I remember listening to a lot of James White around my "Calvinist conversion" as a Protestant. Even though I was a part of the Reformed tradition back then, I eventually couldn't stand listening to him because he seemed to lack charitable nuance and would batter those who disagreed with fallacies. It's wild that his sister converted to Catholicism though when he's so vehemently opposed to it. She was interviewed about it on EWTN and her name is Patty Bonds. I pray James allows his heart to be softened by the Lord and that he receives the graces of God merited by his sister's prayers for him. There's hardly anything more beautiful than our family members according to nature helping one another be transformed into family according to Spirit. Praise God for the Church He has established!
I completely lost respect when he suggested that David Wood is not Christian. David has brought thousands of Muslims to Christ through very deliberate evangelism while James White has played nice with Shabir Ally. And yet that same James White who accused David Wood of being to harsh has people like Brandon Robertson on the show and cruelly interrupts and demeans him the whole time. It's amazing that he accuses Catholics of being Pharisees when he is such a hypocrite himself
Really boggles my mind how many people question another's salvation or declare them as unsaved. It bothers me a lot. I don't know where anyone would get the "stones" to say stuff like that such that one or more people would hear or read it.
In Protestant Doctrine, you are “saved” ONLY when you consciously accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. There is nothing in Catholic Doctrine that has that specific requirement, so it’s actually a fair bet that most Roman Catholics really aren’t ‘saved,’ by the Protestants’ understanding and usage of the word. how do I know? I was raised in a Sicilian household, in the Roman Catholic faith. I went to Catholic schools. I later fell away from Catholicism during my high school years. Much further down the road, I started reading the King James Bible and became a what is generally called a “Bible believing Protestant.” I am not fond of protestants judging who is and is not saved, but by their definition of the word, the vast majority of Catholics just aren’t.
@@paulprovenzano3755 rubbish Catholics absolutely believe Jesus is our Lord and Saviour so according to the heretical doctrine not supported by Scripture Catholics are saved
Oh I understand now As a Catholic I do too much,? I not only consciously believe Jesus is my Savior, furthermore the working belief to be a better person in the eye of God, the constant engagement with Jesus through praying and the daily rosary, the sacraments, humble myself because pride is a mortal sin (the worst)... are clearly too much?
@@sanfransohoyeah I never understood the Protestant view on Catholic salvation. Catholics accept lord Jesus Christ as our savior. Why aren’t they saved
When I was a kid and living in poverty my dad couldn’t afford to buy me a go cart. But every day, I went outside and took some boards and plywood he’d bring home from the job site and fashioned them into a configuration like I it was a car. I would imagine I was driving the real thing. To me, it was just as fulfilling as the real thing having never stepped into the seat of a go cart. Years later, my dad found a second hand go cart, fixed it up, and when I got to drive it, I knew I was super blessed to finally have the real experience. It was nothing like my imagination could provide. Almost as if a veil had been removed. I feel that is how our poor brothers and sisters lost to these heretical faiths would feel once they finally remove the veil and step into the one, true, holy, apostolic, Christ-forged, Catholic, and only Christian faith.
I 100% agree. Even as someone who is still barely Protestant, I was thoroughly disappointed with James White’s response or lack of response. Yes Catholic’s are Christians!!! and I’m so thankful for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. God Bless you all and the Lord Bless this channel and the work you’re doing in his name.
@@theticoboy There is plenty. Just to name a few, the worship/adoration/veneration of Mary (including immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, or as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), the petitioning or "veneration" of the dead (saints) for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a "father," or the building of shrines to passed loved ones (the dead.) None of which are mentioned or asked of *Christians* in the New Testament and many of which are condemned in the Old Testament.
@@fonztorres besides your mis-characterization of worshipping Mary/Saints, none of these things you listed are condemned in the OT. Looks like your litmus test is if it is not explicit in the NT then it’s considered pagan. So I presume you’re a pagan too if hold to sola fide, sola scriptura and celebrate Christmas. 😉
Yeah i used to listen to James White and the dividing line for nearly a decade. He doesnt like this question, he sees it as a ‘gotcha’ because as soon as he says we arent christian, then he has to explain how almost all of the saints and church fathers and subsequent christians until the reformation went to hell. Or were given the mercy to disobey the church enough to make it to heaven. This is a gotcha question and for that very reason! The reason he gives for not wanting to explain his answer is a concession in of itself! Simply put, The fact that he wont answer tells you he isnt satisfied with his own reasoning. Check out his discussion with Doug Wilson about are catholics christians? Doug wilson said well i certainly hope so, otherwise were all in big trouble! Lol i still love that guy!
It’s not a gotcha. One can just say most went to hell before the reformation and then that’s it. James just doesn’t want to be controversial and sound rude prob
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 LOL you got a point, he could hust answer the question. Personally its just my opinion but this is Exactly what makes it a gotcha. As soon as he says that, hes the bad guy and would lose the debate. No way you say something like that in a room full of lutherans and they don’t grumble or outright boo. Honestly that shouldnt matter in a debate. But James White has been in enough of them not to give Trent that good guy shine. Doubtful trent wouldve even capitalized on it but it def wouldve made james look like the bad guy had he answered. Funny thing is not answering pretty much told everyone what he thinks anyway.
@@kikisinozic7475 The Roman Catholic Church split from the One True Universal Holy Catholic Church when they began teaching heresies such as papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary. These were not the general consensus of the early church fathers. Also the addition of the Filioque!
@@ReasonandTheology The youtube channel "idol killer" has been uploading videos about this if you are looking for more info regarding james white on infant damnation
Catholicism is not one in a line of many denominations anymore than Jesus is not just one in a line of many prophets. She IS the Church Herself because She is Jesus Himself. And as Saint Joan of Arch said, “we shouldn’t complicate the matter”.
Is it just me but do Calvinist seem to have the most anti-catholic and spiritual prideful out of all Denominations? Obviously we are all guilty of spiritual pride
It's an insult to John Calvin to call James White a "Calvinist." He is a Reformed Baptist. Presbyterians and Dutch Calvinists actually follow Calvin's theology. If Calvin heard James White's theology on Mary's virginity and baptism and the eucharist, he would be appalled. And we know this because Calvin and Luther were both extremely critical of Zwingly
To be fair I am pretty sure he debated Doug Wilson on the question "Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?" and I'm pretty sure he was defending the negative.
Mike, I heard James White accuse Catholics of being “Sola Ecclesia” could you maybe address this in your review of the debate and how to respond? God Bless!!
How would that work? Tell me. Because I do have a lot of friends who probably think that about me but I got no idea how I could be saved in their eyes if I'm a Catholic who adheres to everything that the Catholic Church teaches and intends never to leave the Church because in my eyes that would equal leaving Christ who is my greatest love ❤
Does he not understand history? Martin Luther rebelled against the church Jesus Christ created. We must pray hard for our protestant brothers and sisters. To whom much is given Much is required. Pray hard!
Catholicism is the original and difficult Christianity. Protestantism is easy Christianity based on feels. The denominations in Protestantism are based on disagreements about the interpretation of individual passages that validate existing biases and worldviews. We aren't a denomination. We are the source.
A denomination is just a distinct subgroup with a name. In that the body of Christ is much larger than the Catholic church, they are a subgroup, and thus a denomination. I think the question most commenters are trying to avoid by turning the focus on 'denomination', is more about the 'Christian' part; both Orthodox and Protestant believers take issue with some of the teachings of Catholicism. All that said, I believe that we have so many variations in the faith because we have such a wide variety of believers. On the big things, the basic things of Christ, we all agree; on the details we don't. I think God knows His people, and provided a variety of organizations to meet us where we are.
The question should be how and who came to save us❤ Jesus. That’s it. Nothing else was added. Nothing is missing. Thank you Jesus for your sacrifice and resurrection!!! Thank you Holy Spirit for abiding in us❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Many people either misquote or misinterpret (this is why it’s so important you read the Bible for yourself so you are not misled) Matthew 16:14-20 When Jesus came into the region of Cesaria Philippi, hHe asked His disciples, saying “who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” So they said, “some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the profits.“ He said to them, “but who do you say I am?” Simon, Peter answered and said, “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.“ Jesus answered, and said to him, “blessed are you, Simon, Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father , who is in heaven. “ I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My church, and the gates of Haiti shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:22-23 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far Be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” But He turned, and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are in offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” When Jesus was speaking about building his church on this rack, he is confessing that the rock is the belief that Peter had, “you are the Christ, the son of the living God“ If God had made Peter” the rock” then everything the Bible had talked about with Jesus would have been a lie. Because Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through me. And we can see in Matthew 16:22- 23 that Jesus is already rebuking Peter, for not having his mind on things of God. It’s so important to read your Bible carefully and ask God to show you what he means and what he wants you to learn from it. The Catholic Church use this one verse to gain power and control over so many people. And it was easy to do because people did not read the Bible or have access to the Bible. I pray you take the Bible into your own hands and get to know God the way he wants you to❤
Because James believes that some Catholics are saved in spite of catholic theology, not because of it. When a large denomination doesn’t uphold one of the main cores of the gospel of Christ, which is that Christ died on our behalf and his righteousness imputed to us, it’s hard to say that that group has the gospel at all.
The church is not a building or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ-all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16;
no its not. idol worship is rampant and Marry has nothing to do with our salvation she was just the vessel that god chose to bring his mighty son into the world. god will exhalt her how ever he wants to but man needs to look and worship ONLY ONE CHRIST
I have three main issues with Catholicism. The biggest thing that stops me from calling Catholics Christians is what looks like idolatry. What is the purpose of praying to Mary and the saints? Why are there graven images of God and Jesus? Another major holdup is "Confession". Why is a priest needed to absolve people of sin? The Bible says that sin is not forgiven save by the shedding of blood. The blood of Jesus was shed for the sin of the whole World. The last of the big three is the idea of purgatory. Purgatory is not a Biblicat teaching, it is a story from the mind of Dante. It does not appear in scripture, and gives a false view of what happens when we die. You are judged by God for your sins, which we all have, and the only escape from the judgment is if you received the free gift of God's mercy through Jesus. There are other unbiblical teachings in Catholicism, but these are the main issues for me.
Let’s address you issues. Confession is completely Biblical - for you to reject it means you reject Scripture. Leviticus 19: 20-22: A man who committed adultery had to bring a guilt offering for himself to the door of the tent of meeting (holy place where the ark of the covenant, which contained God’s true presence was kept). But then it adds “And the priest shall make atonement for him …before the Lord for his sin…and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven.” (see also Leviticus 5: 5-6) The priest could not make atonement if he were not aware of the man's sin. He is acting as a mediator for the repentant sinner. Jewish Practice: On the eve of the Day of Atonement or of Passover, it was forbidden to eat and drink, to wash, anoint, lace shoes, or have sexual intercourse. Breaking of these laws led to excommunication. The people who came to confess their sins at the Temple annually brought offerings and animal victims to be sacrificed when it got dark on eve of feast of atonement or Passover. They actually, confessed their sins before the meal, afterwards and the next morning in a threefold confession. Priests prayed for their forgiveness.(p. 323, How Christ Said the First Mass by Fr. James L. Meagher, D.D.). The Apostles would have conformed to these religious practices when they came to celebrate the seder meal of the Passover with Jesus in the Upper Room before His crucifixion. The complaint might be, well that is the Old Testament, but now we have Jesus, who suffered for our sins. What does the New Testament have to say? Matthew 3: 6 (and Mk 1: 5): “. . . they were baptized by him [John the Baptist] in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” So he who prepared the way for Christ, listened to confessions of sin. John the Baptist, whom Jesus called him the greatest "among them that are born of woman," preached a baptism of repentance. Mark tells us that ". . . there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5) We learn in Luke's account of the Baptist that he answered many questions for the people concerning the behavior they should follow, but freely confessed that he was not the Christ (Luke 3: 16-17). He doubtless heard countless confessions of sin, but he knew where forgiveness of sin came from for when Jesus approached he declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1: 29). Jesus than sent his disciples to baptize throughout Judea (John 3: 22) and they too, doubtless heard the confessions of many sinners as they traveled from village to village. So Jesus used his disciples and John the precursor to hear confessions of sins, but this is not the sacrament of confession, anymore than the baptism of John was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which came after John the Baptist's time. Let's see if the New Testament shows men receiving the authority to forgive sins in God's name. Matthew 9: 6-8: Jesus tells us that He was given authority on earth to forgive sins (a power reserved to God alone) and proves it with miraculous healings and then Scripture notes this same authority was given to “men” (plural). Is this merely a figure of speech? No, John's Gospel makes it clear Jesus intended to give this sacrament to men: John 20: 21-23: In his very first Resurrection appearance our Lord gives this awesome power to his Apostles with the words: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” How could they forgive sins if they were not confessed? They could not. This authority comes through the gift of the Holy Spirit which precedes it. Does this remind of you what He told Peter (Mt. 16: 19) and then the other apostles (Mt. 18:18)? “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This includes sins. Jesus allowed for us to receive spiritual consolation and counsel in this beautiful sacrament of the Church. We see this awesome power in other sacraments as well. What today we call the sacrament of the sick. Again, we look to Scripture: James 5: 14-17: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another …” Notice the command does not say confess your sins straight to God. Notice also who they are to go to the “elders” (bishops or priests-see the Acts 14: 23; 15: 2 for example). 1 John 1: 9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The word confess has an oral/verbal or proclamation meaning. St. Paul describes his ministry as one of reconciliation of sinners: 2 Corinthians 5: 18: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation . . .”
That’s the issue it’s what you THINK Catholics are doing - you don’t care about what Catholics say they are doing. Let’s look at the Bible about graven images. Let's quote the Exodus verses you are referencing shall we: • “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6 KJV) God is explicitly clear in what He is saying. God describes what a graven image is and that we a forbidden from Bowing down to them or serving them - meaning believing like the pagans do that a ‘god’ inhabits them. In Exodus 20:3-6 God forbids making graven images for the purpose of idolatry but does not forbid the making of graven images per se. Elsewhere he commands that statues and other graven images be carved for religious purposes. Do you think God is capable of going against His own commands? That God would allow His people to go directly against His commands? Or do you rightly think that is a ludicrous idea... In Exodus 3:2-6; Dan 7:9; Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; Acts 2:3 - we see that God revealed Himself in visible form (as the burning bush, a dove, fire, etc). Let's see what God commanded and allowed in Scripture shall we: Deuteronomy 5:8 - God’s commandment to not make any graven images (Deut. 5:8; Ex. 20:4) is entirely connected to the worship of false gods as explained in (Deut 5:9; Ex. 20:5) God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped. To even try and claim God prohibited the use of all images means you are saying God went against His own Word when He commanded them and permitted them... Blasphemy! Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1, 31 - God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim. This heavenly image, of course, is not worshiped by the Israelites. Instead, the image disposes their minds to the supernatural and draws them to God. • “And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” (Ex. 25:17-22 KJV) • “Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.” (Ex. 26:1 KJV) Numbers 21:8-9 - God also commands the making of the bronze serpent. The image of the bronze serpent is not an idol to be worshiped, but an article that lifts the mind to the supernatural. • “And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.” (Num. 21:8-9 KJV) 1 Kings 6:23-35; 7:25-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon’s temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship. • “....he made two cherubim of olive tree, each ten cubits high.... And he set the cherubims within the inner house:.... And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.” (1 Kgs. 6:23-29 KJV) • “It [the brazen sea] stood upon [statues of] twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.” (1 Kgs. 7:25 KJV) • “For on the plates of the ledges thereof, and on the borders thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm trees, according to the proportion of every one, and additions round about.” (1 Kgs. 7:36 KJV) • “And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above..... And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD. Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.” (1 Kgs. 8:6-13 KJV) Now if what you claim is true and that God forbids all images why on earth would God then dwell in the temple where Cheribum had been carved (verses 6-7)? Why would Solomon declare it as a place suitable for God to abide in forever (verse 13)? Are you claiming you know better than Solomon and David? Because remember it was David who gave the plans to Solomon. Are you trying to claim God doesn't know His own commands?!? That God went against His own commands?!? - Blasphemy! 2 Kings 18:4 - it was only when the people began to worship the statue did they incur God’s wrath, and king Hezekiah destroyed it. The command prohibiting the use of graven images deals exclusively with the false worship of those images. • “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.” (2 Kgs. 18:4 KJV) 1 Chronicles 28:18-19 - David gives Solomon the plan for the altar made of refined gold with golden cherubim images. These images were used in the Jews’ most solemn place of worship. • “And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD. All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.” (1 Chron. 28:18-19 KJV) 2 Chronicles 3:7-14 - the house was lined with gold with elaborate cherubim carved in wood and overlaid with gold. • “He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubims on the walls. And he made the most holy house,.... and he overlaid it with fine gold,.... And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold. And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold..... And he made the vail of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon.” (2 Chron. 3:7-14 KJV) Ezekiel 41:18-20 - Ezekiel describes ‘graven’ images in the temple consisting of carved likenesses of cherubim. These are similar to the images of the angels and saints in many Catholic churches. • “And it was made with cherubims and palm trees, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub; and every cherub had two faces; So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about. From the ground unto above the door were cherubims and palm trees made, and on the wall of the temple.” (Ezek. 41:18-20 KJV) Colossians 1:15 - the only image of God that Catholics worship is Jesus Christ, who is the “image” (Greek “eikon”) of the invisible God. • “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Col. 1:15 KJV) So what do you plan to tell God on your judgement day? Are you going to tell Him that according to your own interpretation of Scripture He went against His own Commandments? That you interpreted Scripture to mean all images are graven therefore God doesn't know His own Word of Commands? Are you going to tell God that He was wrong when He commanded ‘graven images’ to be made?... And that you know better?!? I’m sure God will love you telling Him how He didn’t follow His own Word correctly according to your Protestant interpretation....
As for the intercession of the Saints - let’s again look to Scripture (note this isn’t even an exhaustive list of Scripture that I could quote) I’ve already replied to you. The fact you think it is necromancy means you don’t trust nor believe Christs words! Christ was explicitly clear that God is the God of the living *”I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”* (Matt. 22:32 KJV) [St. Luke's Gospel adds *”For all live unto him”* (Luke 20:38 KJV)] and that those who die in Him though they suffer a bodily death will live! “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, *though he were dead, yet shall he live:”* (John 11:25 KJV) When Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration, this was not necromancy even though Moses was dead and buried for over a thousand years and Elijah was taken up into heaven (for you "Left Behind" fans: he was "raptured") nearly a thousand years before Jesus was born. Jesus is our very example of Christian living and here we have Jesus talking with a so-called 'dead saint' while we read in the Scriptures: “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. *HE THAT SAITH HE ABIDETH IN HIM OUGHT HIMSELF ALSO SO TO WALK, EVEN AS HE WALKED.”* (1 John 2:3-6 KJV) This is a great gift, for “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16), and the angels and saints in heaven are inarguably righteous. A mediator is one who comes between two parties with the purpose of uniting them. Christ played a role of mediation that only the God-man could, but Christians are still called to serve as mediators between Christ and the world. In no way does this diminish the unique work of Christ. On the contrary, it manifests it. For example, Christ is our only high priest, but we are all called to be a nation of priests (1 Pet. 2:9). Christ is the only Son of God, yet we are made sons of God through adoption (Gal. 3:4). The Christian life consists in being conformed to Christ, and as Paul says, being “God’s fellow-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9) in his plan of salvation. To think of those in heaven as unwilling or unable to pray for us is to have a grave misconception of heaven. It is not an isolated part of the body of Christ that exists without concern for the other members of the body who are still working out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). Those in heaven surround us as a “great cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1), and the book of Revelation teaches that the prayers they offer for us “saints” is an integral part of the eternal worship given to God. Firstly “To pray” does not necessarily mean “to worship”. Catholics understand that when we pray to God, it is an act of worship where we obtain grace directly from the very Source of grace itself. It is a “surge of the heart” towards the one God. Prayer to saints is different. To pray can mean to worship, but not always; it can also mean to request or plea. Have you ever heard the old English phrase “Pray tell me…” used before asking a question? The use of the word “pray” in this context initiates a plea or request. This is also the context Catholics work within when praying to saints and angels. When we pray to saints and angels, we request their intercession before God. We invite the invisible but living members of the Church who are more substantially in the presence of the “God of the Living” (Luke 20:38) to be another link in our prayer chain. Surely all Christians see the value in going to the most righteous members of the Church with our prayer intentions since they are “great in effect” (Jas 5:16). There are none more righteous than those who have been perfected in heaven. There is only one Church, one Body of Christ, which spans heaven and earth (Rom 12; 1 Cor 12), and Christ calls its members to pray for one another. Those who dwell in heaven are not exempt from this supreme act of love. This is clear from Scripture. The Scriptures do not condemn pleading the intercession of the saints. The Bible condemns necromancy. But prayer to those in heaven is not necromancy. Necromancy involves magic, and the obtaining of information and abilities through the power of evil spirits. It is an abomination. But imploring the intercession of the saints and angels is fundamentally other in comparison, as it is an act of faith in the power of God and an invitation to charity. The Bible does not teach that we will lose the duty or ability to pray for one another at any point (including after death). No Scripture verse supports the notion that we can no longer pray for one another once we die and go to heaven.
Now let’s address purgatory. Scripture is very clear when it says: “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.” (Rev. 21:27 KJV) “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13 KJV) How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace. Now all Christians know that Jesus came not to abolish the OT but to fulfil it. In the OT Jews clearly believed that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will prove. This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.” In (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” Now you can try to use the typical retorts of trying to claim Maccabees isn’t Biblical Canon however Maccabees is actually referred to in the NT and the story that is being referred to can be found nowhere in Scripture except in Maccabees also for you to claim the deuterocanonical books aren’t Scripture is saying God went silent for 300years leaving no inspired writings for people which is a nonsensical claim. You can also try saying these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically try to say, Purgatory must then be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic. *addressing the first complaint of canonicity of Maccabees* Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament: “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matt. 12:32 KJV) This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel. *addressing the second resort argument Protestants use by trying to use Catholic theology against Catholics* A careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be closer to a Christian sports player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to play than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry. This was, most likely, a venial sin for them. But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter, good Jews in ancient times-just like good Catholics today-believed they should always pray for the souls of those who have died: “Then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according unto all his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men:)” (2 Chronicles 6:30 KJV) God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have died. In Matthew 5 Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” (Matt. 5:25-26 KJV) For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26. But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory. This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually. These verses are found in the midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” in (Matt. 5) where our Lord teaches about heaven (verse 20), hell (verses 29-30), and both mortal sin (verse 22) and venial sins (verse 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12). Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (Matt. 6:19-21). Further, as St. John points out in (John 20:31), all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realisation of the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17). It would seem odd to see the deeper and even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, except in these two verses. When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, ‘phulake’ is the same word used by St. Peter, in (1 Peter 3:19) to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. ‘Phulake’ is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.
*The plainest text regarding purgatory* “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (1 Cor. 3:11-15 KJV). We can see Saint Paul is speaking about the judgment after death (see Hebrews 9:27) that everyone will face, framed in the context of loss and reward. The fire is being used to test the quality of a persons works. Fire is used metaphorically in Scripture in two ways 1- as a purifying agent (Malachi 3:2-3; Matthew 3:11; Mark 9:49) 2- as something that consumes (Matthew 3:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Greek hopoiov - of what sort). Paul is describing a state of being. •He cannot possibly be describing hell, because people are being saved there. •He also cannot be describing heaven, because there is imperfection being burned (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13). To claim Saint Paul is describing heaven and that ‘once saved always saved’ is supported by (1 Cor. 3:15) means you are saying Scripture conflicts with itself which it cannot do! “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?” (Heb. 1:13 KJV) Instead Paul is describing a third place that isn’t Heaven or hell. It’s Purgatory: a place (or state of being) where the faithful dead who are in a state of grace but not yet purified of all imperfection go to for final purification to prepare them to enter the glory of heaven. The typical Protestant response to this is to say: there is no mention, at least explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it. First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)? If these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated? Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it. We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense. Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but “if the work survives… he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss.” And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Greek dia puros). The truth is: both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord. Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory.
Dr White was being gracious. It truly is only the grace of God in Jesus which saves… not our works (Ephesians 2; Romans 1, 5,6,7, 8, 10:9-10). God knows who is His.
Catholicism is NOT pre-denominational or the original church. The Apostles didn’t create a centralized church nor did Jesus, they simply put together the bible (which had no official canon for a long time). The first church was the Great Church, established after the council of Nicaea. Overtime Rome asserted itself over the other patriarchs, in a way never intended by the Nicene Council. This eventually produced the Great Schism. Rome and the west became Catholic, while the east and Constantinople became Orthodox.
Quite frankly, the apostles established a community long before any Gospel or Letter of Paul was written. In this case, this community or “ecclesia” which I think we can call the Church predates the New Testament. In that sense, the Bible was meant to be a guide for the Church, by the Church, and of the Church. Church Father writings placed a lot of emphasis on believing the right doctrine (orthodoxy) and also adhering to the teachings of the Universal Church (Catholic) meaning that Ante-Nicene Christians already saw that membership in the One True Church was synonymous with believing right doctrine and obeying rightful apostolic authority. I suppose this is the understanding of most pre-Reformation churches and why the Protestant mindset of just adhering to core doctrine even if there’s no full communion between denominations is a very strange mindset to us.
Neither Christ nor the apostles had anything whatsoever to do with creating the bible. The entire thing was written anonymously and not until long after any of it is claimed to have happened and wasn't brought together as one book until three centuries later.
@@michaelfox2433 That may be true although I’ll note that when reading Church History, the attributions of the Gospels (at least) to their authors is unanimous in the entire Church. I’d expect that if there was doubt as to who the author (or alternatively who the tradition stems from since it’s also possible a community wrote down the Gospels based on the teachings of the attributed author), then there would be records of dispute or doubt as to authorship. An example we still have of doubtful authorship is the Letter to the Hebrews. Traditionally, some have attributed it to Paul but in modern times, though considered canonical, many churches leave the authorship unknown. Also, yes, the Canon was decided after 3 centuries but the reason these writings were canonized was because they were read throughout the Christian community especially in the liturgy for those 3 centuries. Although of course it’s not clearcut since non-canonical writings like the Shepherd of Hermas were read and some like the Book of Revelation were doubted.
@@raphaelledesma9393 There is no debate amongst biblical scholars, both theists and seculars, that the entire book was written anonymously and nobody knows who wrote a single word since there is no original copies and nothing was signed. We do know much of it was written centuries after the time it is claimed to have happened so none of it is first hand accounts. The names attributed to the books were assigned in the fourth century CE by the council that put them together as the bible came to exist as one book. Those are simply facts.
Coming from someone who believes there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, it shouldn't be an issue that some protestants don't think Catholics are Christian especially if it's the same treatment Protestants get from Rome. So we are all playing a game of damned or not.
@@ReasonandTheology You do know that insulting people instead of discussing things like an adult only hurts people's perception of your side right? I'd list non-christian things Catholics believe but you'd just delete my comment again.
@@irishandscottish1829 Let me explain. He said "profoundly ignorant" but it carries the STRONG undertone of, "You're a (insert explicitive here) idiot." Strong enough functionally, he said the undertone part out loud. Not insulting would be, "I disagree", or "Elaborate what you mean (and then break down their response)", or even still bad but less bad, "This statement/comment is born out of ignorance." Also the SingleMalt's claim isn't ignorant it's actually very factual. So not only was OP demonstrating an appalling lack of love, patience, kindness, gentleness, or self control (please tell me you know what I'm pulling from here!) while advertising himself as a representative of Christ in his response, but the comment that's he's insultingly calling ignorant is actually quite factual. Hope this helps!
Sir, is this an argument about semantics? And yes, whether you like it or not, that person’s comment is ignorant and also, aif it wasn’t true and profoundly ridiculous, then it would be offensive. But we Christians( yes us Catholics - the very first Christians - on which Jesus built his Church) just sigh, because we know what the truth is. So don’t waste time defending your guy’s random, off-the-back foot comment. Here’s a tip - set the language books aside and go read up on Church history. And Mr Lofton’s response is perfectly appropriate. Guess what - Jesus didn’t suffer fools and their foolish comments lightly as well. I hope this helps. Be at peace - all is well, because God is God.
James did say the Roman gospel wasn’t Christian. It’s that he has met and read Catholics that show fruit of saving faith. He has been on the streets and actually walked the walk. Us presbys don’t have that issue we say yes Catholicism can produce Christian’s because the word of God is used. It’s in spite of not because they are catholic. I have seen a major fall of Catholics in my town and I only know one and he attends my presby church. That speaks volumes to what has changed and that many devoted Catholics want nothing to do with the current state of Catholicism
Hank Hannegraf said the best way to answer that question is to define what a cult is. And, sadly, Catholicism sure can be defined as a cult. Mary was not born from an immaculate conception, Jesus told us to NOT speak to, pray to or have anything to do with the dead. Fancy robes, all for show, bowing down? It's the Old Testament priests living a life of power and authority today.
Welp got to love it when Protestants expose themselves as non believers in Jesus. Jesus was explicitly clear: *”I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”* (Matt. 22:32 KJV) [St. Luke's Gospel adds *”For all live unto him”* (Luke 20:38 KJV)] and that those who die in Him though they suffer a bodily death will live! “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, *though he were dead, yet shall he live:”* (John 11:25 KJV)
@@irishandscottish1829 No issue whatsoever my friend. Empirical means something verifiable by observation or experience as opposed to theory or conjecute and there are plenty of actions performed by the Roman Catholic faith that are plainly observable in order to make these determinations when compared to scripture and not simply giving way to the traditions of man. Just to name a few, the worship/adoration/veneration of Mary (including immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, or as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), the petitioning or "veneration" of the dead (saints) for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a "father," or the building of shrines to passed loved ones (the dead.) None of which are mentioned or asked of *Christians* in the New Testament and many of which are condemned in the Old Testament
I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith, but I fell away in my teens. Much, much later, I became a Bible-believing Christian, a Protestant. CATHOLICISM IS NOT CHRISTIANITY.
@@irishandscottish1829 bugger off, mate. The Word says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, so get off your phone and pick up your Bible. The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Christ. It wasn’t founded by the 12 apostles. It wasn’t founded by any of the original 77 disciples that he sent out, or the 120 that he sent out two by two into all Judea, after that. The Roman Catholic Church claims its lineage because it’s the oldest surviving subsect, no more than that.
@@paulprovenzano3755 ahh how Christ like. You think you can come on a Catholic channel stating Catholicism isn’t Christianity and get no push back? Sorry not going to happen. But it’s telling that you make claims and accusations yet when confronted you can’t back it up. I suggest you read your Bible to see what happens to those who bear false witness Oh that’s quite the skill - do tell me, can you bi locate to know I didn’t pick up my Bible today and read it? You wouldn’t be lying about me now would you? Ahh there it is again - more lies about Catholics. No Catholic believes the Apostles or the disciples started Christ church - Christ started His Church and handed His bride to His Apostles. Might want to focus on your salvation with fear and trembling before coming on catholic channels and lying and when confronted being wholly incapable of backing up your lies
@@peterhenryzepeda3484 I went to private schools, taught by the Roman Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Chicago. I lived across the street from the parish church and the rectory; the convent was literally next-door. In high school, I was taught by the Christian Brothers of Ireland in a school administered by the Jesuits, the Society Of Jesus. One year Catholic theology class mandatory for every year of those 12 years …… and I was generally a straight-A student. Most of my family (and much of my neighborhood) were observant Catholics, so I was saturated with it.
This is not a secret Bud!! He was trying to be kind! We are all save out of or Idolatry/ sin! Atheism, Mormonism, Islam, Romanism, etc… I was from Pentecostalism!! It’s only when God opens our eyes to HIS Glorious Gospel! He can find us anywhere!! “ and such were some of you “. Also the definition, of the question asked, depends on what ya mean. Rome claims they are. The problem is who Christ is to them.
No! Catholicism is not a Christian religion. Christian means follower of Christ, not follower of Mary and the pope and the priest and all the other saints.
Catholics follow Jesus. They honor Mary. They do not worship her or worship a priest or a pope. You are misinformed about Catholicism. I suggest that you study and read early church history. You'll discover that Jesus founded the Catholic church 2000 years ago.
@@user-ki2vh1uc5k chapter and verse where it says to honor the dead? Chapter verse, where it says to pray to the dead? And don’t tell me she’s alive, because when scripture says, do not communicate with the dead, the people who are dead, are the people that have died. Those that are in hell are very much “alive” as well In the same spiritual sense that she is.
@@user-ki2vh1uc5k why would I follow a second source when I have the first source? The Bible is the only God breathed Scripture, why would I go to the early church fathers? They didn’t even agree on many things and argued among themselves. And how can you be a father of something when you came after it?
@@user-ki2vh1uc5k you are right, Jesus founded the Catholic or universal church, but he did not found the Roman Catholic Church. Huge difference. If he did, then 2/3 of the Catholic church doctrine would have been in Scripture when it’s not. It’s been made up by people. I know more about the Catholic Church than most Catholics do. You know why? Because you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
@@sandina2cents779 The Bible calls Mary blessed among women. John the Baptist leapt in his Mother's womb in the presence of Mary. Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, immediately recognized that Mary was blessed among women.
Once you understand the doctrines, the history and the role of the priests, then no, catholicism isn't a Christian denomination. But it's a good starting point.
@@georgebauerschmidt5289 ahh yet another Protestant who denies the truth of the Bible. You all tell on yourselves with your anti catholic rhetoric. St. Peter’s calling the Christian faithful a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9) echoes Exodus 19:6, where the Lord calls his chosen people, Israel, “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Peter is alluding to the continuity between the Israel of God and the Christian Church. St. Paul identifies Christians as “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16. This is not to say that God has abandoned physical Israel but that covenantal relationship with the Father is determined by union with Christ and no longer merely by ethnic relationship with Abraham. This comparison between the Israel of God in the Old Covenant and the Israel of God in the New is the key for showing the reasonableness of the existence of a ministerial priesthood within the New Testament Church. Even though in the Old Testament all the Israelites were considered priests, there existed a specific ministerial priesthood. For example, just a few verses after the Israelites are called a “kingdom of priests,” one discovers a distinct order of men who are considered priests apart from the people: “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves, lest the Lord break out upon them” (Ex. 19:22). In verse 24 we find the following: “And the Lord said to him: go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the Lord.” What priesthood might this be? It is the firstborn priesthood whose priestly office would be given over to the Levites in Exodus 32 after the golden calf incident. The Lord says to Moses, “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn that opens the womb among the people of Israel” (Num. 3:12). Clearly, the Israel of God in the Old Covenant had two priesthoods: the universal and the ministerial. Another way of seeing the reasonableness of a ministerial priesthood is by looking at the New Testament against the backdrop of the threefold structure of the priesthood after Israel becomes a nation under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Aaron is constituted as the single high priest according to Exodus 30:30-the top level. His sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar minister with him as priests according to Exodus 28:21-the middle level. Finally, as mentioned before, all the Israelites were universal priests according to Exodus 19:6-the bottom level. When we compare this structure to the New Testament, we can see clearly the top level, which is occupied by a single high priest, Jesus. Hebrews 3:1 reads, “Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.” Along with the top level, the bottom level is also explicitly revealed in 1 Peter 2:5, 9: “Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood. . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” When one puts these levels of priesthood in the New Covenant alongside the three levels in the Old, the only level missing is the middle-namely, those priests who minister with the high priest, Jesus. Does this mean that the New Covenant doesn’t have this level of the ministerial priesthood? Such an assertion would not make biblical sense. If the top level corresponds to Jesus and the lower level corresponds to the universal priesthood of baptised Christians, it’s reasonable to conclude that the middle level of priest ministering with the high priest in the Old Testament would have a corresponding middle level of priests who minister with Jesus in the New. The Catholic Church identifies this level as the hierarchical priesthood, which consists of both the episcopate and the presbyterate. But now the question is: Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus established a ministerial or hierarchical priesthood distinct from the common priesthood of the baptised? The answer is YES The first way in which we can demonstrate that Jesus established a ministerial priesthood is by showing how Christ gives the apostles priestly duties. In the biblical tradition there are certain actions that are constituted specifically as priestly actions. We know a priest by what a priest does. We find Jesus conferring priestly duties on the apostles, and we conclude that he is constituting them as priests. I will limit the present article to two duties: the forgiveness of sins and the offering of sacrifice. The forgiveness of sins In John 20:20-23, Jesus transfers to the apostles his power to forgive sins: Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.“ Notice that Jesus sets it up so that the forgiveness of sins is received through the ministry of the apostles. From the words of Christ it is clear that the apostle has the authority to make a judgment whether to forgive or not to forgive. This paradigm is not foreign to the Jewish people. In the Old Testament the forgiveness of sins was associated with the intercession of the priest: “A man . . . shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed . . . and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin” (Lev. 5:5-6). Numbers 15:27-28 serves as another example: “If one person sins unwittingly, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who commits an error, when he sins unwittingly, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven.” These passages show that God’s ordinary way of dealing with man’s sin is through God’s priests. Notice that it was not a part of God’s will for his people simply to confess their sins privately to him; their confession of sin involved the ministry of the priests. It is in light of this Old Testament context that Jesus tells his apostles to forgive sins. Jesus, as God does in the Old Testament, associates his new ordained ministers with the ministry of the forgiveness of sins. In doing so, Jesus is revealing his apostles to be priests. It is important to make a catechetical point here. Within the Old Covenant, the priest did not have the power to absolve sins from the individual’s soul. The priests simply offered sacrifice as a visible symbol for the individual’s repentance in hope for them to receive God’s mercy. The priests in the New Covenant, according to Jesus (cf. John 20:23), have the actual power to forgive sins as they so judge. Here Protestants usually respond, “Only God can forgive sins, not man.” No argument here. As Catholics, we are not saying that the apostles (and their successors) forgive sins by their own power. The power by which they absolve sins is the very power of Jesus Christ. The priests are simply the agents in persona Christi who exercise that power to which they have access because it resides in their soul by virtue of their ordination.
@@georgebauerschmidt5289 The offering of sacrifice A second priestly duty that Jesus gives the apostles is to offer sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice that Jesus offered at the Last Supper. After Jesus pronounces the words of consecration over the bread, St. Luke records Jesus saying, “Do this in remembrance of me” (22:19). Knowing that sacrifice within the Old Testament is always associated with priests, if we can demonstrate that Jesus is commanding the apostles to offer sacrifice, we will be able to conclude that Jesus is establishing them as priests. There are several clues within this Last Supper narrative that reveal such an event to be a sacrifice, thus revealing the apostles to be priests. This article will highlight only one. The sacrificial characteristic of the Last Supper is supported by the Greek word used for the command “do.” According to the Greek text, it can be rendered literally as “offer this” in the sense of a sacrifice. The Greek word for “do” is poiein, conjugated in the text as poiete, which in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, is used in a sacrificial sense. For example, Exodus 29:38 reads: “Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two lambs a year old day by day continually.” The Greek word for “offer” is also poiein, conjugated poieseis. Leviticus 9:7 and Psalm 66:15 serve as other examples where poiein is used in reference to sacrifice. Moses says to Aaron in Leviticus 9:7, “Draw near to the altar and offer [Greek, poiein] your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people.” Psalm 66:15 reads, “I will offer [Greek, poiein] to thee burnt offerings of fatlings.” Because poiein is used in the Last Supper narrative in reference to the duties of the apostles, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is commanding them to offer a sacrifice, thus making them priests. To add to the evidence, one can turn to Matthew 12:1-8, which recounts the story of the apostles picking the heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath. The Pharisees object to this action of Jesus and the apostles because they view it as breaking the Sabbath rest. St. Matthew records the Pharisees’ objection in 12:2: “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” Jesus defends his apostles by calling to mind an event that involves David and his men eating the showbread or bread of presence within the Holy Place: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (Matt. 12:4; cf. 1 Sam. 21). I wish to draw your attention to the fact that eating the bread was the duty solely of the priests. What Jesus does not say here is that this duty was performed on the Sabbath. Moses commands, “Every sabbath day . . . Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the Lord, a perpetual due” (Lev. 24:8-9). Therefore, the Old Testament priests were permitted to perform the work of their ministry on the Sabbath without incurring the guilt of sin. This is the context that Jesus is calling to mind in response to the Pharisees. Similarly, in Matthew 12:5, Jesus refers to the priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath by performing their work of offering sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus says, “Have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?” This Sabbath offering that Jesus refers to is found in Numbers 28:9-10. How does this reveal the priestly character of the apostles? Think about it this way: Why would Jesus, in defense of his apostles breaking the Sabbath rest, use two examples of the Old Testament priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath rest if he did not intend to reveal that his apostles are the New Testament priests? Therefore, this passage is a subtle but profound revelation of the priestly rank of the apostles.
"Of course its a Christian denomination" You don't get to decide. "I'm an Atheist and can plainly recognize this simple fact" Nobody cares about your opinion 😂
Wow. Cathlolic is definitely a christian denomination that clearly lost its way, created the dark ages, changed the truth if one God into 3, sold tickets to heaven, blesses homosexual unions. Furthermore, our church has power, and we see miracles daily. You guys get crying statues. I eill say that i appreciate how sacred everything is to the clergy. The weird thing is that priests keep sabbath but not the parishioners
Ahh so you don’t believe in the Bible when it says bearing false witness is a sin. I suggest you read it because it is very clear that God is a Trinity. I also suggest you read it carefully to see when Jesus affirmed the Decalogue the only Commandment He didn’t mention was the Sabbath - why? Because when you read the NT after His resurrection the church met and worshipped on Sundays
@irishandscottish1829 trinity is a man made and pagan belief. Everyone knows a triune God wasn't preached anywhere for the first 200 years. The catholic church made it Canon the same time the dark ages started. Even Jesus said the Shema Yisrael. False witness? How so? You didn't even try understand. You already made up your mind without understanding. Let me ask you this. Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead I'm Jesus? How about this one... Colossians 2:9 [9]For in Him dwelleth ALL the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD bodily. ALL, FULLNESSS, GODHEAD. Jesus is God, right? God is one? Did Jesus lie ? In heaven if we ask to see the father will He say, He's over there? Or He who has seen me has seen thr Father? Jesus didn't speak His own words amd even called himself the I AM seven times. That's why they took up stonesto stone him, for blasphemy Furthermore, you missed the part where installed about all the miracles that i see in my church. I went to catholic church amd mass as a child by the way. Never saw any holy ghost power. Not saying there's not any. But we've had many leave catholic once they step into the realm presence of God. The Bible says I'd they have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof, from such turn away
@irishandscottish1829 where does it say God is three. It actually says God is one. The Holy One of Israel. God's title I'm the OT is Alpha and Omega. First and Last. How can there be 2 firsts and lasts. Two Alphas and Omegas? Or is it three? “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour” (Isaiah 43: 10-11). “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isaiah 44: 6). “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44: 8). “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” (Isaiah 44: 24). “There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45: 6). “There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else”Deuteronomy 32: 39, God said there is no other god with Him. There is none like the L ORD and there is no God beside Him (II Samuel 7: 22; I Chronicles 17: 20). He alone is God (Psalm 86: 10).
@@irishandscottish1829 “For there is one God” (I Timothy 2: 5). “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2: 19).
@irishandscottish1829 who's beating false witness? You're teaching a passed down man made tradition. Tritheism. I'm the same as the apostles. We believe in One God and Father of all, Christ Jesus. That's why I can witness to Jews and Muslims and they have no answer for me. They laugh at your trinity argument because it goes against the true nature of God.
I remember listening to a lot of James White around my "Calvinist conversion" as a Protestant. Even though I was a part of the Reformed tradition back then, I eventually couldn't stand listening to him because he seemed to lack charitable nuance and would batter those who disagreed with fallacies.
It's wild that his sister converted to Catholicism though when he's so vehemently opposed to it. She was interviewed about it on EWTN and her name is Patty Bonds. I pray James allows his heart to be softened by the Lord and that he receives the graces of God merited by his sister's prayers for him. There's hardly anything more beautiful than our family members according to nature helping one another be transformed into family according to Spirit. Praise God for the Church He has established!
That's great news!
I completely lost respect when he suggested that David Wood is not Christian. David has brought thousands of Muslims to Christ through very deliberate evangelism while James White has played nice with Shabir Ally. And yet that same James White who accused David Wood of being to harsh has people like Brandon Robertson on the show and cruelly interrupts and demeans him the whole time. It's amazing that he accuses Catholics of being Pharisees when he is such a hypocrite himself
We and the Orthodox Church are pre-denominational.
Jw: worryin' 'bout the collection plate.
The Catholic and Orthodox are literally the first schism and denominations of Christianity.
Catholicism is pagan.
Unless you were usurped
@@logan3741 If you follow jesuit historians.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church IS the Apostolic Church created by Jesus Christ. The Church is the only church that has 100% fullness of the faith.
The Holy Catholic Church
Where did you read that the church was created by Jesus?
@@veronicasanchez2350Mathew, new test, good read 10/10.would recommended
I love how protestants seem to know who is and is not saved.
Really boggles my mind how many people question another's salvation or declare them as unsaved. It bothers me a lot. I don't know where anyone would get the "stones" to say stuff like that such that one or more people would hear or read it.
In Protestant Doctrine, you are “saved” ONLY when you consciously accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. There is nothing in Catholic Doctrine that has that specific requirement, so it’s actually a fair bet that most Roman Catholics really aren’t ‘saved,’ by the Protestants’ understanding and usage of the word.
how do I know? I was raised in a Sicilian household, in the Roman Catholic faith. I went to Catholic schools. I later fell away from Catholicism during my high school years. Much further down the road, I started reading the King James Bible and became a what is generally called a “Bible believing Protestant.”
I am not fond of protestants judging who is and is not saved, but by their definition of the word, the vast majority of Catholics just aren’t.
@@paulprovenzano3755 rubbish Catholics absolutely believe Jesus is our Lord and Saviour so according to the heretical doctrine not supported by Scripture Catholics are saved
Oh I understand now
As a Catholic I do too much,? I not only consciously believe Jesus is my Savior, furthermore the working belief to be a better person in the eye of God, the constant engagement with Jesus through praying and the daily rosary, the sacraments, humble myself because pride is a mortal sin (the worst)... are clearly too much?
@@sanfransohoyeah I never understood the Protestant view on Catholic salvation. Catholics accept lord Jesus Christ as our savior. Why aren’t they saved
We were the first christians. It started with the 12, then the followers of the way, then the univeral "catholic" church
When I was a kid and living in poverty my dad couldn’t afford to buy me a go cart. But every day, I went outside and took some boards and plywood he’d bring home from the job site and fashioned them into a configuration like I it was a car. I would imagine I was driving the real thing. To me, it was just as fulfilling as the real thing having never stepped into the seat of a go cart. Years later, my dad found a second hand go cart, fixed it up, and when I got to drive it, I knew I was super blessed to finally have the real experience. It was nothing like my imagination could provide. Almost as if a veil had been removed. I feel that is how our poor brothers and sisters lost to these heretical faiths would feel once they finally remove the veil and step into the one, true, holy, apostolic, Christ-forged, Catholic, and only Christian faith.
Nice analogy 👊🏼
It’s NOT a Christian “denomination”, it’s the OG. It is Christianity. All other Christian groupings are denominations from it.
All other Christian groups are heretics.
I 100% agree. Even as someone who is still barely Protestant, I was thoroughly disappointed with James White’s response or lack of response.
Yes Catholic’s are Christians!!! and I’m so thankful for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.
God Bless you all and the Lord Bless this channel and the work you’re doing in his name.
My answer would be, "No. Catholicism is original Christianity, not a mere denomination of Christianity."
Except it's not. It's pagan.
@@fonztorres hahaha 🤣 good one! that's the most historically ignorant comment I've heard yet 🤣
@@fonztorreswhat is your evidence for that claim ?
@@theticoboy There is plenty. Just to name a few, the worship/adoration/veneration of Mary (including immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, or as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), the petitioning or "veneration" of the dead (saints) for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a "father," or the building of shrines to passed loved ones (the dead.) None of which are mentioned or asked of *Christians* in the New Testament and many of which are condemned in the Old Testament.
@@fonztorres besides your mis-characterization of worshipping Mary/Saints, none of these things you listed are condemned in the OT.
Looks like your litmus test is if it is not explicit in the NT then it’s considered pagan. So I presume you’re a pagan too if hold to sola fide, sola scriptura and celebrate Christmas. 😉
He avoided answering because if he answered honestly, he’d have lost the debate on that point alone…
Yeah i used to listen to James White and the dividing line for nearly a decade. He doesnt like this question, he sees it as a ‘gotcha’ because as soon as he says we arent christian, then he has to explain how almost all of the saints and church fathers and subsequent christians until the reformation went to hell. Or were given the mercy to disobey the church enough to make it to heaven.
This is a gotcha question and for that very reason! The reason he gives for not wanting to explain his answer is a concession in of itself! Simply put, The fact that he wont answer tells you he isnt satisfied with his own reasoning.
Check out his discussion with Doug Wilson about are catholics christians? Doug wilson said well i certainly hope so, otherwise were all in big trouble! Lol i still love that guy!
That’s a great point !
I was waiting for someone to say this
It’s not a gotcha. One can just say most went to hell before the reformation and then that’s it. James just doesn’t want to be controversial and sound rude prob
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 LOL you got a point, he could hust answer the question. Personally its just my opinion but this is Exactly what makes it a gotcha. As soon as he says that, hes the bad guy and would lose the debate. No way you say something like that in a room full of lutherans and they don’t grumble or outright boo.
Honestly that shouldnt matter in a debate. But James White has been in enough of them not to give Trent that good guy shine. Doubtful trent wouldve even capitalized on it but it def wouldve made james look like the bad guy had he answered. Funny thing is not answering pretty much told everyone what he thinks anyway.
@@timboslice980 Trent was like I got my own Patrick Madrid moment against him in a sola scriptura debate no less!
Yes, that's true. Catholicism is not a denomination, but Catholicism is the true church the bride of Christ Thank you Jesus 🙏
Yes, I have accepted Jesus as my Lord, Savior, King, And Master, and YES, I am Catholic.
The irony is that we are the first Christians, and that's why our ways look so old 😂
The Catholic Church is the Oldest Christian Church, and the one founded by Our Lord.
What about Orthodoxy?
@@kikisinozic7475apostate sect
The Roman Catholic Church stems from the Orthodox Church historically!
@@Avyboy28 how does it?
@@kikisinozic7475 The Roman Catholic Church split from the One True Universal Holy Catholic Church when they began teaching heresies such as papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary. These were not the general consensus of the early church fathers. Also the addition of the Filioque!
I'm looking forward to listening to this debate. Nice Our Lady of Guadalupe image btw.
I've seen him deflect like this before, when he was trying to avoid talking about the fact that he believes God damns some babies to hell.
Interesting
@@ReasonandTheology The youtube channel "idol killer" has been uploading videos about this if you are looking for more info regarding james white on infant damnation
Catholicism is not one in a line of many denominations anymore than Jesus is not just one in a line of many prophets. She IS the Church Herself because She is Jesus Himself. And as Saint Joan of Arch said, “we shouldn’t complicate the matter”.
Is it just me but do Calvinist seem to have the most anti-catholic and spiritual prideful out of all Denominations? Obviously we are all guilty of spiritual pride
If so, Baptist are a close second.
It's an insult to John Calvin to call James White a "Calvinist." He is a Reformed Baptist. Presbyterians and Dutch Calvinists actually follow Calvin's theology. If Calvin heard James White's theology on Mary's virginity and baptism and the eucharist, he would be appalled. And we know this because Calvin and Luther were both extremely critical of Zwingly
James deep down wanted to correct Trent that Catholicism isn't a denomination ie denominator ie a divisor.
He did a debate years ago named, “Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sister in Christ?”. I haven’t watched it though.
Ya gotta be a Baptist in the Catholic Church to be saved! 😃
Lol!!
To be fair I am pretty sure he debated Doug Wilson on the question "Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?" and I'm pretty sure he was defending the negative.
I recall. But note here he would not be as candid with his audience.
Mike, I heard James White accuse Catholics of being “Sola Ecclesia” could you maybe address this in your review of the debate and how to respond? God Bless!!
Catholicism is NOT a Christian denomination, but there may be catholics who are Christian in spite of being Catholic.
Your comment is profoundly ignorant
It’s genuinely hilarious how you all say this yet can’t back it up
How would that work? Tell me. Because I do have a lot of friends who probably think that about me but I got no idea how I could be saved in their eyes if I'm a Catholic who adheres to everything that the Catholic Church teaches and intends never to leave the Church because in my eyes that would equal leaving Christ who is my greatest love ❤
What is your evidence for saying Catholicism is NOT a Christian denomination?
Sorry to call you a heretic , but you are.
Its the origional Christian religion.
For those who are curious, Catholicism is pre-denomination. Not a denomination.
When you do the review, are we going to play the "Jerry Matatics" name drop drinking game?
Does he not understand history? Martin Luther rebelled against the church Jesus Christ created. We must pray hard for our protestant brothers and sisters.
To whom much is given Much is required. Pray hard!
Catholicism is the original and difficult Christianity. Protestantism is easy Christianity based on feels. The denominations in Protestantism are based on disagreements about the interpretation of individual passages that validate existing biases and worldviews. We aren't a denomination. We are the source.
Where can I find the debate???
By what metric is a denomination measured? Defining standards makes articulation a lot easier.
A denomination is just a distinct subgroup with a name. In that the body of Christ is much larger than the Catholic church, they are a subgroup, and thus a denomination.
I think the question most commenters are trying to avoid by turning the focus on 'denomination', is more about the 'Christian' part; both Orthodox and Protestant believers take issue with some of the teachings of Catholicism.
All that said, I believe that we have so many variations in the faith because we have such a wide variety of believers. On the big things, the basic things of Christ, we all agree; on the details we don't. I think God knows His people, and provided a variety of organizations to meet us where we are.
Hey, man. Based on your responses to comments on this short, I think you should consider changing the name of your channel.
Is the debate available to watch somewhere?
The question should be how and who came to save us❤ Jesus. That’s it. Nothing else was added. Nothing is missing. Thank you Jesus for your sacrifice and resurrection!!! Thank you Holy Spirit for abiding in us❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Many people either misquote or misinterpret (this is why it’s so important you read the Bible for yourself so you are not misled) Matthew 16:14-20
When Jesus came into the region of Cesaria Philippi, hHe asked His disciples, saying “who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the profits.“
He said to them, “but who do you say I am?”
Simon, Peter answered and said, “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.“
Jesus answered, and said to him, “blessed are you, Simon, Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father , who is in heaven.
“ I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My church, and the gates of Haiti shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:22-23
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far Be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
But He turned, and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are in offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
When Jesus was speaking about building his church on this rack, he is confessing that the rock is the belief that Peter had, “you are the Christ, the son of the living God“ If God had made Peter” the rock” then everything the Bible had talked about with Jesus would have been a lie. Because Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through me.
And we can see in Matthew 16:22- 23 that Jesus is already rebuking Peter, for not having his mind on things of God.
It’s so important to read your Bible carefully and ask God to show you what he means and what he wants you to learn from it.
The Catholic Church use this one verse to gain power and control over so many people. And it was easy to do because people did not read the Bible or have access to the Bible.
I pray you take the Bible into your own hands and get to know God the way he wants you to❤
There is only one true Faith--the Roman Catholic Church.
Because James believes that some Catholics are saved in spite of catholic theology, not because of it.
When a large denomination doesn’t uphold one of the main cores of the gospel of Christ, which is that Christ died on our behalf and his righteousness imputed to us, it’s hard to say that that group has the gospel at all.
Catholicism is pre denominations
There is only one true Christian Church, the one founded by Christ himself...The Roman Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church . All the others are heresy.
The church is not a building or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ-all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16;
no its not. idol worship is rampant and Marry has nothing to do with our salvation she was just the vessel that god chose to bring his mighty son into the world. god will exhalt her how ever he wants to but man needs to look and worship ONLY ONE CHRIST
Your comment is ignorant and the stuff memes are made off.
Someone doesn’t believe in the Bible - you know the part that says ‘all generations will call me blessed’
Why do you refuse to follow Scripture?
For me protestants are no different from Gnostism. The question is Are they Christians?
I can't call it.
I would really like to know why though...it's very fascinating
Yes, I noticed this as well
I have three main issues with Catholicism.
The biggest thing that stops me from calling Catholics Christians is what looks like idolatry. What is the purpose of praying to Mary and the saints? Why are there graven images of God and Jesus?
Another major holdup is "Confession". Why is a priest needed to absolve people of sin? The Bible says that sin is not forgiven save by the shedding of blood. The blood of Jesus was shed for the sin of the whole World.
The last of the big three is the idea of purgatory. Purgatory is not a Biblicat teaching, it is a story from the mind of Dante. It does not appear in scripture, and gives a false view of what happens when we die. You are judged by God for your sins, which we all have, and the only escape from the judgment is if you received the free gift of God's mercy through Jesus.
There are other unbiblical teachings in Catholicism, but these are the main issues for me.
Let’s address you issues.
Confession is completely Biblical - for you to reject it means you reject Scripture.
Leviticus 19: 20-22: A man who committed adultery had to bring a guilt offering for himself to the door of the tent of meeting (holy place where the ark of the covenant, which contained God’s true presence was kept). But then it adds “And the priest shall make atonement for him …before the Lord for his sin…and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven.” (see also Leviticus 5: 5-6) The priest could not make atonement if he were not aware of the man's sin. He is acting as a mediator for the repentant sinner.
Jewish Practice: On the eve of the Day of Atonement or of Passover, it was forbidden to eat and drink, to wash, anoint, lace shoes, or have sexual intercourse. Breaking of these laws led to excommunication. The people who came to confess their sins at the Temple annually brought offerings and animal victims to be sacrificed when it got dark on eve of feast of atonement or Passover. They actually, confessed their sins before the meal, afterwards and the next morning in a threefold confession. Priests prayed for their forgiveness.(p. 323, How Christ Said the First Mass by Fr. James L. Meagher, D.D.). The Apostles would have conformed to these religious practices when they came to celebrate the seder meal of the Passover with Jesus in the Upper Room before His crucifixion.
The complaint might be, well that is the Old Testament, but now we have Jesus, who suffered for our sins. What does the New Testament have to say?
Matthew 3: 6 (and Mk 1: 5): “. . . they were baptized by him [John the Baptist] in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” So he who prepared the way for Christ, listened to confessions of sin.
John the Baptist, whom Jesus called him the greatest "among them that are born of woman," preached a baptism of repentance. Mark tells us that ". . . there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5) We learn in Luke's account of the Baptist that he answered many questions for the people concerning the behavior they should follow, but freely confessed that he was not the Christ (Luke 3: 16-17). He doubtless heard countless confessions of sin, but he knew where forgiveness of sin came from for when Jesus approached he declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1: 29). Jesus than sent his disciples to baptize throughout Judea (John 3: 22) and they too, doubtless heard the confessions of many sinners as they traveled from village to village. So Jesus used his disciples and John the precursor to hear confessions of sins, but this is not the sacrament of confession, anymore than the baptism of John was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which came after John the Baptist's time. Let's see if the New Testament shows men receiving the authority to forgive sins in God's name.
Matthew 9: 6-8: Jesus tells us that He was given authority on earth to forgive sins (a power reserved to God alone) and proves it with miraculous healings and then Scripture notes this same authority was given to “men” (plural). Is this merely a figure of speech? No, John's Gospel makes it clear Jesus intended to give this sacrament to men:
John 20: 21-23: In his very first Resurrection appearance our Lord gives this awesome power to his Apostles with the words:
“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” How could they forgive sins if they were not confessed? They could not. This authority comes through the gift of the Holy Spirit which precedes it.
Does this remind of you what He told Peter (Mt. 16: 19) and then the other apostles (Mt. 18:18)? “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This includes sins. Jesus allowed for us to receive spiritual consolation and counsel in this beautiful sacrament of the Church. We see this awesome power in other sacraments as well. What today we call the sacrament of the sick. Again, we look to Scripture:
James 5: 14-17: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another …”
Notice the command does not say confess your sins straight to God. Notice also who they are to go to the “elders” (bishops or priests-see the Acts 14: 23; 15: 2 for example).
1 John 1: 9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The word confess has an oral/verbal or proclamation meaning. St. Paul describes his ministry as one of reconciliation of sinners:
2 Corinthians 5: 18: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation . . .”
That’s the issue it’s what you THINK Catholics are doing - you don’t care about what Catholics say they are doing.
Let’s look at the Bible about graven images.
Let's quote the Exodus verses you are referencing shall we:
• “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6 KJV)
God is explicitly clear in what He is saying. God describes what a graven image is and that we a forbidden from Bowing down to them or serving them - meaning believing like the pagans do that a ‘god’ inhabits them.
In Exodus 20:3-6 God forbids making graven images for the purpose of idolatry but does not forbid the making of graven images per se. Elsewhere he commands that statues and other graven images be carved for religious purposes.
Do you think God is capable of going against His own commands?
That God would allow His people to go directly against His commands?
Or do you rightly think that is a ludicrous idea...
In Exodus 3:2-6; Dan 7:9; Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; Acts 2:3 - we see that God revealed Himself in visible form (as the burning bush, a dove, fire, etc).
Let's see what God commanded and allowed in Scripture shall we:
Deuteronomy 5:8 - God’s commandment to not make any graven images (Deut. 5:8; Ex. 20:4) is entirely connected to the worship of false gods as explained in (Deut 5:9; Ex. 20:5)
God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped.
To even try and claim God prohibited the use of all images means you are saying God went against His own Word when He commanded them and permitted them... Blasphemy!
Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1, 31 - God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim. This heavenly image, of course, is not worshiped by the Israelites. Instead, the image disposes their minds to the supernatural and draws them to God.
• “And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” (Ex. 25:17-22 KJV)
• “Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.” (Ex. 26:1 KJV)
Numbers 21:8-9 - God also commands the making of the bronze serpent. The image of the bronze serpent is not an idol to be worshiped, but an article that lifts the mind to the supernatural.
• “And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.” (Num. 21:8-9 KJV)
1 Kings 6:23-35; 7:25-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon’s temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.
• “....he made two cherubim of olive tree, each ten cubits high.... And he set the cherubims within the inner house:.... And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.” (1 Kgs. 6:23-29 KJV)
• “It [the brazen sea] stood upon [statues of] twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.” (1 Kgs. 7:25 KJV)
• “For on the plates of the ledges thereof, and on the borders thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm trees, according to the proportion of every one, and additions round about.” (1 Kgs. 7:36 KJV)
• “And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above..... And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD. Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.” (1 Kgs. 8:6-13 KJV)
Now if what you claim is true and that God forbids all images why on earth would God then dwell in the temple where Cheribum had been carved (verses 6-7)?
Why would Solomon declare it as a place suitable for God to abide in forever (verse 13)?
Are you claiming you know better than Solomon and David? Because remember it was David who gave the plans to Solomon.
Are you trying to claim God doesn't know His own commands?!? That God went against His own commands?!? - Blasphemy!
2 Kings 18:4 - it was only when the people began to worship the statue did they incur God’s wrath, and king Hezekiah destroyed it. The command prohibiting the use of graven images deals exclusively with the false worship of those images.
• “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.” (2 Kgs. 18:4 KJV)
1 Chronicles 28:18-19 - David gives Solomon the plan for the altar made of refined gold with golden cherubim images. These images were used in the Jews’ most solemn place of worship.
• “And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD. All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.” (1 Chron. 28:18-19 KJV)
2 Chronicles 3:7-14 - the house was lined with gold with elaborate cherubim carved in wood and overlaid with gold.
• “He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubims on the walls. And he made the most holy house,.... and he overlaid it with fine gold,.... And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold. And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold..... And he made the vail of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon.” (2 Chron. 3:7-14 KJV)
Ezekiel 41:18-20 - Ezekiel describes ‘graven’ images in the temple consisting of carved likenesses of cherubim. These are similar to the images of the angels and saints in many Catholic churches.
• “And it was made with cherubims and palm trees, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub; and every cherub had two faces; So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about. From the ground unto above the door were cherubims and palm trees made, and on the wall of the temple.” (Ezek. 41:18-20 KJV)
Colossians 1:15 - the only image of God that Catholics worship is Jesus Christ, who is the “image” (Greek “eikon”) of the invisible God.
• “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Col. 1:15 KJV)
So what do you plan to tell God on your judgement day?
Are you going to tell Him that according to your own interpretation of Scripture He went against His own Commandments?
That you interpreted Scripture to mean all images are graven therefore God doesn't know His own Word of Commands?
Are you going to tell God that He was wrong when He commanded ‘graven images’ to be made?... And that you know better?!?
I’m sure God will love you telling Him how He didn’t follow His own Word correctly according to your Protestant interpretation....
As for the intercession of the Saints - let’s again look to Scripture (note this isn’t even an exhaustive list of Scripture that I could quote)
I’ve already replied to you.
The fact you think it is necromancy means you don’t trust nor believe Christs words!
Christ was explicitly clear that God is the God of the living
*”I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”* (Matt. 22:32 KJV) [St. Luke's Gospel adds *”For all live unto him”* (Luke 20:38 KJV)]
and that those who die in Him though they suffer a bodily death will live!
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, *though he were dead, yet shall he live:”* (John 11:25 KJV)
When Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration, this was not necromancy even though Moses was dead and buried for over a thousand years and Elijah was taken up into heaven (for you "Left Behind" fans: he was "raptured") nearly a thousand years before Jesus was born.
Jesus is our very example of Christian living and here we have Jesus talking with a so-called 'dead saint' while we read in the Scriptures:
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. *HE THAT SAITH HE ABIDETH IN HIM OUGHT HIMSELF ALSO SO TO WALK, EVEN AS HE WALKED.”* (1 John 2:3-6 KJV)
This is a great gift, for “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16), and the angels and saints in heaven are inarguably righteous.
A mediator is one who comes between two parties with the purpose of uniting them. Christ played a role of mediation that only the God-man could, but Christians are still called to serve as mediators between Christ and the world. In no way does this diminish the unique work of Christ. On the contrary, it manifests it.
For example, Christ is our only high priest, but we are all called to be a nation of priests (1 Pet. 2:9). Christ is the only Son of God, yet we are made sons of God through adoption (Gal. 3:4). The Christian life consists in being conformed to Christ, and as Paul says, being “God’s fellow-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9) in his plan of salvation.
To think of those in heaven as unwilling or unable to pray for us is to have a grave misconception of heaven. It is not an isolated part of the body of Christ that exists without concern for the other members of the body who are still working out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). Those in heaven surround us as a “great cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1), and the book of Revelation teaches that the prayers they offer for us “saints” is an integral part of the eternal worship given to God.
Firstly “To pray” does not necessarily mean “to worship”. Catholics understand that when we pray to God, it is an act of worship where we obtain grace directly from the very Source of grace itself. It is a “surge of the heart” towards the one God.
Prayer to saints is different. To pray can mean to worship, but not always; it can also mean to request or plea. Have you ever heard the old English phrase “Pray tell me…” used before asking a question? The use of the word “pray” in this context initiates a plea or request. This is also the context Catholics work within when praying to saints and angels.
When we pray to saints and angels, we request their intercession before God. We invite the invisible but living members of the Church who are more substantially in the presence of the “God of the Living” (Luke 20:38) to be another link in our prayer chain. Surely all Christians see the value in going to the most righteous members of the Church with our prayer intentions since they are “great in effect” (Jas 5:16). There are none more righteous than those who have been perfected in heaven.
There is only one Church, one Body of Christ, which spans heaven and earth (Rom 12; 1 Cor 12), and Christ calls its members to pray for one another. Those who dwell in heaven are not exempt from this supreme act of love. This is clear from Scripture.
The Scriptures do not condemn pleading the intercession of the saints. The Bible condemns necromancy. But prayer to those in heaven is not necromancy. Necromancy involves magic, and the obtaining of information and abilities through the power of evil spirits. It is an abomination. But imploring the intercession of the saints and angels is fundamentally other in comparison, as it is an act of faith in the power of God and an invitation to charity.
The Bible does not teach that we will lose the duty or ability to pray for one another at any point (including after death). No Scripture verse supports the notion that we can no longer pray for one another once we die and go to heaven.
Now let’s address purgatory.
Scripture is very clear when it says:
“And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.” (Rev. 21:27 KJV)
“Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13 KJV)
How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
Now all Christians know that Jesus came not to abolish the OT but to fulfil it.
In the OT Jews clearly believed that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will prove.
This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”
In (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
Now you can try to use the typical retorts of trying to claim Maccabees isn’t Biblical Canon however Maccabees is actually referred to in the NT and the story that is being referred to can be found nowhere in Scripture except in Maccabees also for you to claim the deuterocanonical books aren’t Scripture is saying God went silent for 300years leaving no inspired writings for people which is a nonsensical claim.
You can also try saying these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically try to say, Purgatory must then be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.
*addressing the first complaint of canonicity of Maccabees*
Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament:
“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matt. 12:32 KJV)
This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
*addressing the second resort argument Protestants use by trying to use Catholic theology against Catholics*
A careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be closer to a Christian sports player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to play than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry. This was, most likely, a venial sin for them. But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter, good Jews in ancient times-just like good Catholics today-believed they should always pray for the souls of those who have died:
“Then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according unto all his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men:)” (2 Chronicles 6:30 KJV)
God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have died.
In Matthew 5 Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory:
“Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” (Matt. 5:25-26 KJV)
For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26.
But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory.
This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually.
These verses are found in the midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” in (Matt. 5) where our Lord teaches about heaven (verse 20), hell (verses 29-30), and both mortal sin (verse 22) and venial sins (verse 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12).
Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (Matt. 6:19-21).
Further, as St. John points out in (John 20:31), all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.”
Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realisation of the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17).
It would seem odd to see the deeper and even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, except in these two verses.
When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, ‘phulake’ is the same word used by St. Peter, in (1 Peter 3:19) to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. ‘Phulake’ is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.
*The plainest text regarding purgatory*
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (1 Cor. 3:11-15 KJV).
We can see Saint Paul is speaking about the judgment after death (see Hebrews 9:27) that everyone will face, framed in the context of loss and reward.
The fire is being used to test the quality of a persons works.
Fire is used metaphorically in Scripture in two ways
1- as a purifying agent (Malachi 3:2-3; Matthew 3:11; Mark 9:49)
2- as something that consumes (Matthew 3:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8).
So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Greek hopoiov - of what sort).
Paul is describing a state of being.
•He cannot possibly be describing hell, because people are being saved there.
•He also cannot be describing heaven, because there is imperfection being burned (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13).
To claim Saint Paul is describing heaven and that ‘once saved always saved’ is supported by (1 Cor. 3:15) means you are saying Scripture conflicts with itself which it cannot do!
“But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?” (Heb. 1:13 KJV)
Instead Paul is describing a third place that isn’t Heaven or hell. It’s Purgatory: a place (or state of being) where the faithful dead who are in a state of grace but not yet purified of all imperfection go to for final purification to prepare them to enter the glory of heaven.
The typical Protestant response to this is to say:
there is no mention, at least explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it.
First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)?
If these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated?
Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it. We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense.
Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but “if the work survives… he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss.” And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Greek dia puros).
The truth is: both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord.
Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory.
No it's not. There's your answer.
Except it is and you are a heretic
@ReasonandTheology pretty funny coming from an idol worshipper.
Exactly 🎯
Well, what do you think??
Dr White was being gracious.
It truly is only the grace of God in Jesus which saves… not our works (Ephesians 2; Romans 1, 5,6,7, 8, 10:9-10). God knows who is His.
We don't believe we are saved by works. And White was evasive.
Catholicism is NOT pre-denominational or the original church. The Apostles didn’t create a centralized church nor did Jesus, they simply put together the bible (which had no official canon for a long time). The first church was the Great Church, established after the council of Nicaea. Overtime Rome asserted itself over the other patriarchs, in a way never intended by the Nicene Council. This eventually produced the Great Schism. Rome and the west became Catholic, while the east and Constantinople became Orthodox.
Quite frankly, the apostles established a community long before any Gospel or Letter of Paul was written. In this case, this community or “ecclesia” which I think we can call the Church predates the New Testament. In that sense, the Bible was meant to be a guide for the Church, by the Church, and of the Church. Church Father writings placed a lot of emphasis on believing the right doctrine (orthodoxy) and also adhering to the teachings of the Universal Church (Catholic) meaning that Ante-Nicene Christians already saw that membership in the One True Church was synonymous with believing right doctrine and obeying rightful apostolic authority. I suppose this is the understanding of most pre-Reformation churches and why the Protestant mindset of just adhering to core doctrine even if there’s no full communion between denominations is a very strange mindset to us.
Neither Christ nor the apostles had anything whatsoever to do with creating the bible. The entire thing was written anonymously and not until long after any of it is claimed to have happened and wasn't brought together as one book until three centuries later.
@@michaelfox2433 That may be true although I’ll note that when reading Church History, the attributions of the Gospels (at least) to their authors is unanimous in the entire Church. I’d expect that if there was doubt as to who the author (or alternatively who the tradition stems from since it’s also possible a community wrote down the Gospels based on the teachings of the attributed author), then there would be records of dispute or doubt as to authorship. An example we still have of doubtful authorship is the Letter to the Hebrews. Traditionally, some have attributed it to Paul but in modern times, though considered canonical, many churches leave the authorship unknown. Also, yes, the Canon was decided after 3 centuries but the reason these writings were canonized was because they were read throughout the Christian community especially in the liturgy for those 3 centuries. Although of course it’s not clearcut since non-canonical writings like the Shepherd of Hermas were read and some like the Book of Revelation were doubted.
Your comment is profoundly ignorant.
@@raphaelledesma9393 There is no debate amongst biblical scholars, both theists and seculars, that the entire book was written anonymously and nobody knows who wrote a single word since there is no original copies and nothing was signed. We do know much of it was written centuries after the time it is claimed to have happened so none of it is first hand accounts. The names attributed to the books were assigned in the fourth century CE by the council that put them together as the bible came to exist as one book. Those are simply facts.
Coming from someone who believes there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, it shouldn't be an issue that some protestants don't think Catholics are Christian especially if it's the same treatment Protestants get from Rome.
So we are all playing a game of damned or not.
Catholicism is not Christian. But there are Christians who are Catholic.
Profoundly ignorant
@@ReasonandTheology You do know that insulting people instead of discussing things like an adult only hurts people's perception of your side right?
I'd list non-christian things Catholics believe but you'd just delete my comment again.
@@ITSecurityFTW calling someone out for their ignorant claim that they haven’t even attempted to back up is not insulting them…
@@irishandscottish1829 Let me explain. He said "profoundly ignorant" but it carries the STRONG undertone of, "You're a (insert explicitive here) idiot." Strong enough functionally, he said the undertone part out loud.
Not insulting would be, "I disagree", or "Elaborate what you mean (and then break down their response)", or even still bad but less bad, "This statement/comment is born out of ignorance."
Also the SingleMalt's claim isn't ignorant it's actually very factual.
So not only was OP demonstrating an appalling lack of love, patience, kindness, gentleness, or self control (please tell me you know what I'm pulling from here!) while advertising himself as a representative of Christ in his response, but the comment that's he's insultingly calling ignorant is actually quite factual.
Hope this helps!
Sir, is this an argument about semantics? And yes, whether you like it or not, that person’s comment is ignorant and also, aif it wasn’t true and profoundly ridiculous, then it would be offensive. But we Christians( yes us Catholics - the very first Christians - on which Jesus built his Church) just sigh, because we know what the truth is.
So don’t waste time defending your guy’s random, off-the-back foot comment. Here’s a tip - set the language books aside and go read up on Church history. And Mr Lofton’s response is perfectly appropriate. Guess what - Jesus didn’t suffer fools and their foolish comments lightly as well.
I hope this helps.
Be at peace - all is well, because God is God.
James did say the Roman gospel wasn’t Christian. It’s that he has met and read Catholics that show fruit of saving faith. He has been on the streets and actually walked the walk. Us presbys don’t have that issue we say yes Catholicism can produce Christian’s because the word of God is used. It’s in spite of not because they are catholic. I have seen a major fall of Catholics in my town and I only know one and he attends my presby church. That speaks volumes to what has changed and that many devoted Catholics want nothing to do with the current state of Catholicism
pre denominational
Post schism. So, denominational.
It isn't a Christian denomination. It is baptized paganism.
Oh here we go. Go on them back up your claim
Another one who is ignorant.
You are either a Christ follower or Catholic. You can’t be both.
🤦♂️ you clearly don’t know Christ.
I know Jesus. I have a personal relationship with Him❤ I know Him from HIS word. Not from religions of men or traditions.
@@veronicasanchez2350 your comment tells me you don’t know the Jesus of the Bible. Your Jesus comes from memes and ignorant preachers.
Wow. That’s definitely how Jesus would want you to respond. I read the Bible.
God bless your path to Jesus🙏🏻
No.
Hank Hannegraf said the best way to answer that question is to define what a cult is. And, sadly, Catholicism sure can be defined as a cult. Mary was not born from an immaculate conception, Jesus told us to NOT speak to, pray to or have anything to do with the dead. Fancy robes, all for show, bowing down? It's the Old Testament priests living a life of power and authority today.
You are profoundly ignorant
Welp got to love it when Protestants expose themselves as non believers in Jesus.
Jesus was explicitly clear:
*”I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”* (Matt. 22:32 KJV) [St. Luke's Gospel adds *”For all live unto him”* (Luke 20:38 KJV)]
and that those who die in Him though they suffer a bodily death will live!
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, *though he were dead, yet shall he live:”* (John 11:25 KJV)
Catholicism is paganism. A mixture of Roman polytheism and Christianity. Plain and simple.
Absurd
@@ReasonandTheology Empirical, historical truth.
@@boz11100 I guess you know better than documented history.
@@fonztorres well if there is ‘empirical evidence’ you will have no issue in backing up your claim.
@@irishandscottish1829 No issue whatsoever my friend. Empirical means something verifiable by observation or experience as opposed to theory or conjecute and there are plenty of actions performed by the Roman Catholic faith that are plainly observable in order to make these determinations when compared to scripture and not simply giving way to the traditions of man.
Just to name a few, the worship/adoration/veneration of Mary (including immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, or as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), the petitioning or "veneration" of the dead (saints) for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a "father," or the building of shrines to passed loved ones (the dead.) None of which are mentioned or asked of *Christians* in the New Testament and many of which are condemned in the Old Testament
I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith, but I fell away in my teens. Much, much later, I became a Bible-believing Christian, a Protestant.
CATHOLICISM IS NOT CHRISTIANITY.
That’s quite the claim. Let’s see you back it up
@@irishandscottish1829 bugger off, mate. The Word says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, so get off your phone and pick up your Bible.
The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Christ. It wasn’t founded by the 12 apostles. It wasn’t founded by any of the original 77 disciples that he sent out, or the 120 that he sent out two by two into all Judea, after that. The Roman Catholic Church claims its lineage because it’s the oldest surviving subsect, no more than that.
@@paulprovenzano3755 ahh how Christ like.
You think you can come on a Catholic channel stating Catholicism isn’t Christianity and get no push back?
Sorry not going to happen.
But it’s telling that you make claims and accusations yet when confronted you can’t back it up.
I suggest you read your Bible to see what happens to those who bear false witness
Oh that’s quite the skill - do tell me, can you bi locate to know I didn’t pick up my Bible today and read it?
You wouldn’t be lying about me now would you?
Ahh there it is again - more lies about Catholics.
No Catholic believes the Apostles or the disciples started Christ church - Christ started His Church and handed His bride to His Apostles.
Might want to focus on your salvation with fear and trembling before coming on catholic channels and lying and when confronted being wholly incapable of backing up your lies
You lost credibility when you mentioned that your were a teen when you left. How much Catholic theology did you actually know as a teen?
@@peterhenryzepeda3484 I went to private schools, taught by the Roman Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Chicago. I lived across the street from the parish church and the rectory; the convent was literally next-door. In high school, I was taught by the Christian Brothers of Ireland in a school administered by the Jesuits, the Society Of Jesus. One year Catholic theology class mandatory for every year of those 12 years …… and I was generally a straight-A student. Most of my family (and much of my neighborhood) were observant Catholics, so I was saturated with it.
This is not a secret Bud!! He was trying to be kind!
We are all save out of or Idolatry/ sin!
Atheism, Mormonism, Islam, Romanism, etc… I was from Pentecostalism!! It’s only when God opens our eyes to HIS Glorious Gospel! He can find us anywhere!!
“ and such were some of you “.
Also the definition, of the question asked, depends on what ya mean. Rome claims they are. The problem is who Christ is to them.
No, it was evasive.
It’s obviously not
Except it is.
@@ReasonandTheology says every branch and every sect of every branch
That's because it is not. No Catholicism is not Christian.
Catholicism is Christian. Stop this ignorance.
No! Catholicism is not a Christian religion. Christian means follower of Christ, not follower of Mary and the pope and the priest and all the other saints.
Catholics follow Jesus. They honor Mary. They do not worship her or worship a priest or a pope. You are misinformed about Catholicism. I suggest that you study and read early church history. You'll discover that Jesus founded the Catholic church 2000 years ago.
@@user-ki2vh1uc5k chapter and verse where it says to honor the dead? Chapter verse, where it says to pray to the dead? And don’t tell me she’s alive, because when scripture says, do not communicate with the dead, the people who are dead, are the people that have died. Those that are in hell are very much “alive” as well In the same spiritual sense that she is.
@@user-ki2vh1uc5k why would I follow a second source when I have the first source? The Bible is the only God breathed Scripture, why would I go to the early church fathers? They didn’t even agree on many things and argued among themselves. And how can you be a father of something when you came after it?
@@user-ki2vh1uc5k you are right, Jesus founded the Catholic or universal church, but he did not found the Roman Catholic Church. Huge difference. If he did, then 2/3 of the Catholic church doctrine would have been in Scripture when it’s not. It’s been made up by people. I know more about the Catholic Church than most Catholics do. You know why? Because you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
@@sandina2cents779 The Bible calls Mary blessed among women. John the Baptist leapt in his Mother's womb in the presence of Mary. Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, immediately recognized that Mary was blessed among women.
Of course its a Christian denomination, just like the 5000 other versions of Christianity. I'm an Atheist and can plainly recognize this simple fact.
Once you understand the doctrines, the history and the role of the priests, then no, catholicism isn't a Christian denomination. But it's a good starting point.
@@georgebauerschmidt5289 Well, since you aren't in charge of deciding what is or isn't a Christian denomination, your opinion means nothing.
@@georgebauerschmidt5289 ahh yet another Protestant who denies the truth of the Bible. You all tell on yourselves with your anti catholic rhetoric.
St. Peter’s calling the Christian faithful a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9) echoes Exodus 19:6, where the Lord calls his chosen people, Israel, “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Peter is alluding to the continuity between the Israel of God and the Christian Church.
St. Paul identifies Christians as “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16. This is not to say that God has abandoned physical Israel but that covenantal relationship with the Father is determined by union with Christ and no longer merely by ethnic relationship with Abraham. This comparison between the Israel of God in the Old Covenant and the Israel of God in the New is the key for showing the reasonableness of the existence of a ministerial priesthood within the New Testament Church.
Even though in the Old Testament all the Israelites were considered priests, there existed a specific ministerial priesthood. For example, just a few verses after the Israelites are called a “kingdom of priests,” one discovers a distinct order of men who are considered priests apart from the people: “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves, lest the Lord break out upon them” (Ex. 19:22).
In verse 24 we find the following: “And the Lord said to him: go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the Lord.” What priesthood might this be? It is the firstborn priesthood whose priestly office would be given over to the Levites in Exodus 32 after the golden calf incident. The Lord says to Moses, “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn that opens the womb among the people of Israel” (Num. 3:12).
Clearly, the Israel of God in the Old Covenant had two priesthoods: the universal and the ministerial.
Another way of seeing the reasonableness of a ministerial priesthood is by looking at the New Testament against the backdrop of the threefold structure of the priesthood after Israel becomes a nation under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Aaron is constituted as the single high priest according to Exodus 30:30-the top level. His sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar minister with him as priests according to Exodus 28:21-the middle level. Finally, as mentioned before, all the Israelites were universal priests according to Exodus 19:6-the bottom level.
When we compare this structure to the New Testament, we can see clearly the top level, which is occupied by a single high priest, Jesus. Hebrews 3:1 reads, “Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.”
Along with the top level, the bottom level is also explicitly revealed in 1 Peter 2:5, 9: “Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood. . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.”
When one puts these levels of priesthood in the New Covenant alongside the three levels in the Old, the only level missing is the middle-namely, those priests who minister with the high priest, Jesus. Does this mean that the New Covenant doesn’t have this level of the ministerial priesthood? Such an assertion would not make biblical sense.
If the top level corresponds to Jesus and the lower level corresponds to the universal priesthood of baptised Christians, it’s reasonable to conclude that the middle level of priest ministering with the high priest in the Old Testament would have a corresponding middle level of priests who minister with Jesus in the New. The Catholic Church identifies this level as the hierarchical priesthood, which consists of both the episcopate and the presbyterate.
But now the question is: Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus established a ministerial or hierarchical priesthood distinct from the common priesthood of the baptised? The answer is YES
The first way in which we can demonstrate that Jesus established a ministerial priesthood is by showing how Christ gives the apostles priestly duties. In the biblical tradition there are certain actions that are constituted specifically as priestly actions. We know a priest by what a priest does. We find Jesus conferring priestly duties on the apostles, and we conclude that he is constituting them as priests. I will limit the present article to two duties: the forgiveness of sins and the offering of sacrifice.
The forgiveness of sins
In John 20:20-23, Jesus transfers to the apostles his power to forgive sins:
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.“
Notice that Jesus sets it up so that the forgiveness of sins is received through the ministry of the apostles. From the words of Christ it is clear that the apostle has the authority to make a judgment whether to forgive or not to forgive.
This paradigm is not foreign to the Jewish people. In the Old Testament the forgiveness of sins was associated with the intercession of the priest: “A man . . . shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed . . . and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin” (Lev. 5:5-6). Numbers 15:27-28 serves as another example: “If one person sins unwittingly, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who commits an error, when he sins unwittingly, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven.”
These passages show that God’s ordinary way of dealing with man’s sin is through God’s priests. Notice that it was not a part of God’s will for his people simply to confess their sins privately to him; their confession of sin involved the ministry of the priests. It is in light of this Old Testament context that Jesus tells his apostles to forgive sins. Jesus, as God does in the Old Testament, associates his new ordained ministers with the ministry of the forgiveness of sins. In doing so, Jesus is revealing his apostles to be priests.
It is important to make a catechetical point here. Within the Old Covenant, the priest did not have the power to absolve sins from the individual’s soul. The priests simply offered sacrifice as a visible symbol for the individual’s repentance in hope for them to receive God’s mercy. The priests in the New Covenant, according to Jesus (cf. John 20:23), have the actual power to forgive sins as they so judge.
Here Protestants usually respond, “Only God can forgive sins, not man.” No argument here. As Catholics, we are not saying that the apostles (and their successors) forgive sins by their own power. The power by which they absolve sins is the very power of Jesus Christ. The priests are simply the agents in persona Christi who exercise that power to which they have access because it resides in their soul by virtue of their ordination.
@@georgebauerschmidt5289
The offering of sacrifice
A second priestly duty that Jesus gives the apostles is to offer sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice that Jesus offered at the Last Supper. After Jesus pronounces the words of consecration over the bread, St. Luke records Jesus saying, “Do this in remembrance of me” (22:19). Knowing that sacrifice within the Old Testament is always associated with priests, if we can demonstrate that Jesus is commanding the apostles to offer sacrifice, we will be able to conclude that Jesus is establishing them as priests.
There are several clues within this Last Supper narrative that reveal such an event to be a sacrifice, thus revealing the apostles to be priests. This article will highlight only one.
The sacrificial characteristic of the Last Supper is supported by the Greek word used for the command “do.” According to the Greek text, it can be rendered literally as “offer this” in the sense of a sacrifice. The Greek word for “do” is poiein, conjugated in the text as poiete, which in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, is used in a sacrificial sense.
For example, Exodus 29:38 reads: “Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two lambs a year old day by day continually.” The Greek word for “offer” is also poiein, conjugated poieseis. Leviticus 9:7 and Psalm 66:15 serve as other examples where poiein is used in reference to sacrifice. Moses says to Aaron in Leviticus 9:7, “Draw near to the altar and offer [Greek, poiein] your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people.” Psalm 66:15 reads, “I will offer [Greek, poiein] to thee burnt offerings of fatlings.” Because poiein is used in the Last Supper narrative in reference to the duties of the apostles, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is commanding them to offer a sacrifice, thus making them priests.
To add to the evidence, one can turn to Matthew 12:1-8, which recounts the story of the apostles picking the heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath. The Pharisees object to this action of Jesus and the apostles because they view it as breaking the Sabbath rest. St. Matthew records the Pharisees’ objection in 12:2: “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”
Jesus defends his apostles by calling to mind an event that involves David and his men eating the showbread or bread of presence within the Holy Place: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (Matt. 12:4; cf. 1 Sam. 21).
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that eating the bread was the duty solely of the priests. What Jesus does not say here is that this duty was performed on the Sabbath. Moses commands, “Every sabbath day . . . Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the Lord, a perpetual due” (Lev. 24:8-9). Therefore, the Old Testament priests were permitted to perform the work of their ministry on the Sabbath without incurring the guilt of sin. This is the context that Jesus is calling to mind in response to the Pharisees.
Similarly, in Matthew 12:5, Jesus refers to the priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath by performing their work of offering sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus says, “Have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?” This Sabbath offering that Jesus refers to is found in Numbers 28:9-10.
How does this reveal the priestly character of the apostles? Think about it this way: Why would Jesus, in defense of his apostles breaking the Sabbath rest, use two examples of the Old Testament priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath rest if he did not intend to reveal that his apostles are the New Testament priests? Therefore, this passage is a subtle but profound revelation of the priestly rank of the apostles.
"Of course its a Christian denomination" You don't get to decide. "I'm an Atheist and can plainly recognize this simple fact" Nobody cares about your opinion 😂
Wow. Cathlolic is definitely a christian denomination that clearly lost its way, created the dark ages, changed the truth if one God into 3, sold tickets to heaven, blesses homosexual unions. Furthermore, our church has power, and we see miracles daily. You guys get crying statues. I eill say that i appreciate how sacred everything is to the clergy. The weird thing is that priests keep sabbath but not the parishioners
Ahh so you don’t believe in the Bible when it says bearing false witness is a sin.
I suggest you read it because it is very clear that God is a Trinity.
I also suggest you read it carefully to see when Jesus affirmed the Decalogue the only Commandment He didn’t mention was the Sabbath - why? Because when you read the NT after His resurrection the church met and worshipped on Sundays
@irishandscottish1829 trinity is a man made and pagan belief. Everyone knows a triune God wasn't preached anywhere for the first 200 years. The catholic church made it Canon the same time the dark ages started. Even Jesus said the Shema Yisrael.
False witness? How so? You didn't even try understand. You already made up your mind without understanding. Let me ask you this. Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead I'm Jesus? How about this one...
Colossians 2:9
[9]For in Him dwelleth ALL the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD bodily.
ALL, FULLNESSS, GODHEAD. Jesus is God, right? God is one? Did Jesus lie ? In heaven if we ask to see the father will He say, He's over there? Or He who has seen me has seen thr Father? Jesus didn't speak His own words amd even called himself the I AM seven times. That's why they took up stonesto stone him, for blasphemy
Furthermore, you missed the part where installed about all the miracles that i see in my church. I went to catholic church amd mass as a child by the way. Never saw any holy ghost power. Not saying there's not any. But we've had many leave catholic once they step into the realm presence of God. The Bible says I'd they have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof, from such turn away
@irishandscottish1829 where does it say God is three. It actually says God is one. The Holy One of Israel. God's title I'm the OT is Alpha and Omega. First and Last. How can there be 2 firsts and lasts. Two Alphas and Omegas? Or is it three?
“Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour” (Isaiah 43: 10-11). “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isaiah 44: 6). “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44: 8). “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” (Isaiah 44: 24). “There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45: 6). “There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else”Deuteronomy 32: 39, God said there is no other god with Him. There is none like the L ORD and there is no God beside Him (II Samuel 7: 22; I Chronicles 17: 20). He alone is God (Psalm 86: 10).
@@irishandscottish1829 “For there is one God” (I Timothy 2: 5). “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2: 19).
@irishandscottish1829 who's beating false witness? You're teaching a passed down man made tradition. Tritheism. I'm the same as the apostles. We believe in One God and Father of all, Christ Jesus. That's why I can witness to Jews and Muslims and they have no answer for me. They laugh at your trinity argument because it goes against the true nature of God.