queen? You may want to see how Solomon treated Bathsheba (she was his mother) compared to how David did (she was his wife). See in 1 Kings 2 how Adoni′jah addresses Bathsheba to ask Solomon a particular request. Notice intercession through the Queen Mother? Solomon stated to his mother, "Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” Yes, Solomon failed on that request, but Jesus is much more faithful than Solomon. After all, Jesus has ONE bride (his Church); Solomon had how many wives and concubines? I suspect that when the Bridegroom returns, he is coming for his Bride and not the several harlots.
@defendusinbattle907 Bathsheba was queen because David was king. When David died, she retained her title. Nowhere in the new testament is Mary called a queen, much less , queen of heaven. The pagan moon goddess was called queen of heaven, condemned in Jeremiah 7 v 18, and ch 19 v 13, Ch 44 verses 17 to 19. Your catholic hotcross buns are the cake offerings. The cross of course, is a pagan sun symbol, hence why the pagan roman sunworshippers used a cross to crucify Jesus. The same cross catholics revere. 🤔😚
They're not being mean, they are simply refuting your argument. If I were to make a claim and others explained to me why they disagreed I would not take it as them being mean or being haters. If you're going to take people debating with you the wrong way then you shouldn't be opening yourself up to debate. It's not productive and it's clearly not charitable.
Re: the guy taking exception with your definition of Sola Scriptura: 1. He posits yet another permutation of that indefensible dogma 2. In trying to make a gotcha, he actually states Catholic doctrine. Namely that Scripture is the best source of information and any proposed tradition that contradicts it gets tossed. So congrats on being Catholic bro. (I believe the Orthodox faiths have that same rule). 3. Ge REALLY dismantles his position making that lame telephone argument. All of ancient history was passed orally and only written down once it is possible/practical to do so. Every book of the Old Testament was not put to paper until YEARS after the people in it had passed. E.g. Moses didn't write a single line of Exodus. So if he thinks "telephone" is unreliable, then virtually the entire Bible in unreliable. Protestants trying not to argue like atheists to "own" Catholics challenge: impossible
Irenaeus said that Jesus was 50 years old when he died, which is why Protestants put a late date on the Book of Revelation. Unfortunately, most Roman Catholic Scholars listen to Protestant scholars and put a late date on when the Book of Revelation was written.....which leads to a futurist view of the "End Times" . Clearly Irenaeus got it wrong. To be fair, Irenaeus was not the Pope. On the other hand, We English Catholics trace our Apostolic Succession back to St. John.
They arent mean. They disagree with you. As I do with you when you said in Matt 16:18 and that Jesus renamed Peter. Matt 4:18 tells us Peter was already called Simon Peter. Apostles did not say descendants of apostles but those who actually knew Jesus. I was Catholic for 30 years. Left because of priest sexual scandals. Then found out all the non biblical teachings of Catholic Church. If it isnt in the Bible, it is not from God. Have a good day.
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain frivolous… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
playing the victim isn't what Jesus taught. he taught people to die for what they believed in. like how the Huguenots were willing to be martyred for their right to freely worship in 1572 by Catholics. or like in the Massacre of Naarden, where Catholics murdered 3000 protestants for their beliefs. Or like how about 3500 mostly protestants were killed by explosives and bullets during The Troubles from 1969 to 2001, again, the Catholics felt it necessary to murder people for their faith. there's a reason protestants are aggressive in their apologetics, it's because we don't want any more papist inspired violence against us in our own countries. relax, and embrace ecumenism. splitting hairs and starting fights over various doctrines is pointless. there are genuine moral calamities that are unfolding as we speak that protestants and Catholics need to fight together.
Jesus taught to pray to God directly through the name of Jesus Christ only. The Lord’s Prayer 9 In this manner, therefore, pray:Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.10 Your kingdom come.Your will be doneOn earth as it is in heaven.11 Give us this day our daily bread.12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.13 And do not lead us into temptation,But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. Matthew 6 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14 8 I am the Lord; that is My name. And My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images. Isaiah 42
I have only watched the first 2 comments and I stopped. I didn't find anything mean-spirited about them. Perhaps you should remove "mean" from your video title.... just a suggestion. Not all disagreements and debates should be considered mean. I have seen some "mean" Catholics comments on Protestants channels also. This occurs on both sides. (But I do admit, the blasphemy against the BVM makes me wince..) I just don't think calling people mean has any utility. Right now, we have Catholics who are mean to each other in social media. It is not uncommon for people to get overly emotionally about their beliefs. I just think it is more useful to stick with proper debate vs ad hominems attacks.
Nicea II regarding icon veneration theological u-turn, Capital Punishment u-turn, obvious heterodoxy of Pope Francis, CCC841 is erroneous... all major issues for a Church that claims infallibility. Cameron, have you interacted with Gavin Ortlund's argument on icon veneration, and what do you think about it?
Your first response, Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles. Paul was the only apostle to the Gentiles. I noticed when you see the word “church” you lose all sense of chronology and timeline Cameron. There was a biblical timeline in the first century you seem to not understanding.
again you uphold your present pope who believes all faiths speak to the one true God, but in different languages, so to speak. he also blesses same sex couples. what would peter say?
Responding to you responding to me: 7:50 "there needs to be a way of understanding the scriptures that is equally infallible" This is not true, and we can see it in the old testament. There was no infallible office to interpret the old testament, and YET, when Jesus comes down he is completely comfortable binding people to the scriptures. Shouldnt the people have complained? Jesus, how can you say we're disobeying scripture when theres no infallible office to interpret it for us? 8:18 "an infallible book that doesnt have a correct interpretation is not very useful" You've just claimed that the entire old testament until Jesus is not very useful. There was no infallible interpreter pre-Jesus
In the New Testament we have the Chair of Peter, in the Old Testament they had the Chair of Moses (Mt 23:2). Since Moses, there was never a time when the people of God lacked an authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures.
@CameronRiecker I completely agree with you. Protestants DO believe the church is responsible for interpreting scripture. It's just not INFALLIBLE. You claimed we NEED an infallible interpreter for the scriptures to be useful, I'm saying that's not true because it has never worked that way until recently
Wow. In under one minute you've already stated several falsehoods in order to justify your faith or, more accurately, to justify your criticisms of your brothers and sisters in Christ. That is impressive... though perhaps not in a good (or actually Christian) way.
Number 1. You failed, as you should because there is zero implication that he becomes an "infallible pope". What "st augustine" said is irrelevant. Number 2: there is no historical proof that Peter was even in Rome, ever! Number 3: all of these "early church fathers" and 'saints" are cherry picked by catholicism because they align with catholic dogma. Notice that Jesus and His Apostles are never referenced as early church fathers. Number 4: 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Number five: refer number four...no pope, no magisterium, simply the infallibility of God and His Holy Spirit. Number six: there isn't anyone in heaven except God, Jesus and the angels. That's scriptural. Mary worship is simply catholic dogma with zero scriptural support. Number seven: Catholics are right because catholics say so. It becomes clear why this guy is catholic. He is simply too lazy to search the scriptures and finds it easier to read and believe what his religion dictates! Number eight: refer number four. God sent His Holy Spirit down to earth to indwell us and teach us all things. Catholics (and protestants) rarely if ever get taught that! Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.
@@iggyantioch Thanks for the response. I assume that by only calling out number two, that you see merit in the other points I made. Great! Being asked to prove a negative is always a difficult task. Add to that the requirement to comply with what you consider to be someone of merit also makes it subjective. The best answer I can offer is that non-denominational historians and theologians cannot categorically state that Peter ever went to Rome. There is no clear evidence of Peter being in Rome within scripture It appears that the only people of "merit" that categorically state that Peter was in Rome are catholic/orthodox "scholars". What other answer would you expect from such scholars? From a worldly perspective, the best odds you could give on Peter being the first pope is 50/50 From a scriptural perspective, 50/50 is a fail!
tracing lineage back to the apostles to be credible: we have the apostles written word and people still make stuff up to gain advantage. there is no historical nor biblical evidence that peter started the church in rome. the jews who returned home to rome after pentecost, who believed the gospel and were saved, started christian churchs. paul wrote to them, having never been there. when he did arrive in 63 a.d. he was under house arrest and people came to him. paul never mentions peter in rome.
Cameron, while what you’re saying (especially in your last video) is biblically, spiritually, and historically true and correct, I would encourage you to meditate on 1 Cor. 13 (especially verses 1-5) and ask yourself this question: ‘Is my preaching from a position of love or of pride?’. Personally I grew up Protestant, but I’m slowly becoming more Catholic. One thing that held me back for a long time was the lack of love on the Catholic side. God Bless you and your ministry.
@@alexanderbrozel7284 That can go both ways. I have been told by protestants that I would go straight to hell cause I'm catholic. They have no problems telling me I come from a man made religion. I have been to protestant churches where inevitably they start to talk about catholics worshipping statues etc. Don't let people stop you from your journey. Just like I could be bitter at those I have encountered I know that they don't know better and have probably grown up in anti-catholic sentiments. Everyone will have to deal with their actions, thoughts and words come judgment time.
@@lillyCfields You're right, it can go both ways. I'm just thinking of the Jewish Religious Leaders that Jesus constantly clashed with. They were coming from a point of pride, which ultimately warped their message (and the message of God) into a legalistic rulebook, which made the jewish people miserable. We Christians could be on the brink of great reunification of the church, but that could be undone if we aren't careful with prioritizing love over pride. I'm not saying to stop preaching the truth, but Jesus did teach about the Wheat and the Weeds (don't be so eager to tear out weeds that you tear out good crops).
@@alexanderbrozel7284 Thank you for your response. I agree in that extremes aren't good, to lax or too uptight. There are so many problems in this life lol. I know your stranger but I pray that the Holy Spirit guides you in your journey wherever you may land.
In Acts, Peter declares the truth and then-“the whole assembly fell silent” in verse 12. The issue was settled. This speaks volumes. And notice as well: Peter says. “We believe…” Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ (Matthew 16:15-19).
@@clivejames5058 But that does not change the fact that James was in charge when the council met in Jerusalem. It was James who decided the problem. Peter agreed, He was not in charge.
@@clivejames5058 That is true but Peter never took charge until James had been martyred. Why I do not know. But James was in charge in Jerusalem at the Council of the Apostles.
@@bcalvert321 Sorry this is a bit long and I'm certainly not negating James's role but a few other points: 1) In Acts 1 we see Peter choosing the method of replacement for Matthias. We see Peter proclaiming the gospel (Acts 2) and leading the Church to the acceptance of the Gentiles (Acts 10-11). In Acts 15: 7-11, Peter is the one who speaks first and settles the substance of the debate. And in verse 14 James even recognises as much: “Simeon (or Peter) has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” If James had just as much authority over the group as Peter (or more), he would have been the one to take the initiative and settle the substance of the debate, not Peter. 2) James’s speech is a pastoral proposal, whereas Peter’s speech is a doctrinal declaration, which carries more weight. James’s speech also stands in contrast to Peter’s because unlike Peter, who stated what IS the case, James offers his ideas for consideration only. 3) Later on in history, the Emperor Justinian was the first to use (in AD 531) the title of "patriarch" to designate the 5 most important bishops in Christendom. They were the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The apostle James is traditionally considered to have been the first leader of the Jerusalem Church and as such he was indeed an early patriarch (before the word was officially used) but Rome was always listed first (as Peter is always listed first in Scripture - see Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1).Why? because the Bishop of Rome (another title of the Pope and his successors) was considered 'First among Equals'. And finally, in Luke 22:29-32, we find Jesus warning all the apostles that if they want to be protected from the attempts of the devil to divide and destroy them, they must remain in union with Peter. The idea of different (and sometimes competing) Christian denominations would have been unthinkable to the early Christians, especially in light of Christ’s pronouncement on one shepherd and one flock (John 10:15) and his prayer that his disciples remain one (John 17:22). Which is one of the many reasons why I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism 20+ years ago now. God Bless.
Apostolic succession is a hoax. Every time I mention this every Catholic points to John and Ignatius. A person who is in one verse of the Bible. What about the other 11. They did not just have one person that they taught, who they laid hands on, and who became pastors or Apostles. What I am getting at is the Catholic church has never known who passed on to whom. They chose themselves to be leaders of the Catholic church. Just a few in Rome while there were many churches and Apostles that had no recognition. The churches in the Book of Revelation were never Catholic. There were a lot of churches that were never Catholic.
@@CameronRiecker Why should I do that? The Apostles passed down what they knew to be true. By the time of 200 AD, a lot of the truth had been lost or changed.
@@bcalvert321 Nice sources. Very well researched. What an outstanding evaluation you did on the mythical body of Christ for the first 200 years hear in this comment section.
@@bcalvert321 actually the first thing mentioning the Church by Saint Ignatius in the first century while some of the apostles were still alive literally called the Church Catholic. Somebody hasn’t done their homework.
I didn't think my comment was mean. However acts 15 showed james being head of the 1st church in Jerusalem. 15:19 passing the final judgement. You also admitted i was correct that the bible doesnt claim peter has the head of all the churches. I doubt your claim to leave catholicism was genuine and I wouldn't ask you too. Maybe learn a lesson from jephthah on making promises you won't keep
"truth is not in the scriptures. truth is in our understanding of the scriptures". the scriptures are God's truth, our understanding is fallible. that's why we need to grow in the knowledge of jesus christ, the way, the truth, the life. "truth is not in the scriptures", that is akin to blasphemy. the scriptures are God breathed. what?! you just said the book of God's truth is not very useful? go read isaiah 55.
mean comment? fact checking your statements. paul and barnabas went to speak with the apostleS and elderS. they all spoke in turn. then james spoke up and said: "listen to me" he confirmed what peter relayed about the gentiles being saved, quoting the prophets....he said: therefore "i judge"....the apostles and elders with the WHOLE church agreed, and set out to fix it. they were sent with a letter headed..."the apostles and elders and brethren
@@windyday8598 would you be willing to have a civil voice call with me (a catholic) in lieu of your frantic commenting? i think that’d be more fruitful for the both of us.
@@Chris-no8yb simply using my freedom to comment/respond, point by point. i am rock solid, you cannot change my mind, grounded in the word of God in the bible. apostles, elders, and the whole church. no pope. old wives tales. go in peace.
magesterium: the root is master. i think not. Jesus is Lord, and Master, who delivered to us the word of God, and it's meanings, detailed in the epistles. you use the word church to mean the magesterium. scripture does not, not at all. "the apostles and elders and the whole church agreed with james at the jerusalem counsel to send men with a letter....see 1 cor 5 also.
The rock you are referencing in I believe Matthew 16.... It's not referencing Peter as the rock,It was the fact that Jesus is Christ and it's even echoed earlier in the book of Matthew where the rock that you're supposed to build upon is Christ. And even in the book of Daniel chapter 2, the rock that is cut out without human hands is christ because it doesn't strike the ankles of the statue where the Roman Empire would have been during that time of the apostles, it strikes the feet. If it would have been Peter it would have struck the ankles. And it's not human in nature because it's not a human hand that cuts the rock.
@Chris-no8yb In the strong's concordance his name also means a piece of a rock and Jesus tells us we are living Stones That make up a larger structure. Abraham's name was changed also, Does that mean he's the rock?
@@Outlander-wm9cd So you do see the significance of name changes in scripture. Abram’s name was changed to Abraham because it was a sign of his new role in the covenant he had entered with God. Abram: Exalted Father Abraham: Father of a multitude Now I invite you to investigate what Simon becoming Peter might have symbolized.
@Chris-no8yb Yeah, the significance is that he became a follower of Christ when he admitted it, not that the church was founded on him. To believe that Christianity is founded on a human instead of Christ is blasphemy.
The life of the Catholic, having to defend ourselves 24/7
That is what helped me to become Catholic. I have never, not once in my entire life, had to defend myself against a Catholic as a Protestant, but as soon as I said I wanted to become Catholic, oh wow, fireworks! It has never stopped.
@@2196logan probably because it's so clearly shown in Scripture, that people think you've lost your mind.
few things are as clear as how evil catholicism is.
lol. Yes , we take shots from Atheists from Protestants from Muslims.
That’s one of the things that led me to the Catholic Church.
Protestant Pope John MacArthur said Catholics were not Christians he said to study early church history. I took his seminar on the history of the Bible - quoting early Christian. I thought that was great so I looked them early Christian’s up. I read about Saint Ignatius of Antioch- bishop of Antioch 😮 wow. I am the heretic he talked about.
@@2196logan I don't defend, I'll say the truth on Catholic teaching and in the same breath tell the Protestant to ""F" off, you don't represent someone I want to socialize much less eat at the same table with, I'll be praying for your conversion." Then go about my business. Do unto others as they do unto you.
Great comment.
I think that this is something the Church shares in common with Jesus. He was hated by many on the basis of lies and distortions.
There are 'four marks' of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic) but this incessant lying about the Church is really another 'mark' of the truth that She is the Bride of Christ. They hate and lie about Her as much as they did about Him.
One of the issues that annoyed me when I was part of the evangelical Protestant church is they targeted weak people from mainline christian churches, mostly Catholic because let’s be honest, most Catholics are not properly catechized because they are more culturally catholic than practicing Catholics. I soon realized strong and biblically educated Protestants eventually become Catholic and weak biblically uneducated Catholics become Protestant. I’m thankful for my 10 + years in the Protestant community, it made me stronger as a Christian, strong enough to dig deep and search for truth which led me back to the one True Church that Jesus left us.
Complete bologna…
Only our way is the way
Only we have truth
We are the real group
All characteristics of a cult
@ yeah ok 😂 your way lol but seriously don’t you think it’s awesome that Catholic and Catholicism live rent free in your head?
@ rent free? It makes me sad that you aren’t saved and don’t know if you’re saved
@@nicklippa6969 “Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.””
Romans 3:4
So all the traditions and non biblical teachings and beliefs of Catholicism are lies…
Plus only God’s word is true….
The issue that annoyed me was they wouldn’t quit, indeed whoever was speaking could not help themselves from telling us “Catholics believe” or “the Catholic Church teaches”. WOW, thou shalt not bear false witness. And that’s what 99% of it was and whether it was intentional or ignorance really doesn’t matter. I put my faith in Christ and His Church.
It’s laughable because protestantism itself is a heresy. Only Catholicism and Orthodoxy have apostolic succession and a claim to the beginning if you’re not one of these two then it’s Protestant nonsense.
For 2000 yrs the CATHOLIC CHURCH has been and still is. 🙏🏿
I am an Eastern Orthodox soon to convert to the Church. They'll probably call me a heretic too.
Welcome home brother. I'd love to hear your story though. Once again welcome
@ Thanks, very kind of you Sir. My trip to the Catholic church is long and winding. Baptized as a baby into secular family I encounted God speaking to my heart in 1999/2000. Lived hedonistically for many years, ventured into or tried the Baptist church, SDA, evangelical, Word of faith, a clergy-free church, Reformed, Eastern Orthodoxy for many years. Visited Mt Athos twice, Kyivan caves, monasteries in Greece, Valaam, Meteora and now Lourdes. Realized that EO is regional, national and ethnic. A union of national churches and not an entity as Orthodox apologists pretend. I have found no objective evidence for the often stated claim that 'Eastern Orthodoxy (as it operates today) is the Church Jesus founded'. That claim is untenable. Orthodox books are often omitting stuff about the ancient church when it concerns Rome's role and they are really gaslighting. EO zealots are also very much disturbingly anti-Western and that not in a constructive way. It's very hard to debate an Eastern Orthodox because they are fiercely convinced from the get-got that Catholicism is wrong. They are not so united as they like to show us. There's also an embarassing anti-intellectualism in certain circles and a overly focus on all things monastic which I think is unhealthy. Sure, the Divine Liturgies are reverent and magnificent but honestly, I find absolutely nothing wrong with the modern Latin rite if served reverently. As I said, I have been to Athos. Most EO parishes here cater to their respective ethnic group and are very insular. Besides, this is the West and we must fight for our own and not throw it away wholesale. This is my country but most Eastern Orthodox here do not serve in the language of the land despite being here for a generation. The Catholic church has one bishop, a cardinal actually. The EO has many bishops over the same land area, overlapping jurisdictions all serving largely their own ethnic group. How can my family grow in the faith if they don't understand what is said or sung. American EO converts know next to nothing and has seemingly little knowledge and empathy about us Europe converts who are not originally from Orthodox territories. I am Swedish, EO since 2017.
Welcome home, brother! Thank you for sharing your story and for truly pursuing Jesus!!
@@brenttnerves1443 Thank you. That's also a big difference between EO and Catholics online, you are to an overwhelming degree much more cordial, polite and caring. You don't play the blame game.
Courage! Do not fear, for the Lord Himself is with you.
The Catholic Church Fathers determined what was Divinely inspired to be Sacred Scripture. Therefore, only the Catholic Church has authority to interpret Sacred Scripture. Christ gave us a Catholic Church, that subsequently gave us the Holy Bible.
You're doing great Cameron. Just found you recently and am enjoying your work. Please continue handling these objections. I find them helpful.
Ditto.
The Roman Catholic church is the one TRUE church! Boom!
are you born again? boom!
When I was serving in Afghanistan back in ‘02, there was a moment when the female soldiers were speaking to some of the local female patients. They were trying to convince the women that they didn’t have to wear a burka or be subject to their husbands. I recall distinctly laughing to myself at the level of ignorance they were suffering from. These afghan women looked at these soldiers as infidels. Their advice was about as useful as a fart in a hailstorm.
So it is when trying to talk to a headstrong Protestant. Some of them don’t even consider Catholics Christians. It is almost as fruitful as beating your head against a wall. It is only fruitful if the Holy Spirit has softened their heart. As we read in the scriptures on the road to Emmaus, then He opened up their minds to understand the scriptures. They had been with Christ much of His ministry. They had been close to Him but didn’t recognize Him or understand the connections made from the Tenakh. Once they sever themselves from the Pilar and bulwark of Truth, they twist the scriptures to their own destruction. Please pray for their salvation and for our unity. Divided we are less effective in spreading the gospel. Our world needs to know the Truth.
Acts 3 v 22 = Deuteronomy 18 v 18..
Lets talk about not understanding the tanach.
@ do let’s.
@@anitra7747 you can start with the quotes I provided.
This Prophet is not GOD or a third person of GOD.
@@anitra7747
Ooohhhh the trinity destroyed right there.
@@anitra7747 💯❗
May God bless you and your family, my brother in Christ. Please receive my brotherly affection from Canterbury. I too face severe accusations by those in the radical reformer tradition who call us heretics and false believers.
Tell them you have to be Christian to be a heretic!
Wow, amazing video! Keep up the good work
"Solas Scriptura" does not give us the 'oral' teaching the apostles handed down. For this we have to read the early church fathers, the pre-Nicene writings.
Sadly prots even when presented with that they will discredit it saying doesn't count.
Too bad the early church fathers contradict scripture
@@LukeFerguson0 They contradict your interpretation of scripture.* Fixed that for you.
@@haronsmith8974 many of the early church fathers actually supported sola scriptura
@@LukeFerguson0 awww you went from *they’re wrong* to *they wrong but they agree with me*
No they didn’t. Not a single Church father believes scripture is the only authority God gave us. You may find references where they find scripture as an authority but everytime they will refer to the Church and tradition as also being authorities.
You should actually read the Church Fathers instead of watching Gavin Ortlund’s revisionist view of them.
I respect your patience!
Don’t listen to dem anti Catholic haters if they don’t repent then that’s something they’ve got to explain on judgement day so let’s pray for them
We will pray the Protestant out of them! Hah
@@CameronRiecker😂
@@CameronRiecker
I pray that Jesus breaks the spiritual bondage between Martin Luther, Henry the VIII etc. and their followers.
@ innit
@@lillyCfields they were both catholics lol.
Respect for taking on the comments section.
Indeed, very admirable. Very few do that
The Sacred Scripture is not the pillar and bulwark of truth. As St. Paul said, "If I am not to delay, you may know ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. 1st Timothy 3:15. Divine Revelation cannot be solely on Sacred Scripture alone. It has to be Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him). Besides, St. Peter himself, the Bible is not meant for private interpretation which can lead to erroneous doctrine.
Where do you get this , no private interpretation" from.
@astutik8909 the bible is a catholic book
@@andreeattieh2963 thats not what I asked. Catholics, like politicians, can never give a straight answer. The art of lying.
BTW 70% of the bible is old testament, torah and tanach, nothing to do with catholics, apart from some grevious alterations. The new testament, is, lets say, claimed to be compiled by catholic councils. Again, sith many added verses and passages. We may never know what they didnt include.
We have some insight with Marcion, who took it upon himself to be the arbiter of many manuscripts tho, and threw out, at his discretion, what he deemed non scripture.
The catholic church has done the same. Yet even still, with the NT as we have it, is ample scripture enough to compare what is catholicism and the chasm of difference between Christianity as preached by Jesus and the Apostles.
i could also ask, "Shoe me a verse in the Bible saying that 'Mary' was a sinner".
Romans 3:23 Mary was born under the bloodline of Adam . Hence she inherited original sin . Try not to think of Mary as being some piece of trash because she had a sin nature . That is not what the sin nature produced and Mary the mother of Jesus was a woman born with a sin nature in need of a savior. Absolutely no reason to have Mary born without sin.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072your talking absolute nonsense. The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and they spoke. Why don’t protestant’s say this was wrong? If Mary can speak to an angel so can I. Also the reason we know it was the Archangel Gabriel is because a demon would never appear to Mary knowing full well her Immaculate Conception! So in your arrogance you know better than the two thousand year old holy Catholic Church. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was infallibly defined by his Holiness pope St Pius IX in 1854. Read about Lourdes my friend. Also protestant’s are NOT Christian and protestant”baptism”is INVALID because there’s ONLY ONE CHURCH the holy Catholic Church.
@@simonslater9024 Easy brother, Protestant baptism is good as long as it is done under the name of the father son and Holy Spirit.
Jude 1:24
To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy
We can also argue for Mary under
Matthew 7:15-23
True and False Prophets
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
That hits all angels first. The fruit of Mary’s womb is Jesus, giving good fruit
Second test their fruit? What has sola scriptura done, but create division in the body of Christ.
I do it to and get upset- see you at the confession line brother. Love you
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 Excuse me, You underestimate the power of God who can prevent anyone of us from ever committing a sin. Mary was sinless her entire life as Jesus was without sin. You did not answer the question and I don't acknowledge Protestant relativistic teaching and weak philosophy having 30+ different denominations each with their own interpretation of Scripture. Only Protestants produce pastors like Jim Jones and the People's Temple and David Koresh of the Branch Davidians. Cults, Cults, Cults.
Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
1. The implication of Luke 1:28 is that if she is already full of grace then she can't also be a sinner.
2. The Early Church viewed Mary as the new Tabernacle. Uzzah was killed for touching the Tabernacle and David danced before it and john leapt at Mary's greetings.
3. The Early Church reconciled that yes Mary did need to be saved and yes she was by the cross but the grace of the cross and salvation was given to her at conception making her pre-saved and why the angel could say full of grace.
4. Rev 12:1 is Mary.
Wow, your production quality dramatically improved. Keep doing what you’re doing man. Much love
Imagine detectives used protestant logic to solves crimes. I'm pretty sure it would be nearly impossible
Using catholic logic, you would be locking up anybody.
There's a detective who goes to my church. Logic doesn't seem to be a problem for him.
@derekshoemaker8990 that makes you the perfect candidate to test his logic for the job and then apply it to Catholicism and see what happens
@@shanahendricks9831 using catholic logic would lock anybody up.
Ohh he forgave sins, therefore he is GOD.
Hmm but the apostles forgave sins?.
Ohh they were given that authority by Jesus so they arent God.
But Jesus was given that authority by GOD?
silence......
@astutik8909 sigh...
Apostolic succession... Romans 10:15--"And how can men preach unless they are sent?"
The Father sent the Son; the Son sent the Apostles (guided by the Holy Spirit).
Who did the Apostles send? Who did they send? So on, and so forth.
Apostolic succession can only be false if St. Paul in his written letters (Scripture) is wrong.
One had to be witness of Jesus resurrection to be an apostle. The rest were called elders.
Paul claims his " apostleship" because of a vision and a voice.
Jesus says certain traits would follow an apostles.
Miracles of healing, stepping on serpents, drinking poison etc...
Would any of your priests like to be put to the test?
@@astutik8909 So, are you saying the Jesus's divine authority was extinguished at the death of the last Apostle? If that's the case, who would have the divine authority to determine what belongs in Scripture? Additionally, if there is no divine authority remaining on earth, then the world is in chaos (and Sacred Scripture cannot organize it alone; too many interpretations). If the world is in chaos, despite Christ establishing his Church, then the Church Christ founded failed. If that's the true conclusion, I would not become protestant, but agnostic.
@defendusinbattle907 it is true. Read Acts 1 v 22 and the whole account surrounding it.
Verse 26, they cast lots to determine out of the ones who were witness.
Then after that, they appointed elders. Acts 14 v 23.
Read all of Acts. It doesnt take long at all.
The world is not in complete chaos because most western countries laws are founded on the 10 commandments, tho sadly, theyre being eroded with every passing generation.
The main theme of our life is basically summarised by 2 commandments of God.
1, love the LORD thy GOD with all our heart mind and soul,
2, and love thy neighbour as thy self.
@@astutik8909 The main theme is to worship God. How to do this was instructed in the accounts of the Last Supper, the only time that Jesus mentions the New Covenant. "Do this in remembrance," should remind you of "Remember the sabbath." It's the form of worship that is demanded upon us. Remember how in John 6 all of those followers that walked away because they refused to believe that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life? Jesus did not correct them. He doubled down. Now, the first aspect you state (loving God) is shown through the worship of him. Only the Catholic Church (and a few schismatic faiths...that's another discussion) follows the command on how to worship. Think of why the Israelites were to leave Egypt; it was to go worship. "Let my people go!!!"
@astutik8909 acts of the apostles is very catholic
Ignoring the Church's Authority and oral tradition, while pointing to the Bible alone is just as nonsense as having your original Toyota manual in the glovebox and ignoring all further announcements, recalls, etc. from the Car Manufacturer saying: "The original manual is enough for me! Do not talk to me, or contact me ever again!" You cannot deny the right of the car company to communicate with their customers anytime they feel necessary, even long time after buying their products. Same with the Church. The Bible is just the original "Manual".
don't forget that the Holy Spirit still talks to us through the Saints. (If your church happens to have any)
Doctrines and "infallible statements" have never "contradicted" each other. As doctrines are examined more thoroughly over the centuries, the church comes to understand them more deeply, but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
Don't sweat it when heretics call you a heretic. Isn't it just grand? All we can do is pray for them.
Those that argue against Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium must understand that non-believers use the same argument against Sacred Scripture. If Tradition and Magisterium can be negated then so can Scripture. Sola Scriptura makes about as much sense to me as Caffeine-Free Mountain Dew.
Babe wake up, new Cameron video just dropped
Bravo Cameron! Keep up the great work
Darkness hates Light. Untruth of any degree, including that of the Protestants, will always be aggressively anti-Catholic because True Authentic Catholicism is 100% Absolute Truth. Welcome to God-Jesus' Army!!
The going can sometimes be awful but the reward is the Awesome One himself!!
I am protestant. I listen because spiritually, I am eclectic and hear the Father's voice in many different arenas. Divisiveness is ungodly. Be who you are, and believe what the Spirit urges. What others think of me is none of my concern. God bless you for your good work here.
The serpent was the first protestant..lying and planting the seeds of doubt in Adam and Eve's hearts. Thanks so much Cameron for defending the truth of Catholicism !!
You should welcome those who oppose you because it only benefits you by strengthening your position…and ours.
Did he slander them? Did he offend? Things must be said.
@Apostle_Tom he alludes to Protestants lying, hiding information and not knowing their Bible. While not showing any evidence.
A Seventh-day Adventist startled me when we discussed soul sleep. I quoted St. Justin Martyr's second-century First Apology to show that Justin believed our souls would stay awake after we died. The Adventist replied, "That doesn't matter. We have the Bible." St. Justin lived soon after Christ died. So, he probably talked with some people who spoke with Our Lord. Who's more likely to be right about souls, Justin or the Adventist?
Dr. William Lane Craig says he believes in two condemned heresies: Monothelitism and Apollinarianism. Monothelites believe Christ's divine will is his only will. But the Catholic Church teaches that a human nature includes a human body, a human intellect, and a human will. Apollinarians think God the Son acted as Our Lord's soul. Dr. Craig doubts he should agree with the council or councils that condemned those. That's because he takes doctrines to the "bar of Scripture." Would he tell us that the council(s) ignored the Bible when they rejected those heresies?
Craig is a brilliant, honest, sincere, and humble scholar who unknowingly falsifies sola scriptura.
It’s true that there isn’t an infallible list of all of the infallible statements of the Catholic Church, however; there is the “Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals” by: Heinrich Denzinger. This book as far as I can tell has every infallible statement of the Church from the time of the Apostles through 2008 with Dignitas personae (at least in its 43rd edition published in 2012). This book is an invaluable resource for the study of Church doctrine.
I’m reading it now 😄
There is also a book called Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by an author named Ott
@ I have that book as well, but haven’t found the time to dig into it. Have you read it? And if so, how would you compare it to Denzinger’s book?
I've encountered this infallible list argument and it such a cop out since 'lists' do not legimitize what has been rendered legitimate. It is therefore redundant and an ad hoc standard that no one recognizes
@@renomtv I completely agree with you, but I think there is some value in knowing which doctrines, statements, etc. are infallible. It can be helpful for apologetics and for one’s self study. The plethora of Catholic writings and statements can be overwhelming, especially for someone that wasn’t raised Catholic or raised as an educated Catholic. I know for me when I was looking into the Catholic faith, I didn’t know where to start or how to discern what is an infallible statement or not.
Why does it always seem like some very tacky rube type people who attack Catholics?
Well I waffle between they have a serious case of "Notice me senpai" and the devil has a type.
@kisstune It's usually a redneck, and usually a Baptist. There are some branches of protestants who don't really talk about other denominations at all.
Acts 15:12 The crowd fell silent when Sts Barnabas and Paul started speaking... "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them:
St. John Chrysostom in speaking on the nature of St. Paul's care for the Churches. "His soul too was distracted, and his thoughts divided. For even if nothing from without had assailed him; yet the war within was enough, those waves on waves, that sleet of cares, that war of thoughts." " though it is difficult enough for one to look after a single house, St. Paul had "the care not of a single house, but of cities and peoples and nations and of the whole world" (Homily 12). If St. Paul was given such care of all the Churches, then primacy in the Church would logically belong, not to St. Peter, but to St. Paul and, by implication, to his successors. However, St. Paul was not speaking of an institutional prerogative, but of a burden imposed on him by the nature of his ministry.
St. Theophylact of Ochrid explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew that the words, "I will give unto thee,""...were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles," since Christ also said, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." (St. John 20:23.) The translator of his homily points out the verb "remit" is in the second person plural, and therefore refers to all of the Apostles. As for Matthew 16:18, St. Theophylact, along with St. John Chrysostom and the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Fathers, interprets the words "this rock" to denote St. Peters confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, and not his person. Any other interpretation would violate the Christocentric nature of the Church and the Scriptural affirmation that "Christ is the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23) and the "head of the Body" (Colossians 1:18)
You mentioned St Augustine, but there are clear disagreements even among the Fathers as to why many do not agree with the supremacy of the Roman See.
The statement, "There is no infallible list of infallible teachings undermines sola scriptura." If there is no infallible list of infallible books, how do we know which ones are infallible and therefore, how can you trust the infallibility of scripture? Great video, Cameron. God bless you.
We don't actually need an infallible list of infallible books, or of infallible doctrine. All we need is that what we have be sufficient for the salvation of souls.
And it seems based on my experience that while scripture contains everything we need to be saved, we also need some to tell us no when we start blinding ourselves to truth.
The believers in the old testament had no problem trusting scripture without an infallible interpreter or infallible list of books. Why should we suddenly have a problem trusting them?
Secondly, there was no "infallible" list of books until the Council of Trent in the 1500s. The councils in the 4th century were NOT infallible, they were local councils. How were Christians able to function all that time if they didn't have an infallible list of books?
@mikekukovec4386 oh yes they did! Have you even read the old testament? They could barely go a single generation without a prophet to guide them.
And yes, prophets have the charism of infallibility which operating in their official capacity.
The intertestamental period was a bit better, but during that time they violated the scriptures quite a bit.
@mikekukovec4386 to the second one, I don't think you quite understand the "list of books" issue.
We as Catholics believe that the tradition of the church has provided us an accurate and trustworthy collection of books. Protestants decided to throw a bunch out and clip a couple of the remaining ones down.
This is something that cannot be done without some sort of authority. Which you can never seem to produce to justify what you did. The council of Trent didn't invent the list, but merely condemned deviation from the list tradition had already provided.
You not only claim the authority to change this list, you are exercising that authority over what you claim to be your sole authority. A paradox.
Truly, if scripture were your authority you wouldn't dare to caste aside a single letter. Yet you threw entire books out, than claim to only do as scripture commands. Obviously this isn't a personal accusation of hipocricy. I'm sure you've never even thought of this obvious contradiction. But your religion contains this contradiction at it's heart. That it both claims the authority to reject a book as scripture, and also claims to submit to no authority except scripture. An impossible controdiction.
The "no infallible list of infallible books" is merely a low IQ attempt to illustrate this contradiction. It's not something you can try and turn back on us, because our structure of authority is living and can actually answer questions, or tell us no when we get something wrong.
@@marvalice3455 both old testament canons were part of traditions. Protestants didn't just "throw them out", and Roman Catholics didn't "add them in". They both appealed to different traditions. Luther appealed to the tradition that the deuterocanonical books were just that, a second canon. Useful for edification but not inspired, "second tier scripture" if you will. Rome just removed that category all together.
Sola Scriptura doesn't claim the Bible to be the sole authority. It claims the Bible to be the sole INFALLIBLE authority. Your church still absolutely has real authority over you, just like parents have authority over a child. Parents can be wrong, and that doesn't make their authority any less real.
To your "impossible contradiction", why do you assume I've never heard this argument before? This isn't a new thing, it's like day 1 Roman Catholic apologetic stuff. We didn't throw anything out. We also don't claim to be the authority on which books belong in the canon. The church has the responsibility to discern the canon, and the church contains other people than just the Romans. It would be like saying Congress has the responsibility to make laws, and then a handful of congressmen claiming it's actually only their laws that matter. You're part of the church, you're not THE church.
I really like talking with people who call my tradition an obvious contradiction and say I have a low IQ. Pretty sure that's what Jesus wanted.
Always watch your videos to defend my faith ❤
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" and "I of Cephas" and "I of Christ " . Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:12-13
4:06 “no infallible list of infallible statements”..prod owns himself spectactularly..all together catholics, “there’s no infallible list of infallible books”, there are 73 books canonised by the church
I think this is actually supposed to be a response to the "if Sola scriptura is true how do you know which books are true?" Polemic.
This is a common issue with inexperienced debaters. They try to spring a trap for an argument which is not at play,and by doing so commit to a position which is very problematic for them in the long run.
@marvalice3455 you got nothing but proddy pomposity..the church canonised the traditional books in 382..1150 years later prods took out 7 to copy the talmudists..so, give me the 67 prooftexts that tell me the kjv contains only and all scripture..or stay in sunday school where the 10 yo are impressed w your vainglory
@@marvalice3455your unfounded bumptiousness may awe your 9 yo sunday schoolers, but you're just another cathedral-stealing usurers' minion to me - don't wait for the long-term! give me the 66 prooftexts that prove your kjv is all scripture and the 67th that proves it is the only scripture
@marvalice3445 your unfounded bumptiousness may cow your 9 yo sunday school, but you’re just another cathedral-stealing usurers’ toady to me..what long-term? give me the 66 prooftexts for the kjv now, and the 67th that proves nothing else is!
@@marvalice3455your unfounded bumptiousness may awe your 9 yo sunday schoolers, but to me you're just a usurers' minion, following a priapic german heretic to hell..skip the long-term and give me the 66 prooftexts for the kjv as all scripture..and the 67th prooftext that it is only scripture
Need to start taking hints of persuasion from Martin Luther. Dude really convinced people he was right, and they still believe it 500 years later.
@@cjvoerman5591 Of course he convinced everyone, he had satan by his side.
So tell them what they want to hear even when it contradicts your principals, than get state sponsorship which you secure by promising the government control over the local churchs?
Nah. I think I'll pass on that.
Ask the hebrew-wannabes (protestants) what denomination they are in this week
Pope Benedict XVI says that Catholics should be delighted whenever non-Catholics do what is good or embrace what is true.
The pope was reflecting on a passage from the Gospel of Mark, in which “a man who was not among the followers of Jesus had cast out demons in his name” and “the Apostle John, young and zealous, wants to stop him, but Jesus will not allow him.”
Pope Benedict said: “Members of the Church should not feel jealousy, but should rejoice if someone from outside the community does good in the name of Christ...”
The pope quoted St. Augustine, 4-5th century saint: “Just as one can find that which is not Catholic in the Catholic Church, one can also find something that may be Catholic outside of the Catholic Church.”
This, the Pope said, is what Jesus wishes to explain to his disciples, that “good and even miraculous things” can happen outside their circle when others “cooperate with the Kingdom of God” even in small gestures such as “offering a simple glass of water to a missionary.”
“The tendency toward jealousy can exist within the Church when Catholics resent holiness and goodness being attained by non-Catholics. Instead we should all be able to always appreciate and respect each other, praising the Lord when he acts in the Church and in the world.”
You don't need an _infallible_ list of infallible statements. You only need to know _Dogma_
dogma requires private interpretation like an engineer requires private interpretation of blueprints.
Yeah Protestant don’t read the scriptures.. apostolic succession is ingrained in the scriptures..
Just ask him when the last time some one laid hands on his Paster for the office of teaching.
The truth is that protestants can't even agree amongst themselves which of their MANY heresies are the ones they agree with this week. As they say "The creed of innovators is never fixed..." The 40,000+ churches alone should be the clue for them, but as it says in Hebrews 8:10-13 [Douay-Rheims]
10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: ****I will give my laws into their mind, and I will write them in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:****
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them:
12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.
13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.
The Holy Spirit will convert all Protestants soon !!!!
It will be the warning or illumination of conscience that will covert protestant heretics as well as Muslim’s Jew’s and atheist’s.
What kind of Holy Spirit would convert people to heresy ?
@ I feel so very sorry for you. I will include you in my next daily rosary. THE BLESSED BIRGIN MARY IS VERH SADDENED
@paulcapaccio9905 now you lost me completely, the BIRGIN MARY is no longer a virgin so who exactly is saddened? Also how would you know lol please pray for yourself so that God may reveal to you the error of your ways.
I hope so.
Where does Scripture say not to pray to Mary (or the Saints)?
Could you give one example of anybody in the scriotures praying to Mary??? Given catholics claim it was a tradition. Surely any tradition would have been recorded. Anything not recorded, could only mean it was not important.
@@astutik8909 What does pray mean? It means to ask, or request. Was it not requested of her to bear the Son of God? Her reply was, "Let it be done according to thy word." In that statement, she interceded for the entire world. After all, what if she said, "No"??? One might even say that through the angel Gabriel, God the Father prayed to Mary; after all, to bear the Son of God was not a demand, but a request.
If you really want an example, compare Luke 1 with 2 Samual 6. What is St. Luke trying to tell us?
@@defendusinbattle907 why would you ask a dead Mary, when you can ask GOD?
Are you afraid GOD wont hear you?
Or even worse, asking an idol statue? That is the very definition of idolatry.
BTW, Mary wasnt asked, she was told.
@@astutik8909 If Mary asks to God for me, it is worth more than a million of my prayers. Why? He selected her to be the Queen. Remember, in Jewish tradition, the King's first queen is his Mother, and since Jesus Christ is king, who is the queen? You may want to see how Solomon treated Bathsheba (she was his mother) compared to how David did (she was his wife). See in 1 Kings 2 how Adoni′jah addresses Bathsheba to ask Solomon a particular request. Notice intercession through the Queen Mother? Solomon stated to his mother, "Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” Yes, Solomon failed on that request, but Jesus is much more faithful than Solomon. After all, Jesus has ONE bride (his Church); Solomon had how many wives and concubines? I suspect that when the Bridegroom returns, he is coming for his Bride and not the several harlots.
@defendusinbattle907
Bathsheba was queen because David was king. When David died, she retained her title.
Nowhere in the new testament is Mary called a queen, much less , queen of heaven. The pagan moon goddess was called queen of heaven, condemned in Jeremiah 7 v 18, and ch 19 v 13,
Ch 44 verses 17 to 19.
Your catholic hotcross buns are the cake offerings. The cross of course, is a pagan sun symbol, hence why the pagan roman sunworshippers used a cross to crucify Jesus. The same cross catholics revere. 🤔😚
They're not being mean, they are simply refuting your argument. If I were to make a claim and others explained to me why they disagreed I would not take it as them being mean or being haters. If you're going to take people debating with you the wrong way then you shouldn't be opening yourself up to debate. It's not productive and it's clearly not charitable.
Re: the guy taking exception with your definition of Sola Scriptura:
1. He posits yet another permutation of that indefensible dogma
2. In trying to make a gotcha, he actually states Catholic doctrine. Namely that Scripture is the best source of information and any proposed tradition that contradicts it gets tossed. So congrats on being Catholic bro. (I believe the Orthodox faiths have that same rule).
3. Ge REALLY dismantles his position making that lame telephone argument.
All of ancient history was passed orally and only written down once it is possible/practical to do so.
Every book of the Old Testament was not put to paper until YEARS after the people in it had passed. E.g. Moses didn't write a single line of Exodus.
So if he thinks "telephone" is unreliable, then virtually the entire Bible in unreliable.
Protestants trying not to argue like atheists to "own" Catholics challenge: impossible
Irenaeus said that Jesus was 50 years old when he died, which is why Protestants put a late date on the Book of Revelation. Unfortunately, most Roman Catholic Scholars listen to Protestant scholars and put a late date on when the Book of Revelation was written.....which leads to a futurist view of the "End Times" . Clearly Irenaeus got it wrong. To be fair, Irenaeus was not the Pope. On the other hand, We English Catholics trace our Apostolic Succession back to St. John.
They arent mean. They disagree with you. As I do with you when you said in Matt 16:18 and that Jesus renamed Peter. Matt 4:18 tells us Peter was already called Simon Peter. Apostles did not say descendants of apostles but those who actually knew Jesus. I was Catholic for 30 years. Left because of priest sexual scandals. Then found out all the non biblical teachings of Catholic Church. If it isnt in the Bible, it is not from God. Have a good day.
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain frivolous…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
Can you tell me about an organization called America needs Fatima
playing the victim isn't what Jesus taught. he taught people to die for what they believed in. like how the Huguenots were willing to be martyred for their right to freely worship in 1572 by Catholics. or like in the Massacre of Naarden, where Catholics murdered 3000 protestants for their beliefs. Or like how about 3500 mostly protestants were killed by explosives and bullets during The Troubles from 1969 to 2001, again, the Catholics felt it necessary to murder people for their faith. there's a reason protestants are aggressive in their apologetics, it's because we don't want any more papist inspired violence against us in our own countries.
relax, and embrace ecumenism. splitting hairs and starting fights over various doctrines is pointless. there are genuine moral calamities that are unfolding as we speak that protestants and Catholics need to fight together.
gonna cry now?
@@CarpDiemBaby Piss my pants maybe?
Jesus taught to pray to God directly through the name of Jesus Christ only.
The Lord’s Prayer
9 In this manner, therefore, pray:Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.10 Your kingdom come.Your will be doneOn earth as it is in heaven.11 Give us this day our daily bread.12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.13 And do not lead us into temptation,But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. Matthew 6
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14
8 I am the Lord; that is My name. And My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images. Isaiah 42
I have only watched the first 2 comments and I stopped. I didn't find anything mean-spirited about them. Perhaps you should remove "mean" from your video title.... just a suggestion. Not all disagreements and debates should be considered mean.
I have seen some "mean" Catholics comments on Protestants channels also. This occurs on both sides. (But I do admit, the blasphemy against the BVM makes me wince..)
I just don't think calling people mean has any utility. Right now, we have Catholics who are mean to each other in social media.
It is not uncommon for people to get overly emotionally about their beliefs. I just think it is more useful to stick with proper debate vs ad hominems attacks.
the prayers of the saints in revelation are not offered to saints, but to God. duh.
Nicea II regarding icon veneration theological u-turn, Capital Punishment u-turn, obvious heterodoxy of Pope Francis, CCC841 is erroneous... all major issues for a Church that claims infallibility.
Cameron, have you interacted with Gavin Ortlund's argument on icon veneration, and what do you think about it?
Your first response, Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles. Paul was the only apostle to the Gentiles. I noticed when you see the word “church” you lose all sense of chronology and timeline Cameron. There was a biblical timeline in the first century you seem to not understanding.
again you uphold your present pope who believes all faiths speak to the one true God, but in different languages, so to speak. he also blesses same sex couples. what would peter say?
This video is doing more damage than good. I don’t know why you thought it was a good idea to do this
Responding to you responding to me:
7:50 "there needs to be a way of understanding the scriptures that is equally infallible"
This is not true, and we can see it in the old testament. There was no infallible office to interpret the old testament, and YET, when Jesus comes down he is completely comfortable binding people to the scriptures. Shouldnt the people have complained? Jesus, how can you say we're disobeying scripture when theres no infallible office to interpret it for us?
8:18 "an infallible book that doesnt have a correct interpretation is not very useful"
You've just claimed that the entire old testament until Jesus is not very useful. There was no infallible interpreter pre-Jesus
In the New Testament we have the Chair of Peter, in the Old Testament they had the Chair of Moses (Mt 23:2).
Since Moses, there was never a time when the people of God lacked an authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures.
@CameronRiecker I completely agree with you. Protestants DO believe the church is responsible for interpreting scripture. It's just not INFALLIBLE. You claimed we NEED an infallible interpreter for the scriptures to be useful, I'm saying that's not true because it has never worked that way until recently
Wow. In under one minute you've already stated several falsehoods in order to justify your faith or, more accurately, to justify your criticisms of your brothers and sisters in Christ.
That is impressive... though perhaps not in a good (or actually Christian) way.
Number 1. You failed, as you should because there is zero implication that he becomes an "infallible pope". What "st augustine" said is irrelevant.
Number 2: there is no historical proof that Peter was even in Rome, ever!
Number 3: all of these "early church fathers" and 'saints" are cherry picked by catholicism because they align with catholic dogma. Notice that Jesus and His Apostles are never referenced as early church fathers.
Number 4: 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Number five: refer number four...no pope, no magisterium, simply the infallibility of God and His Holy Spirit.
Number six: there isn't anyone in heaven except God, Jesus and the angels. That's scriptural. Mary worship is simply catholic dogma with zero scriptural support.
Number seven: Catholics are right because catholics say so. It becomes clear why this guy is catholic. He is simply too lazy to search the scriptures and finds it easier to read and believe what his religion dictates!
Number eight: refer number four. God sent His Holy Spirit down to earth to indwell us and teach us all things. Catholics (and protestants) rarely if ever get taught that!
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.
Number two please.
Your comment is not supported by anyone of merit.
If there's a source other than an argument from silence please let me know.
@@iggyantioch Thanks for the response.
I assume that by only calling out number two, that you see merit in the other points I made. Great!
Being asked to prove a negative is always a difficult task.
Add to that the requirement to comply with what you consider to be someone of merit also makes it subjective.
The best answer I can offer is that non-denominational historians and theologians cannot categorically state that Peter ever went to Rome.
There is no clear evidence of Peter being in Rome within scripture
It appears that the only people of "merit" that categorically state that Peter was in Rome are catholic/orthodox "scholars".
What other answer would you expect from such scholars?
From a worldly perspective, the best odds you could give on Peter being the first pope is 50/50
From a scriptural perspective, 50/50 is a fail!
tracing lineage back to the apostles to be credible: we have the apostles written word
and people still make stuff up to gain advantage. there is no historical nor biblical evidence that peter started the church in rome. the jews who returned home to rome after pentecost,
who believed the gospel and were saved, started christian churchs. paul wrote to them, having never been there. when he did arrive in 63 a.d. he was under house arrest and people came to him. paul never mentions peter in rome.
Just be mean back 😉
"I will pray you back, dont worry, i am not God, but i will do intercessory pray anyway, because God wishes to help you"
God gave us another cheek for a reason lol
@@CameronRiecker but Aristotle says that virtue is in the mean...
Cameron, while what you’re saying (especially in your last video) is biblically, spiritually, and historically true and correct, I would encourage you to meditate on 1 Cor. 13 (especially verses 1-5) and ask yourself this question: ‘Is my preaching from a position of love or of pride?’. Personally I grew up Protestant, but I’m slowly becoming more Catholic. One thing that held me back for a long time was the lack of love on the Catholic side. God Bless you and your ministry.
@@alexanderbrozel7284
That can go both ways. I have been told by protestants that I would go straight to hell cause I'm catholic. They have no problems telling me I come from a man made religion. I have been to protestant churches where inevitably they start to talk about catholics worshipping statues etc. Don't let people stop you from your journey. Just like I could be bitter at those I have encountered I know that they don't know better and have probably grown up in anti-catholic sentiments. Everyone will have to deal with their actions, thoughts and words come judgment time.
@@lillyCfields You're right, it can go both ways. I'm just thinking of the Jewish Religious Leaders that Jesus constantly clashed with. They were coming from a point of pride, which ultimately warped their message (and the message of God) into a legalistic rulebook, which made the jewish people miserable. We Christians could be on the brink of great reunification of the church, but that could be undone if we aren't careful with prioritizing love over pride. I'm not saying to stop preaching the truth, but Jesus did teach about the Wheat and the Weeds (don't be so eager to tear out weeds that you tear out good crops).
@@alexanderbrozel7284
Thank you for your response. I agree in that extremes aren't good, to lax or too uptight. There are so many problems in this life lol. I know your stranger but I pray that the Holy Spirit guides you in your journey wherever you may land.
Also mark 9:38-41 jesus refutes apostolic seccession.
James was in charge in Jerusalem for the first big test of the Apostles. Peter was there and he spoke but it was James who made the final decision.
In Acts, Peter declares the truth and then-“the whole assembly fell silent” in verse 12. The issue was settled.
This speaks volumes.
And notice as well: Peter says. “We believe…” Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ (Matthew 16:15-19).
@@clivejames5058 But that does not change the fact that James was in charge when the council met in Jerusalem. It was James who decided the problem. Peter agreed, He was not in charge.
@@bcalvert321 Peter (and no one else) was given the keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16: 19) and was asked to 'feed my sheep' (John 21: 15-17)
@@clivejames5058 That is true but Peter never took charge until James had been martyred. Why I do not know. But James was in charge in Jerusalem at the Council of the Apostles.
@@bcalvert321 Sorry this is a bit long and I'm certainly not negating James's role but a few other points: 1) In Acts 1 we see Peter choosing the method of replacement for Matthias. We see Peter proclaiming the gospel (Acts 2) and leading the Church to the acceptance of the Gentiles (Acts 10-11). In Acts 15: 7-11, Peter is the one who speaks first and settles the substance of the debate. And in verse 14 James even recognises as much: “Simeon (or Peter) has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” If James had just as much authority over the group as Peter (or more), he would have been the one to take the initiative and settle the substance of the debate, not Peter. 2) James’s speech is a pastoral proposal, whereas Peter’s speech is a doctrinal declaration, which carries more weight. James’s speech also stands in contrast to Peter’s because unlike Peter, who stated what IS the case, James offers his ideas for consideration only. 3) Later on in history, the Emperor Justinian was the first to use (in AD 531) the title of "patriarch" to designate the 5 most important bishops in Christendom. They were the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The apostle James is traditionally considered to have been the first leader of the Jerusalem Church and as such he was indeed an early patriarch (before the word was officially used) but Rome was always listed first (as Peter is always listed first in Scripture - see Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1).Why? because the Bishop of Rome (another title of the Pope and his successors) was considered 'First among Equals'. And finally, in Luke 22:29-32, we find Jesus warning all the apostles that if they want to be protected from the attempts of the devil to divide and destroy them, they must remain in union with Peter. The idea of different (and sometimes competing) Christian denominations would have been unthinkable to the early Christians, especially in light of Christ’s pronouncement on one shepherd and one flock (John 10:15) and his prayer that his disciples remain one (John 17:22). Which is one of the many reasons why I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism 20+ years ago now. God Bless.
Apostolic succession is a hoax. Every time I mention this every Catholic points to John and Ignatius. A person who is in one verse of the Bible. What about the other 11. They did not just have one person that they taught, who they laid hands on, and who became pastors or Apostles. What I am getting at is the Catholic church has never known who passed on to whom. They chose themselves to be leaders of the Catholic church. Just a few in Rome while there were many churches and Apostles that had no recognition. The churches in the Book of Revelation were never Catholic. There were a lot of churches that were never Catholic.
Thanks for the comment :) I noticed that you didn't cite a single Bible verse of Church Father to support your view.
@@CameronRiecker Why should I do that? The Apostles passed down what they knew to be true. By the time of 200 AD, a lot of the truth had been lost or changed.
@@bcalvert321 Nice sources. Very well researched. What an outstanding evaluation you did on the mythical body of Christ for the first 200 years hear in this comment section.
@@haronsmith8974 Here in this comment section. There was a body of Christ the first 200 years and it was never called Catholic.
@@bcalvert321 actually the first thing mentioning the Church by Saint Ignatius in the first century while some of the apostles were still alive literally called the Church Catholic.
Somebody hasn’t done their homework.
I didn't think my comment was mean. However acts 15 showed james being head of the 1st church in Jerusalem. 15:19 passing the final judgement. You also admitted i was correct that the bible doesnt claim peter has the head of all the churches. I doubt your claim to leave catholicism was genuine and I wouldn't ask you too. Maybe learn a lesson from jephthah on making promises you won't keep
"truth is not in the scriptures. truth is in our understanding of the scriptures".
the scriptures are God's truth, our understanding is fallible. that's why we need to grow in the knowledge of jesus christ, the way, the truth, the life.
"truth is not in the scriptures", that is akin to blasphemy. the scriptures are God breathed.
what?! you just said the book of God's truth is not very useful? go read isaiah 55.
Responds To Mean Protestant Comments
so where are the mean comments?
I guess if I do not agree with the roman Catholic church, it must mean I am mean?
The majority of my viewers are very kind 😁
Its the catholics that mostly project mean, sometimes even vile, comments.
Just read thru some of the catholic responses on here.
Well, "mean" has more than one meaning, it also means "average", which sums up the level of protestant thinking 😅
@@maddyg3208 A fine insult .
mean comment? fact checking your statements. paul and barnabas went to speak with the apostleS and elderS. they all spoke in turn. then james spoke up and said: "listen to me" he confirmed what peter relayed about the gentiles being saved, quoting the prophets....he said: therefore "i judge"....the apostles and elders with the WHOLE church agreed, and set out to fix it.
they were sent with a letter headed..."the apostles and elders and brethren
The papacy is a gift from God
@@andreeattieh2963 the holy spirit is a gift from God, and christ is Head.
@@windyday8598 would you be willing to have a civil voice call with me (a catholic) in lieu of your frantic commenting? i think that’d be more fruitful for the both of us.
@windyday8598 so is the papacy a gift from God
@@Chris-no8yb simply using my freedom to comment/respond, point by point. i am rock solid, you cannot change my mind, grounded in the word of God in the bible. apostles, elders, and the whole church.
no pope. old wives tales. go in peace.
magesterium: the root is master. i think not. Jesus is Lord, and Master, who delivered to us the word of God, and it's meanings, detailed in the epistles. you use the word church to mean the magesterium. scripture does not, not at all. "the apostles and elders and the whole church agreed with james at the jerusalem counsel to send men with a letter....see 1 cor 5 also.
The rock you are referencing in I believe Matthew 16.... It's not referencing Peter as the rock,It was the fact that Jesus is Christ and it's even echoed earlier in the book of Matthew where the rock that you're supposed to build upon is Christ. And even in the book of Daniel chapter 2, the rock that is cut out without human hands is christ because it doesn't strike the ankles of the statue where the Roman Empire would have been during that time of the apostles, it strikes the feet. If it would have been Peter it would have struck the ankles. And it's not human in nature because it's not a human hand that cuts the rock.
So then why did Our Lord change Simon’s name into Cephas, or “Rock” in Aramaic?
@Chris-no8yb In the strong's concordance his name also means a piece of a rock and Jesus tells us we are living Stones That make up a larger structure. Abraham's name was changed also, Does that mean he's the rock?
@@Outlander-wm9cd So you do see the significance of name changes in scripture. Abram’s name was changed to Abraham because it was a sign of his new role in the covenant he had entered with God.
Abram: Exalted Father
Abraham: Father of a multitude
Now I invite you to investigate what Simon becoming Peter might have symbolized.
@Chris-no8yb Yeah, the significance is that he became a follower of Christ when he admitted it, not that the church was founded on him. To believe that Christianity is founded on a human instead of Christ is blasphemy.
@@Outlander-wm9cd Why then did he only
change Peter’s name? Why was Peter‘s confession of faith so important to Jesus?