Anyone: “Are Catholics Christians?” Me 10 years ago: “definitely not” Me 7 years ago: “yeah, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ” Me now: “yes, and I am a Catholic Christian”, after being confirmed in November 2019, thanks be to God!
The disagreement over "once saved, always saved" seems like a pretty big deal to me. I've read some intense protestant arguments on both sides of that issue, yet both sides still claimed sola scriptura and accused the other of being "false teachers" and not Christian. Seems like Jesus should have left an authority to help the Church interpret Scripture...
In a way, Sola Scriptura is actually giving primacy to one’s own opinion. It’s one’s own opinion about how they interpret the Bible. It makes everyone the final authority.
@@rhwinner correct. So the big question, how to interpret it? I would argue using God's word as a framework to interpret itself clears up 99% of these "ambiguous texts". Use scripture to interpret scripture. One cannot make the case that this view compounds differing beliefs. When separating along these lines, sola scriptura believers have a lot more in common with each other than non-sola scriptura believers. This lumps together Mormans, Jehovah's witnesses, and catholicism in same place, but that's the point. If you do not believe that scripture alone is sufficient, then beliefs can fracture along a thousand different points. If you stick with sola scriptura, it's much, much harder to be led astray with heretical beliefs.
Trent, I am a Protestant but I deeply appreciate your willingness and ability to come on here and say what you do. I can tell that you have a lot of knowledge, and I thank you for sharing it. I went and studied 1st Peter 3:21. I’ll put the whole verse here: 1 Peter 3:21 [21] “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (ESV) It indeed does say baptism “saves” you. It also says, “not as removal of dirt from the body…” which literally means that water passing over you (baptism) does not cleanse anything or anyone. Rather it is instead an outward expression of inward faith. These were not my words but almost word for word from my ESV study Bible.
You are both incorrect. The “not as removal of dirt from the body”(NABRE translate this as well) means it is not just a cleaning of your body from dirt because the original Greek could be understood “to bathing” (βαπτίζω baptizo also meaning immersing, washing and pouring) but a bathing/cleansing of your spirit and pledge to God. ‘Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit”.’ (John 3:5)
I have always thought there was a very easy Biblical answer to the question of the essentials: "Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved." If a person has done these things then they are a fellow Christian. I know that there will be questions about what the phrases within the statement mean, but that is where we begin. In regards to the place of scripture: The Bereans were praised when they checked with scripture to confirm that what Paul was preaching to them was accurate. If the teaching of tradition conflicts with the teaching of scripture, which should you follow? The answer to that question seems obvious to me. I do not think protestants dismiss tradition entirely. We can learn from what has been handed down to us. But we need to be careful with tradition or else we become like the pharisees who taught the traditions of men as the commandments of God. This problem is universal and can happen in protestant churches as easily as Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Finally, certain doctrines can be very important and yet not be essential. The security of the believer is a doctrine that protestants do not agree upon, and yet we still acknowledge that those on both sides of the doctrine are still Christian. There is more that can be said, but this is getting too long. I appreciate your perspective and consider you a brother in Christ.
As a fellow believer in the Lord Jesus Christ I know exactly where you are coming from. As an old woman now, I want to say how encouraged I was to read your comments. All man made structures fall away when we have come to know Jesus as our Saviour, when we see Him as being the Way, the Truth and the Life. The uncomplicated simplicity of His words stand in opposition to long and detailed formulae of religious doctrines and rituals. Also, both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have accumulated a lot of wealth over the centuries which, again, is completely out of step with the teaching of Jesus.
The problem is you do not know if the tradition is actually contradicting scripture, you only know if it is contradicting your interpretation of scripture. The Catholics believe they are following scripture.
@@bad_covfefe There are some things that we do take for granted - that translators are knowledgeable and that they are honest in their work of translating. The vast majority of scripture has obvious meanings. I have had philosophical debates along these lines (not about scripture) but more fundamentally can one human ever understand another human. My response is that we share a common human nature which makes it possible for us to understand one another. That is the whole purpose of language. The writers of the New Testament wrote to be understood and not just by some elite educated class. They wanted everyone to understand their message. Perhaps I have more faith in my reading comprehension than you do. You can talk about each individual's interpretation all you want. I can only say read for yourself and make up your own mind.
@@skiamach6208 Your entire comment ignores the reality that people have varying interpretations of every part of scripture. Why should I accept your interpretation in opposition to all the other interpretations of the exact same verses?
@@bad_covfefeI am not telling you to accept my interpretation. I am telling you to read it for yourself and make up your own mind. That is what my opening post was about. The Bereans were praised for checking Paul's teaching against what they could read for themselves in scripture. There are some passages which may be difficult to understand. But there is not a single important Christian creed that depends on obscure passages. Jesus is Lord. Jesus died and rose again. Jesus died as a ransom for sin. Confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved. These are very clear. My advice to anyone is stop relying on others to do your thinking and read it and think for yourself. That is my point.
The lack of authority regarding what is/isn’t Christianity is what drove me into the arms of the Catholic Church. It all depends on someone’s narrow or wide interpretation of the Bible.
Interpretation of anything necessarily involves the problem of confirmation bias, that includes the interpretation of the Bible. Which is probably precisely why Peter warned about personal interpretations apart from the Spirit in his letter. It's just too easy to read your own preferences into the text and just assume that your reading is in line with "the Spirit" because your feelings tell you it is. There has to be some standard outside of your interpretation by which your interpretation can be measured as being accurate or on par, and it can't just be the text itself because- as David Hume pointed out- the facts don't tell you anything about how they should be ordered or understood ethically or hierarchically. That's the point Trent addresses here when he talks about the ways various Protestant sects rank-order doctrines as essential or nonessential. Their rank-ordering is always dictated by their own traditions.
Seems like an odd reason to be a Catholic. I can think of a whole sum of reasons to think God would want disagreement in the church. It’s helped my walk with Christ immensely. If what God wanted was for us to have honest and rationale discussion, who are we to say God wouldn’t want that?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou - not really, we all need authority in our lives and we must submit ourselves to Christ’s authority and His Church. I think Protestants mistake free will as free will in all things. We have free will to choose to accept and follow Christ and that’s it. Beyond that, we are expected to obey Him.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou when I read this my knee jerk reaction was I hate it when my kids disagree, sure they might be learning something about living in this fallen world but when they do work together (even to my disadvantage, such as organizing chairs so the smaller ones can also get out the window, God help me) I have an explosion of joy. Of course God's ways are way above my own. Hello friend, I'd really love to understand why you find this to be a good thing to have His children at odds with each other, what do you mean?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou As a former Protestant, this argument always struck me as either odd (God doesn’t want us to know the truth because He wants us to disagree) or as relativistic (it doesn’t really matter what we believe as long as we believe something). I found neither of those conclusions satisfying. Seeking truth and believing it exists, IMO, is one of the best reasons to become Catholic.
Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”. In the end with God, there won’t be Catholics, Protestants, Christians etc, there will just be “sons of God”.
You are right, there will only be Christian. But Christians believe certain doctrines and have liturgical practices. All you have to do is study and see what the early Christians believed. The word "catholic" simply means universal. It started being used in the early 2nd century. Protestant ideas-- sola scriptura, salvation by faith alone--are novel ideas. Study the early Church Fathers. They don't speak of these things.
@@TheMenghi1 If you define Christian as “little Christ “, and meaning son of God, then in the end there will only be Christians. Heb.2:10, says, “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings”. The mission is not just arguing but spreading the gospel.
@@TheMenghi1it’s not about traditions and early church fathers. There is a level of importance but the bigger importance is scripture. What does the word of God teach.
@@trocha419You seem fail to grasp so many important points. Traditions in the early church actually came before any of the gospels of the New Testament were written. So it is ignorant to say traditions don't matter. The church and its growing traditions existed long before NT scriptures existed. The church and its traditions created scripture...scripture did not create the church.. Christian (the early Catholic Church) traditions superseded the only extant and accepted scripture of all Jews in the first century (the Torah) in 49 A.D. at the Council of Jerusalem. Described later in Acts 15. The Torah said that all Jews had to be circumcised at the eighth day, and converted Pharisees still wanted this requirement, but Peter, visiting from Rome, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, James, said no. No gospel had been written yet. The church Jesus founded took precedence over scripture. What is the "Word of God" to you and who decides WHAT IT TEACHES in Protestant circles? Protestant sects can't agree on that. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? What does Peter warn against in interpreting what the bible is actually saying? Does any bible have the correct word of God? ? The much older Catholic bible? Or only Protestant bibles? Which one of the Protestant bibles, because there are some definite differences in meaning in English translations? Some change meanings from each other, so when a translator changes the original meaning from the Greek manuscripts, or the publisher does, is it now human interpretation and no longer the word of God? WHO DECIDES? Is it OK for the thousands of denominations to decide for themselves what is truth and what the bible teaches? And if they disagree....run off and start another church? If you are Presbyterian and you disagree with a Methodist, who is correct, or are both incorrect? BOTH CANNOT BE RIGHT. Who knows? The King James version is a very good bible but it departs from the original meaning of the Christian (Catholic) bible that existed for over a 1000 years before it in several key verses. A good example is Matt 6:7...the KJV was the first to use the words "vain repetition" to describe prayer Jesus frowned upon. But is this in fact true? No. Was it put in by human beings to attack Catholics praying the rosary? Is it still the word of God? Is it properly interpreted by Protestants?
How difficult can it be to quote 1 Pet. 3:21 in full? "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". So baptism does not save by means of removing uncleanness from our sinful nature (the flesh), but by constituting an appeal to God for a good conscience. Something that requires a conscious decision. Splashing water on someone's head per se does nothing with regard to salvation.
Thanks for this video Trent! What started me off in the pursuit of “the Church God wants me in” was the disunity within Protestantism, when Scripture calls us to be one
Hi there. Would you be so kind as to share how you overcame the abject revulsion and anathema that nonCatholics have for Mary, and our statues, etc? I'm just curious. Or maybe you didn't feel the same. TY and God bless you more and more.
Hi there. Would you be so kind as to share how you overcame the abject revulsion and anathema that nonCatholics have for Mary, and our statues, etc? I'm just curious. Or maybe you didn't feel the same. TY and God bless you more and more.
@@Men_In_Jesus My conversion to Catholicism and overcoming the aversion to such things was simply to open-mindedly listen the rationale behind why they believe what they believe. It made sense to me from a theological perspective, and if I believed the Catholic Church to be the true Church I simply put aside my pride and accepted what she teaches.
@@jonphinguyen Robert Spencer made the same arguments over 20 years ago, yet he still left the Catholic Church when he realised the gross apostasy of Romanism
@@gospeltruth6368 did you have a response for the issues that Trent Horn brought up? Can you explain a valid authority structure in the protestant faith? Can you explain these issues? It seems like you are bypassing all of that to say, "Catholics are wrong." I'm really curious to hear a well-reasoned reply
I have had moments in my walk with Christ in the last couple of years where I had come to one particular conclusion and upon reading church councils I have overturned some of those beliefs because I am willing to accept them my personal interpretation does not outweigh tradition. I’m saying this as a protestant that has been investigating in Catholicism and being drawn more toward it. Please pray for me!
Could be the problem is most Christians get their truth from the innumerable Catholic Protestant bibles! The bible has been changed. Did God say? Come on, really? God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal. Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26. Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY . Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie. And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added????? Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there. BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting! Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say? Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses. Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say? Every change they make is an insult to God and His word. God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19. In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked. This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT. King James Bible online Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: Look up: REPENT, REGENERATION, BELIEVE, FAITH, REDEMPTION, PERFECT, CONVERSATION, PREVENT, PROPITIATION etc. Suppliers: Churchkjb.com Localchurchbiblepublishers.com Sources: Adullum Films Documentary -Tares Among the Wheat video Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort. Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com. If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video. It has some American History also.
@@joeferris6782 Was the proof that other bibles lie not enough for you? That they challenge God and His word hundreds of times not enough? You have proven that Jesus is not your first love. Revelation 2:1-5.
I'm protestant and as I listened to you, I realized how I have never heard pushback on many of my protestant beliefs. I've learned so much from you so thanks for your content.
The more you learn scripture and the early church........as long as your honest with yourself........you'll end up Catholic. Though I'm noticing a lot of christians that are not Catholic but they side with catholicism. "How to be a christian" and "Shamounian" are great youtube channels that don't say they are Catholic but they use catholicism to show protestants how they are wrong in their interpretation of the bible. Question everything........you'll find the Truth
Sa. Hayes, Be wise. Approach God as he wants to be approached. SALVATION IS A HEART ISSUE! Many believe that they are saved because they said the sinners prayer. Yet, "The heart is deceptive above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9. That prayer may be from Arminianism which states that man can save himself by his free will. Calvinists say that God chooses and who can resist the Holy Spirit? Stephen told his persecutors that they do always resist the Holy Ghost. Acts 7:51. Scripture says, " The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart and saveth them that be of a contrite spirit. Psalm 34:18, Isaiah 57:!5, 66:2. Ask God to send the Holy Ghost to you, Luke 11:13. He will gently bring your sins to mind. This will be painful because pride hates it! As they come to mind, confess them to Jesus. Persevere. "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Ephesians 5:14. WHEN you see your desperate need for a sinless Saviour, CRY OUT to Jesus to save you. That is His desire. Then call upon the name of the Lord. How? As Peter told the Jews who were pricked in the heart. Acts 2:38 and as Paul did. Acts 22:16. They were baptized, calling on the name of the Lord. "Jesus answered and said, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " John 3:5. John's water baptism included the confessing of sins. Mark 1:1-5. Proverbs 28:13. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Luke 3:16. Meditate on Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:6-14, Matthew 28:19-20, 1 Corinthians 12:12-14. King James Bible on line. Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary on line. Read the King James Bible taken from the inspired Antioch manuscripts. Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4. The inspired word of God instructs in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16. It quickens (gives life). Hebrews 4:12. It shows the way of righteousness unto holiness. 2 Peter 1:2-11. Peter wrote to the Jews and non Jews. To those Paul ministered to. Modern translations continually asks, Did God say??? Did he say, Mark 11:26? Yes.it is imperative to our walk with God. Did God say, Acts 15:34??? How do they have the nerve to ask? It showed God's divine providence. Paul would needed Silas. Throw those Babylonian god inspired books out? YOU CANNOT DRINK THE CUP OF THE LORD AND THE CUP OF THE DEVILS. 1 Corinthians 10:21.Jesus must be your first love. Revelation 2:1-5. To put men or a man above Jesus is idolstry.
@@tony1685 sir.....do you understand that James and Betty White lied to you so many times and yet you are still SDA? If you were honest to yourself......you would realize you've been lied to. You know.....funny thing is I bet you do realize SDA is wrong, you just don't want to accept it. I say this, because you keep dodging when I tell you about James and Betty White. I'm just waiting for you to tell me what they did that is wrong. Then I will unload all the BS they have done. I'll unload the BS 70ad that Jesus came already. I'll give the exact name of the guy who said this in 1970......not 70ad. Please stop spreading your lies about catholicism. Why not spread the good news instead to atheists, who truly need it? Catholics already believe I Jesus Christ. You're preaching to the choir
for me here is root of every thing to be a Christian, 1) you believe in the trinity and they are one 2) you believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and savoir 3) and you try to do the will of God the Father, this are the things you need to believe and do to be save because only Christians are allowed to go to heaven
@@alonsoperez-lona8193 I am a Oneness Pentecostal. Happy to answer and questions or critiques you might have. We definitely do not accept the Trinity, which is in our view (based on scripture and history) is a development, both conceptually and terminologically. We do not accept it as a doctrine traceable to the Apostles to whom Christ opened the scriptures, poured out His Spirit and guided into all truth. Respectfully and Kindly,
@@michaelwhitworth8214 thank you, I'll take you on your offer. In trinitarianism God is claimed to be, in short, "one God three people", and how this paradox makes sense is declared a mystery. Is it the same in your pov? Is the fact that there is only one God but there divine characters, so to speak, also considered a mystery without taking the additional step of saying they form a Trinity of three distinct people?
@@alonsoperez-lona8193 We do not believe that God is one being who exists eternally in or as three "persons." Christianity is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The cornerstone of the Hebrew people and especially the prophets is "Hear of Israel, The LORD [YHWH] our God is One." There is only one True God and He is one Divine person (God is Spirit - John 4:24). The Jewish people had and have no conception of God as existing in or as three distinct persons. This one God, became flesh and tabernacled among us in and as the man Christ Jesus. (John 1:1-18; 1st Timothy 3:16.) Jesus is indeed "Emmanuel" God with us. For all the fullness of deity dwelt in Christ (Colossians 2:9) Father is a title for God that is relational: God is our Father in Creation and He is the Father of the nation of Israel, and He is particularly the Father of Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God (see Matthew 1:20-23 and Luke 1:35) Holy Spirit is a title referring to God's essential nature: God is a Spirit. God is Holy, therefore God is the Holy Spirit. (There is only One Spirit - Ephesians 4:6 and only One Spirit by which we are baptized into Jesus Christ i. e., "Christ in you the hope of Glory.") "Son" is a title referring to God incarnate (manifest in the flesh). These are titles referring the One indivisible God, whose name as revealed in the new Testament is Jesus. In John 14, Jesus clearly teaches that He is God, by declaring Himself to be the Father and the Holy Spirit. "God" is personal, not merely a nature or substance in which three divine person consist or that three divine persons posses thereby comprising the whole. Logically speaking if God is a Trinity (one in three persons) then by necessity no one person of the Trinity could in the primary or fullest, sense be "God" as no one member is Himself also the other two members. At most one member of the Trinity could be "divine" (having the same nature or of the same substance as the others) but could not be "deity" itself. This necessary conclusion (of a Trinitarian formulation of God) stands in contradiction to Colossians 1:19 "For in Christ, all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell." To say that "God" is a nature that can be shared by three persons is no different than saying that "humanity" is a nature that can be shared by multiple (three) persons. For example: Peter, James, and John are each human (they share a common nature) but no one of them is humanity itself. In contrast to this consider that before God created Eve, Adam was both "humanity" and a human. He was the sum total of that nature and the only expression of that nature. Finally, consider that Adam ( a human) was made in the image of God. Adam, possesed or was comprised of body, mind/spirit and soul, yet he was still only one person. If the image bearer is one person then so two is the one in whose image we are made. I hope this is a helpful overview of our view of God and our denial/rejection of the Trinity.
One thing that is absolutely certain is that if you don’t believe that Jesus is the Christ and that he is (minimally) the Son of God, that he died and that he resurrected, you arent a Christian (1 Corinthians 15:14)
I have a question ? Can a heretic go to heaven ? For example a Nestorian or someone who radically deny that Jesus is God but says they "believe in Jesus" and claim to be saved by showing their fruits ?
@@lonelyberg1808 And I used to think heresies of this nature were done and over with. They keep popping up. I would hope not intentionally to refute the truth; but in a desire to make it simpler or easier. But it's not that simple to simply say one believes in this general sense.
I think tradition makes it abundantly clear that those claims are fundamental to Christianity, but that's not at all what 1 Corinthians 15:14 means. Here we go again with the usual citation-dropping without quotation. Let's look at what the passage actually says. "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep." The obvious meaning of this whole passage is that the whole of Christ's message is utterly pointless if the general resurrection of the dead is a false claim. This is a philosophical, inductive argument. An argument ad absurdum actually. If we take the resurrection-denying faction's thesis to its logical conclusions, it results in refutation of the Gospel as a whole. He's trying to show that general resurrection is real by showing that the alternative would lead to an absurd conclusion. In that sense, he's demonstrating that the resurrection-denying faction's beliefs were internally contradictory. The denial of general resurrection is incompatible with other beliefs they claimed to hold.
Does that mean that Satan is a Christian? Maybe you didn’t mean to just say if we believe these facts are true you are a Christian. But that is not what the Bible calls us to.
I read a good chapter a bit on that topic in the book 'Against the Protestant Gnostics' (By a Presbytarian, its a good read). It basically says that the lack of essential doctrines in modern day evangelicalism is not a sign of its ecumenism but rather growing liberalism as the set of distinctives and important doctrines dwindles. There was also a description of sacramental theology had become a 'dormant volcano'. Where once Calvin led a crusade against Rome for withholding wine from the people, now modern Calvinists view the sacrament as a mere token and offer naught but grapejuice.
Anyone who befriends a Protestant and denies that Protestantism is antisemitism are Nazi antisemites themselves. You must declare all Protestants are your eternal political enemy if you want to be on the virtuous side of history.
And that's coming from someone who believes that Every Catholic Mass crucifies Christ time and again. like the Canaanites sacrificed their children at the Statue of Mollock. What an imbecilic idea.
I recently watched your video "Why this thoughtful Protestant isn't Catholic (yet)" (which was an eloquent and hearty discussion, btw) and this nagging question in my head, "if no official authority, then what is the authority?" got a whole lot louder. To phrase it differently, an atheist coworker opened a comment with the words "You Christians all believe...". I don't even recall what it was we were all supposed to believe because all I could think was, "I wish! I wish we could all believe with one understanding." Thank you for your exposition on this essential topic of essentials that essentially falls into as many pieces as there are leaders claiming an authoritative voice. To your note about having further dialog on this, I'd love to hear you discuss this and related matters with Douglas Wilson. (Just my two cents.) [Present position: I'm a Protestant and active in my local church who I love. I'm not unhappy as a Protestant. Strangely, though, it's our evangelical mission that found me learning more about Catholicism since there are a lot of Catholics in the Philly area where I live. Besides the fact that there are also evangelical Catholics, I'm moved by the depth of faith I'm finding in some Catholics which, in turn, has opened my mind to step back and let Catholicism speak for itself. I still have a lot of questions, but they're getting answered by the likes of you, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, and Matt Fradd and his guests on Pints with Aquinas (as well as a few books).]
It doesn't follow (even if Catholicism had perfect unity which they don't by far) that unity or authority claims =truth...I'm pretty sure the nazis were unified under Hitler that jews are inferior race but it doesn't obviously follow that it's true...of course I'm not making a 1 to 1 comparison but it served well enough to make the point.
Also see "Mike Winger" Question is not the depth and sincerity of many Catholics, its the official dogma that is in question. Many. if not most, Catholics do not even know or practice the false dogma that is in the official writings of the Catholic papacy! The final authority is the "Word of God" The Bible!
Clear communicator or now, everything this person says is FALSE. The very first thing he says is a lie. He PRETENDS the Bible doesn't say what essential beliefs makes a Christian Christian? Clearly the Catholic "bible" has led them astray. Then original Bible canon (the 66-book Bible Christians use not the Catholic one that adds the 7 with unconfirmed authorship) clearly shows Jesus teaching those who believe in the Father who sent Him will believe Him and also He says - that He is the Son of God and can forgive sins and is the Messiah. John 3:16 says the Father so loves the world that He gave His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will shall not perish but have eternal life. This means whoever believes in Jesus and what He says about Himself will be saved. What did He say about Himself? It is clearly written in Scripture - He is Son of God and Son of man, He is God's Word incarnate and came to give Himself as an atoning sacrifice to redeem sinners who put His faith in Him. He is always existing and perfectly sinless and He and the Father are one etc. On the cross he says to the thief that believes and honors Him that the thief would be with Him in paradise that very day - showing genuine faith in NOTHING else but Jesus Christ as who He says He is and what the prophecies said about Him. That is a believer - a Christian. But this faith is from the heart and not just on the tongue, and are NOT based on deeds. A true believer welcomes Jesus and love - but these are just products of their faith. Just cus you have a lot of theories and go to church and have a bunch of rules made by man to make you seem religious and pious - that does not save you. Neither is anyone who says they believe Jesus but bow down or pray to other figures like Mary or "saints." If you believed in Jesus you would not be worshipping anyone beyond Him. Jesus only and all that He says He is. You confess your sins to Gos and ask for Jesus to forgive you and receive His works on the cross by faith knowing He only can save you and will do so if you believe - that is what makes you Christian. The New Testament is SO CLEAR about that. A true believer will believe the Word of God in the Bible alone. They are forbidden to add or reduce anything - this means a true believer will uphold the Word of God in its entirety and fear God so they won't dare to change or edit the Word, I am not sure why you are lying but the Bible is so clear. You lack maybe salvation because you want rules made by man. But God came to us through a Person and He wants us to trust Him and believe Him and love Him only. It's not that complicated. Stop deceiving the masses, making salvation seem hard or difficult.
#1--Where in the Bible does God REST on the first day of the week to make that day special? #2--Where in the Bible does God BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special? #3--Where in the Bible does God SANCTIFY the first day of the week to make that day special? #4--Where in the Bible does God give a name the first day of the week to make that day special? #5--Where in the Bible does God DECLARE the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special? (Sunday keepers don’t realize that when they keep Sunday holy they are making a day holy that man ordained, not God, by doing that they have violated the 2nd commandment by making an image, they also violate the 4th commandment and the 9th commandment by lying about the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I’m sure you could find a few different commandments that are broken by keeping Sunday. That’s why the Bible says if you break one commandment you break them all. Please open your eyes brothers and sisters that keep Sunday before it is to late!) #6--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary prayed to/with beads. #7--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary went to/ will go to heaven. #8--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is an mediator/intercessor. #9--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary remained a virgin all her life. #10--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary did not sin. #11--Quote the Holy Bible that says a mere man is Head of the church. #12--Quote the Holy Bible that says there are popes in God's kingdom. #13--Quote the Holy Bible that says we are to confess our sins to a priest. #14--Quote the Holy Bible that says there is an "one holy Apolistic church? #15--Quote the Holy Bible that says the seventh day is not the Sabbath. #16--Quote the Holy Bible that says Rome is where Jesus will have His headquarters. #17--Quote the Holy Bible that says Peter was in Rome. #18--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is the Ark of the covenant. >>>FACT: I have asked OVER 100 supposed experts on Catholicism to reply to those questions. All I have received are out of context quotes, told to watch this or that video, or no reply at all!!! Will you answer them???? At least the first 5 basic questions FROM THE BIBLE. >>>> btw: BIBLE PROPHECY ROME DESTROYED If the Catholic religion iS the one Jesus taught, then why is it called the "Apostate church"? Why will it be destroyed? www.soonrussiaattacks.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Rome_Destroyed.htm >>>> John 14:6 NIV - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. So, when a religion teaches what contradicts what Jesus taught, is that religion the truth???? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
@@Arpitan_Carpenter quote---The fact that you simply presuppose Sola Scriptura without proving it completely annihilates all of your arguements...unquote One "eats" God's Word by believing it and meditating upon it: Isaiah 51:16 "I (the Lord) have put my words in your mouth ...". Ezekiel 3:1 "... eat this scroll and go and speak to the House of Israel". Jeremiah 15:16 "Your words were found and I did eat them ..." Revelation 10:10 " I (John) took the little book out of the angel's hand and ate it". >>>>***Hebrews 4:12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart), or seen implicitly through its lens. . *** Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”.
***Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”.
***Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”.
***Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
(--I will ask you, which NO ONE has replied to: Who's other writings does GOD tell us to accept as the truth??? QUOTE FROM the BIBLE!!!!) Remember these words from Jesus: John 14:6 NIV - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Since HE IS THE TRUTH, then when a church preaches their version of the truth, who is the truth??? Jesus or the "Church"???
@@mitchellosmer1293I think you don't understand what the poster is saying.. anyway back to your comment... Question.... tell me where in the bible that God named the days 1_7 _ where in the bible that says Saturday is the 7 day?
I find that the question that really stumps Protestants who believe the Bible is the ultimate explicit authority that must be accepted literally is John 6.
I've heard dozens of "interpretations" of John 6. Almost all of them require the believer to practice linguistic gymnastics most Olympic gymnasts would envy. I've also heard many former Protestant clergy converts to Catholicism say that they would simply avoid preaching or reading or mentioning John 6 because it really is so blatantly obvious what Jesus was telling us that they didn't want to be questioned on it.
I soo agree! When I was Protestant I did the same thing! But after becoming Eastern Orthodox, the literal understanding of John 6 became so clear! Christ's words are VERY specific and really can't be missed without a lot of gymnastics!
@@tony1685 nobody believed in sola scriptura, sola fidé, or sola gratia for the first 1,500 years of Christian history. It wasn't a thing. None of them. None of the Early Church Fathers believed in these things. They certainly believed in the Euchsrist being the body, good, soul, and divinity of Jesus, however.
@@tony1685 I'm trying to learn. Please help me. What is the Bible? How many books does it consist of, and how do you know that? I could really use some help.
Certainly the biblical canon is. Since, it's not in the Bible. Each Protestant doesn't individually determine for himself whether a book is canonical. He just accepts the traditional canon.
@@takmaps the main tradition of Protestants/Evangelicals is antisemitic bigotry and anyone who denies this or considers Protestants like William Lame Craig as an ally against Atheism is also an antisemite.
Protestants have lots of traditions. The difference between the heretical Roman church and the true church are that all of our traditions, whether it be the creeds, councils or anything else, are all proved by sacred Scripture. This video was a joke. How did the gentleman find such a broad brush to paint anyone calling themselves protestant? At one point he called Jehovah witnesses protestants! He really can't believe that can be? He called all of his issues crucial but the only one that was was faith alone but he grouped that with Sola Scriptura. Two separate issues.
@@bucky91361 The great thing of being Protestant, as you are, is calling the Catholic Church, heretical, by your own assumptions, and becoming yourself “the authority”, not the Bible, nor anything else, YOUR OWN OPINION. God bless!!
@YAJUN YUAN The Word “Baptize”: Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
@enforcer4383 Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation? Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony. The conversion process is described below. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
Yes, rational, logical, compassionate and wrong. See Hebrews 6: 1 - 2 for the seven elemental things true Christians believe - the Christ, repentance from sin, faith in God, water baptism, baptism in the Spirit (laying on of hands), resurrection of the dead, eternal judgement.
@MichaelFuller-jr7xo I read Hebrews 6: 1-2 and re-watched this video and failed to find what you were referring to as "wrong." Would you like to clarify?
As for stating that the New Testament does not give a list of required beliefs to be saved, I must disagree with Trent whole-heartedly. One must believe in the deity of Christ (John 8:34); one must believe that Jesus died for ones sins - atonement - and is risen from the dead (1Corinthians 15:1-4); one must repent of sin (1Corinthians 6:9-10); one must embrace the Father and the Son (1John 1:1-4 with 2:22-23; eternal Sonship is certainly in view); one must believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1John 4:1-3); one must practice righteousness and love of the brethren (1John 3:3-10); and so on. There are many things beyond these non-negotiable saving requirements that Christians can be confused about and therefore disagree on - monotheletism vs dyothelitism being one of them. True Christians can be justified by faith alone and yet be confused about articulating the topic; true Christians can misplace faith in Mary and "saints" and still be saved as long as they are ultimately placing their faith in Jesus Christ; and so on. I am not saying these and like issues are not important or significant or even strategic; I am simply saying that one can be confused about them and still be saved. On the flip side, one could be totally biblical on every point and miss salvation. One must truly from the heart believe on the risen Jesus Christ as God the Son, Savior and Lord and on that basis be born of God the Holy Spirit - that is the non-negotiable thing. Nothing else can save - neither Sola-Scripture-theological-correctness nor supposed sacraments.
I think this is why Catholicism has a depth and guidance that other denominations don't have. Catholic theologians aren't still debating the essential dogmas, which means they have a freedom to go deeper into doctrinal matters and offer more reasonable guidance on modern issues, ranging from IVF to the free market to freedom of the press. Just in the last five years, I've gone so much deeper into the encyclicals of the last century and into Catholic Social Teaching. Libertas and Centesimus Annus and Caritas in Veritate and so many others that speak so forcefully and biblically and reasonably (!) and coherently to our generation. In my opinion, Catholic belief and understanding is *the* formidable force against relativism and non-rationality today. Catholicism doesn't merely preserve the truths of faith, it incorporates reason as well.
@,Amy G One small tweak. The Catholic Church founded by Christ is not a denomination. Only Protestant churches and sects are identified as such. The one Church was given a universal mission by our Lord to go to all nations to teach and baptize; thus it had a "kataholos" or universal characteristic which was recognized by St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch who writes in 107AD: LETTER TO THE SMYRNEANS CH. 8 ▪︎See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. God bless.
Get information about what RCC did in the past. They held superstitions like witches which they burned alive. They had slaves and compelled violence against innocent like the massacre of Cathar cities. Relativism now does no harm in comparison
@@konyvnyelv. Yet her teachings are beautifully preserved in spite of the failings of her members. It just reveals to me that Christ will not allow his church to be corrupted by the abuses of men.
@@konyvnyelv. Witch burnings were actually done almost entirely by protestants, the Catholic church condemned them as the 'witches' being burned didn't truly have any power.
My fiancé and I are on the path to discovering and possibly uniting to one of the apostolic faiths. Re-examining our faith and delving deeper. Great video 👍🏾
New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (Acts 2:36) =============================== The two verses below reveal what happens when a person comes to faith in Christ. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, ================================== Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
I am a Protestant myself (a settled Protestant as Gavin would state), but you get a like from me still, as I can always appreciate a well articulated point that makes me think about things more deeply. It is clear to me that a lot of time and research went into this video, and that is always worth noting. You and "How to be Christian" are pretty much the only Catholic channels I can bear to watch, as you two are the only Catholics I've found thus far who try to debate at an intellectually honest level and I can respect that.
I agree with the other reply here. What I love about being a Catholic is being able to be intellectually honest. I do offend Protestants with my tone, but trust me, the feeling is mutual. Trent is patient and kind and that's great. Not all Catholics are, including myself, but neither are Protestants. But genuine Catholic arguments are all honest.
@@Seliz463 I am aware of Scott Hahn and Patrick Madrid (Hahn from another Catholic friend who recommended him and Madrid from his debates with James White). Not a huge fan of Madrid and Hahn is just okay (though to be fair I haven't watched a lot from Hahn). I will definitely be interested in that interview you mentioned however, so I will certainly be keeping my eyes open for that to drop. And I did not intend to claim that Trent and 'how to become Christian' are the ONLY good Catholic sources out there, just that they are two very good ones that I as a Protestant am aware of. I just like people who can formulate a good argument. I see that some others commenting on my post here took some offense at what I said, and I am not sure why, as causing offense was the furthest thing from my mind when I wrote it.
Funny I am Latin America who doesn't live in the US or Europe, and I can say the same. Most protestant I met in social media are intellectually dishonest. It is as they are not afraid of lying. On the other hand I am interested in knowing examples of Catholic intellectual dishonesty.
In what universe is this honest? The entire premise is a lie?! . The very first thing he says is a lie. He PRETENDS the Bible doesn't say what essential beliefs makes a Christian Christian? Clearly the Catholic "bible" has led them astray. Then original Bible canon (the 66-book Bible Christians use not the Catholic one that adds the 7 with unconfirmed authorship) clearly shows Jesus teaching those who believe in the Father who sent Him will believe Him and also He says - that He is the Son of God and can forgive sins and is the Messiah. John 3:16 says the Father so loves the world that He gave His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will shall not perish but have eternal life. This means whoever believes in Jesus and what He says about Himself will be saved. What did He say about Himself? It is clearly written in Scripture - He is Son of God and Son of man, He is God's Word incarnate and came to give Himself as an atoning sacrifice to redeem sinners who put His faith in Him. He is always existing and perfectly sinless and He and the Father are one etc. On the cross he says to the thief that believes and honors Him that the thief would be with Him in paradise that very day - showing genuine faith in NOTHING else but Jesus Christ as who He says He is and what the prophecies said about Him. That is a believer - a Christian. But this faith is from the heart and not just on the tongue, and are NOT based on deeds. A true believer welcomes Jesus and love - but these are just products of their faith. Just cus you have a lot of theories and go to church and have a bunch of rules made by man to make you seem religious and pious - that does not save you. Neither is anyone who says they believe Jesus but bow down or pray to other figures like Mary or "saints." If you believed in Jesus you would not be worshipping anyone beyond Him. Jesus only and all that He says He is. You confess your sins to Gos and ask for Jesus to forgive you and receive His works on the cross by faith knowing He only can save you and will do so if you believe - that is what makes you Christian. The New Testament is SO CLEAR about that. A true believer will believe the Word of God in the Bible alone. They are forbidden to add or reduce anything - this means a true believer will uphold the Word of God in its entirety and fear God so they won't dare to change or edit the Word, I am not sure why you are lying but the Bible is so clear. You lack maybe salvation because you want rules made by man. But God came to us through a Person and He wants us to trust Him and believe Him and love Him only. It's not that complicated. Stop deceiving the masses, making salvation seem hard or difficult.
As a Protestant, though I don’t agree with everything you believe, obviously, I applaud you and appreciate that you did seem to outline the various Protestant beliefs accurately, and pretty fairly. Keep up the good work. You got my subscription 😎👍🏼
@@zeektm1762 I believe that Trent did a good job of fairly representing the various protestant positions, and accurately laying out what I, as a protestant, believe... and why i believe it. My acknowledgement of his fairness is not an agreement with his conclusions. I remain convinced of my protestant expression of the faith. I find Trent to be a highly knowledgeable and a good source of biblical wisdom on a great many topics. This is not at odds with my protestant beliefs, and does not require me to convert to a Roman Catholic expression of the Christian faith. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. God Bless!
It's like he knows we need an encyclopedia on all this but also knows people will watch a video more easily than even find such an encyclopedia. He does great work
@@tony1685 of course I do, Tony, because what you typed is tautological. But back to your definition, are you saying paganism is a synonym for herecy, that all herecy is paganism? Herecy is a belief contrary to the othodox belief of the Church that was started be Christ. So calling that Church paganism sounds like heresy. Referring only to the collection of books curated and preserved by the Holy Spirit through that church, then editing it and removing books from it, because the sect of Jews that rejected the Messiah when he came to them, sounds heretical; but does not sound pagan to me. But, I'm clearly not as well studied on these matters as you are. Perhaps we both should stop typing on youtube, pray for each other, and read the Gospel
@@tony1685 you've accused Trent. You did not expose anything but your own views. That you love accusing puts you in interesting company. Who is the accuser who we meet in Job? I agree we must practice discernment and from our conversation here, well let's just pray for each other because we might well both be more likely to mislead each other more than anything else.
@@tony1685 I did read and reread your hateful bs, that is derailing a comment about "Ready To Harvest's" youtube page because you enjoy making accusations and misusing scripture to do it. You should challenge Trent to a debate rather than waste your time with me. I do not trust anyone who does what you're doing. If you have a problem with Trent bring it to him. But instead you bring it to me. That's cowardice or it is being divisive for divisiveness' sake. Repent from your sin of calumny or bring it to Trent, not me. You just look pathetic to me, so I'll just keep praying for you.
I appreciate how thoughtful you are in these videos, I think Protestants look at church history even if they claim only in Sola scriptura. And I’d point to the early creeds in terms of essentials. Which all churches agree on, including Eastern Orthodoxy, oriental orthodox and Protestant. 11:04, when has a church counsel overruled my view of scripture, many times. I was going to church and didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus initially. The tradition and doctrine based down FROM church counsels overruled that heretical view. Everything you laid are secondary issues imo. The sola’s aren’t essentials for salvation. Neither is infant baptism. I’ll point to the wesleyan quadrilateral for a great way to glue all of this. Most Christians I know would acknowledge Catholics are Christians. The issue is with Vatican 1. The Catholic Church claiming final authority as the church.
I believe it was Chesterton who used the example of surgeons debating over nuances in their trade. The nuance is detrimental he argued, as in this example of surgeons disagree on even a “small” matter then the treatment could be ineffective. Similarly for theology if there is dispute about nuances that’s an important matter to solve because it affects our salvation.
But you know, surgery is science and there is a right and a wrong in it INDEPENDENTLY from any authority. No one would ever say a method of doing surgery is right because a particular Pope of Physicians says that inspired by the Spirit of Science
@@konyvnyelv. There are boards of various medical doctors such as surgeons, and they have administrators and directors/heads. Someone has to decide what measures and procedures can be implemented. Without authority in professions or groups in general it's just chaos.
What really got me to convert from Protestantism is the weakness of Sola Scriptura. Here's a deductive argument which concludes that Sola Scripture is false: 1. If a doctrine cannot be proved from Scripture alone but is necessary for knowing the plan of salvation, then Sola Scriptura is false 2. The canon of Scripture is necessary for knowing the plan of salvation 3. The canon of Scripture cannot be proved from Scripture alone (C) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false Premise 1 is simply part of the essential definition of Sola Scriptura, so there's really no argument to be made there. Premise 2 is more controversial, so I would support Premise 2 using the following reasoning: ***Christians accept the plan of salvation in the Christian Bible but reject the plan of salvation in the Quran, Book of Mormon, the Gnostic gospels, the Watchtower Literature, etc. ***The Christian Bible takes precedent because is inspired by God ***The canon of Scripture outlines for Christians which books are inspired by God (and also tells us which books aren't inspired by God) ***Therefore, if you don’t know the canon (which books God inspired), you don’t know the proper plan of salvation ***Therefore, the canon is essential for knowing the plan of salvation Now my reasoning for Premise 3: I honestly feel like this one is self explanatory. There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible. The best you can get as a protestant is to appeal to the witness of the holy spirit when you read certain books, the consensus of Christian tradition, or testing well attested books' doctrines against the doctrines of contested books. The first option fails, because subjective feelings while reading a sacred text are used as confirmation of divine authority for heretical religions like Islam or Mormonism; this would place the Bible no higher than those writings - something Christians would prefer to avoid. The second option fails, because then the Protestant would be using human tradition alone to establish a doctrine which is essential for salvation. This option is an affirmation of Premise 3 and my conclusion, since you are conceding the canon isn't found within Scripture so you must refer to oral tradition. This would mean oral tradition is required for salvation, putting oral tradition at the same level as Scripture, defeating Sola Scriptura. The third option fails for similar reasons. To establish "well attested" books of the canon, you must affirm tradition which would contradict Sola Scriptura. Even if the well attested books were granted at no charge, the Protestant's still in a bind. They must now compare the doctrine of contested books to well attested books. Since Protestants don't believe anyone can infallibly interpret Scripture, than there will be as many Biblical canons as there are possible interpretations of Scriptural passages. Hopefully this argument made sense. If anyone would like to interact with it, go for it! Perhaps I made a huge blunder!
@@gk7754 Glad you appreciated it! I really hope I can get some Protestant interaction with this argument so I can make it stronger or abandon it all together if their turns out to be some fatal flaw
As a protestant I would point out that the traditional of the church Paul tells us about is scripture itself. Even when the old testament cannon was added to it was vetted and tested by prophetic word being fulfilled and proven to be in alignment with previous scripture. As we see Paul doing in the book of Acts bringing his new revelation by first proving from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ and debating with the Jews to prove what he was saying was consistent with all previous revelation. So you were saying scripture cannot be self proving because that requires and outside accent. But that's a mute point because the tradition that was handed down by the apostles was the scriptures itself. And wasn't seriously contested what the cannon was until the 1500s when the Catholic church declared their cannon as 73 books. Which included extra canonical books that the Jews excluded from their cannon because the prophets had been silent for the period before Christ's coming. “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27). “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise…” (1 Maccabees 14:41). The extra canonical books were included in the Greek old testament under headings that they were a history not the inspired scripture as the previous prophets. That's why to this day you will not find and of the extra canonical books in the Jewish scriptures. And the 66 book cannon is reliable because it was never seriously contested until hundreds of years later in the middle ages. Because there wasn't a disagreement the tradition of scripture was accepted organically not declared from the top down.
I'm ready to say openly that this video changed my life. The argument in 19:40 (that makes no sense to condemn someone else's baptism since they were not part of the separation and were born into a protestant religion) washed my soul, truly. Thanks, Trent.
Timestamp 21:15 We all know we want Trent to sit down with Mike Winger and dialogue about this. I'd pay money to get Mike to agree to this. I'm pretty sure Pints with Aquinas paid good money for William Lane Craig to debate with Jimmy Akin a while back.
@@chrisbmbm5629 meh, I like Winger fine enough. He's a good protestant preacher, he's just got too much anti-Catholic stuff in his head and I'd like to see Trent get through to him
oh that condescending tone of Winger when talking about Catholicism... oh the blatant lies and misrepresentations... oh the scorn and mockery... the guy is not honest
Mark Shea is one Catholic who keeps me away from the faith. I've had the misfortune of trying to engage him in conversation. The Pope is another, incidentally (not my views *about* the Pope, but the current Pope doesn't seem very sincere in his Catholic faith). Trent, on the other hand, does inspire me to take the arguments for Catholicism more seriously.
@@clintonwilcox4690 This is why I said, "the 10-years ago version". We all change...Mark has changed in some ways that concern me, even though I van understand some of it.
@@clintonwilcox4690 As for Pope Francis (or any pope) if God can drop Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying to Peter, He surely can call any Pope to Judgement in the next life before he declares heresy from the Chair of Peter.
SALVATION IS A HEART ISSUE! Many believe that they are saved because they said the sinners prayer. Yet, "The heart is deceptive above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9. That prayer may be from Arminianism which states that man can save himself by his free will. Calvinists say that God chooses and who can resist the Holy Spirit? Stephen told his persecutors that they do always resist the Holy Ghost. Acts 7:51. Scripture says, " The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart and saveth them that be of a contrite spirit. Psalm 34:18, Isaiah 57:!5, 66:2. Ask God to send the Holy Ghost to you, Luke 11:13. He will gently bring your sins to mind. This will be painful because pride hates it! As they come to mind, confess them to Jesus. Persevere. "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Ephesians 5:14. WHEN you see your desperate need for a sinless Saviour, CRY OUT to Jesus to save you. That is His desire. Then call upon the name of the Lord. How? As Peter told the Jews who were pricked in the heart. Acts 2:38 and as Paul did. Acts 22:16. They were baptized, calling on the name of the Lord. "Jesus answered and said, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " John 3:5. John's water baptism included the confessing of sins. Mark 1:1-5. Proverbs 28:13. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Luke 3:16. Meditate on Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:6-14, Matthew 28:19-20, 1 Corinthians 12:12-14. King James Bible on line. Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary on line. Read the King James Bible taken from the inspired Antioch manuscripts. Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4. The inspired word of God instructs in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16. It quickens (gives life). Hebrews 4:12. It shows the way of righteousness unto holiness. 2 Peter 1:2-11. Peter wrote to the Jews and non Jews. To those Paul ministered to. Modern translations continually asks, Did God say??? Did he say, Mark 11:26? Yes.it is imperative to our walk with God. Did God say, Acts 15:34??? How do they have the nerve to ask? It showed God's divine providence. Paul would needed Silas. Throw those Babylonian god inspired books out? YOU CANNOT DRINK THE CUP OF THE LORD AND THE CUP OF THE DEVILS. 1 Corinthians 10:21.Jesus must be your first love. Revelation 2:1-5. To put men or a man above Jesus is Idolstry.
@@clintonwilcox4690 Trent and Shea can destroy the whole protestant sola scriptura narrative. Sola scriptura disproves sola scriptura in scriptures. All protestant do is attack and gas light scriptures to throw shad on the Catholic Church
Also -- I have heard more than one Protestant, kind and educated individuals, say there is no physical Resurrection at the end of time; they struggled to believe we would have bodies, because of old age, infirmity, etc... and instead believed we would have 'spirit bodies' -- but that WE would not come OUT of the ground on judgement day... How could the Resurrection from the Dead not be essential?
No Protestant is a "kind and educated individual". Protestants are hateful uneducated antisemitic Nazi bigots and anyone who claims otherwise is antisemite themselves.
@@matthewbateman6487 I DON'T know what will happen during the General Resurrection of the dead during Jesus Christ SECOND COMING. But I do know that once we die our souls will separate from our bodies.
But the Catholic Church had the authority to declare those beliefs as heretical. Those groups are basically protestant as they are protesting some teaching of the church.
You are correct. "Roman Catholics" don't believe everything in their catchesim or their "official" pronouncements. Protestant is not a church or organization, Trent eqivocates in his meaning of Protestant. It is the Holy Spirit and the work God that makes you a Christian.
I was "born" a Muslim in Iran, was baptized in an evangelical reformed church at the age of 10, became an apostate some 6 years later, and subsequently an atheist, but now I'm a Catholic and I pray to God that He might have mercy on my soul.
I really enjoy discussions of Catholicism/Protestantism that can be had without an excess of emotion or overly defensive posture. It’s very interesting to learn about these differences and become more knowledgeable without having the baggage of what so often disintegrates into argument or, sometimes, hatred between Christians.
There is a channel on youtube called the ten minute bible something... its a protestant much like this man... of course going in the other direction. Many civil... pragmatic breakdowns of this stuff, including a wonderful conversation with a Catholic theologian.
@@johnyang1420 I have two main concerns with the Catholic church's teaching. 1: Why do you pray to Mary? Jesus is our intercessor to God, we don't need another. (My concern is that Catholics idolize her) 2: How are you saved?
I am a non-Catholic however I'd admire Trent's (and many other Catholics) knowledge of Scripture, debate skills, intellect etc. Question, at 19:15 Trent quotes the second Vatican Council ~ stating all Christians are brethren. So is the following true? 1) All Magisterium, Popes, and past Councils are equal in authority? 2) Is what they declare and write, to be taken with equal authority to the Bible? 3) Is what they declare and write to be taken with equal authority of each other, past and present? Here is why my above questions matter and why I take issue with Trent's singular quote. Pope Innocent 3rd - "Only Holy Roman Church can save" Pope Pius 9, Vatican 1 - "Outside of the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved" Pope Paul 6th - "Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's all worship the one true God" If the Papacy is divine and objectively true how can we have evolving stances such as the above. Surely Trent knows his quote is somewhat cherry picked from history or I have this wrong. Please someone let me know if I am mistaking the Catholic doctrine here and provide correction. Thanks
A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible; only when he solemnly defines Dogma is it considered to be infallible teaching. Popes can hold differing opinions on a whole range of issues , but when it is declared dogma then not even future Popes can deny or change it .
Trent, I view your video title as a sort of taunting dare. And that title is erroneous and dishonest. Nine seconds into your video you make the false statement, "Today I want to talk about ONE QUESTION that Protestants can't answer." Really? After making the unexplained and slanderous statement "Protestants can sometimes argue like Atheists", you spew forth not one but a barrage of questions: "What are the essential doctrines of Christianity?" "What authority tells us what is required to be a Christian?" "What is not required?" "What beliefs would disqualify you from being a Christian?" "Do Protestants agree on the main things?" "Does the Bible explicitly reveal the main things?" (3:08) "Can you lose your salvation?" "Is eternal security an essential doctrine?" "Does baptism save infants?" "Can Christians deny sola scriptura or sola fide?" "What beliefs about Jesus are essential to being a Christian?" (13:16) [ here you contemptuously include the non-Christian Jehovah Witness cult under the heading Protestant. Shame on you! ]. "Are Catholics Christians?" In spewing out this smokescreen of questions, I note that you either did not answer the questions yourself or you gave an erroneous answer. I cannot of course speak for all Protestants any more than you can speak for all Roman Catholics (see below). I can only speak as an individual faith follower of the Lord Jesus. My allegiance is not to historical or contemporary Protestantism but to Christ. Saving faith is not intellectual assent to a list of doctrinal truths, it is personal faith in a personal Savior, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ who is revealed in the Holy Bible. In your red herring list of questions you seem to be implying that soteriology is such a complicated topic that we need an exalted hyper-clergy class to sort all these things out for us and explain them to us. I submit to you that such a hierarchical leadership structure is antithetical to both the teaching and example of Christ who said: “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." and: "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." The Apostle Paul, used of God to leave behind a large portion of Holy Scripture, replied to the essential question, "What must I do to be saved?" with the simple answer" "“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Not a complicated systematic theology. Not a body of doctrine requiring a PhD to understand. No, just a simple childlike faith in the Person of the LORD JESUS and a confident faith in the truth proclaimed from the cross, "It is finished!" Your discussion of doctrinal disagreement within Protestantism connotes an implied untruth that there is complete doctrinal agreement within Roman Catholicism. At 16:14 you do reluctantly concede that this is greatly untrue. Even within Catholic clergy there is public disagreement on many topics, even something as central and important as whether salvation is possible outside of the Church of Rome. One priest on UA-cam, Father so and so (I don't recall his name) was clearly torn and conflicted by the obvious contradiction on this issue between Augustine & various church fathers and, on the other hand, the teaching of Vatican Two. Where is the purported monolithic, unified doctrine? By the way, this troubled priest argued that not even Roman Catholics can have the assurance of salvation. "There is no guarantee" he said, ignoring and contradicting clear statements to the contrary found in God's holy word. Is it not true that even many popes have agonized on their deathbeds, lacking assurance of a heavenly hope? This lack of faith, unbelief actually, is an attack on the attributes and character of God. From the beginning in the garden Satan's strategy has always been to get our eyes off Christ and onto ourselves, either as self righteous Pharisees or as abject failures. The god of all false religions wants to keep mankind in a state of uncertainty. "Did God indeed say?" The God of the Holy Bible, by contrast, wants us to know where we stand with Him, wants us to flourish in that knowledge into an ever greater love for Him. This God inspired the Apostle John to write: "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you HAVE eternal life" - 1 John 5:1-13. (caps emphasis is mine). By the way, where is the concept of the magisterium found in the Bible? Or Popes, Cardinals, indulgences, rosaries, etc., etc. ad nauseum? Is it not because these man made traditions are NOT found in the Bible the reason why those men who dared to translate the Bible into the common tongue were tortured and murdered in the most heinous ways by Roman Catholic clergy? I do not know what or who exactly your supposed Magisterium is. But then it is far from certain that the Roman Catholic church knows and agrees: (from WikiPedia) "Postconciliar era The debate concerning the Magisterium, papal primacy and infallibility, and the authority to teach in general has not lessened since the official declaration of the doctrines. Instead, the Church has faced contrary arguments; at one end there are those with the tendency to regard even technically non-binding papal encyclicals as infallible statements and, at the other, are those who refuse to accept in any sense controversial encyclicals such as Humanae Vitae. There are also those who, like John Henry Newman, question whether the First Vatican Council was itself an ecumenical council, and as a result whether the dogma of papal infallibility itself as defined at that council was a fallible pronouncement. The situation is complicated by changing attitudes toward authority in an increasingly democratic world, the new importance placed on academic freedom, and new means of knowledge and communication. In addition, the authority of theologians is being revisited, with theologians pushing past the structures laid out by Pius XII to claim authority in theology in their own right such as was the case in the middle ages. Others simply regard themselves purely as academics not in the service of any institution. In September 2018, the Synod of Bishops was granted Magisterium over documents which are approved at their Synods." (end quote). In contrast to all religious confusion, man made traditions, and prideful usurpation of divine authority, my faith is in the trustworthy Person of Christ. I am a born again child of a loving Heavenly Father. I am sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. Christ Jesus is the faithful Shepherd of my soul who will not let one of His flock be lost. The Lord Jesus Christ is my Surety, the guarantor of a better covenant and a better hope, my Redeemer who has co-signed that covenant with his own name and, as my advocate and only Mediator, pleads His shed blood before the accuser of the Brethren and before His eternal Father. Praise and glory to His name!
Eight months later and no response from Trent, the guy who named his channel after a religious council who spewed out curses and anathemas. Aren't you going to curse me Trent, for placing my undivided faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?
The Word “Baptize”: Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Some protestants don't believe baptism is ordinarily necessary. Ordinarily being for most people who have the chance to actually believe or to get baptized.
I'm a protestant-sort of, I don't go to church much but I try to obey God's teachings. I disagree with a lot of Catholic teachings but they are our brothers in Christ. I hate when there's animosity between churches.
Churches teach really different things. Although I think folky ways will give you some core Christian ideas, yet even Muslims and Atheists will keep some basic Christian morality. Outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy you won't get Mary's role on Earth and in Heaven. And if you are not a Catholic you won't see her enduring intercession on Earth. All in all what people call Christianity might not be that all. Christianity might be far weirder than your mind us willing to accept.
I would consider myself a Protestant but recently I've been feeling this huge conviction about the understanding of my faith. I've been trying to research more and have stumbled upon many Catholic videos and literature, and although I currently still feel disagreement with regards to certain doctrine and dogma I still can't help the overwhelming feeling of needing to understand more. To deepen my faith. I've been reading about church history and then going to study the church fathers. I really wish I knew a Catholic priest or someone well rounded in their Catholic knowledge that could help me with these questions I have. If anybody has any book recommendations I will gladly take any advice! Thank you!
Thanks for sharing about your journey! I strongly recommend Theology & Sanity by Frank J. Sheed-it’s a very well written book on Catholic theology. And my favorite source for all things theology is the Thomistic Institute, which is run by Dominican priests. They have UA-cam videos and a podcast. Another podcast by Dominican priests is Godsplaining, which has easy-to-digest conversations about many different topics. Finally, if you’re looking for a Catholic Bible scholar, I recommend Brant Pitre’s UA-cam channel called Catholic Productions. All the best with your search! God bless you.
Hi friend! I was a protestant before I converted to Catholicism last year. Do you have Instagram? I'd love to chat if you do. As for reading recommendations, "Why we're Catholic" by the very same Trent Horn is a great introduction to why we have our beliefs as Catholics. I've also started to read "The Church Fathers know best" by Jimmy Akin. It has a whole encyclopedia of writings taken from the early church fathers dealing with all the matters of faith that the Church has believed since the very beginning, giving an eye to what early Christians believed.
I like the recommendation of Frank Sheed's "A Map of Life". I know an atheist who came to Catholicism through that simple read. Why because no one provided him an explanation of his questions until this read. Blessing to all the truth seekers. I read this and own this book. Please give it a try.
Hi! I don’t really have any recommendations but I’m Protestant myself & have been feeling what you’ve been feeling lately and while Catholicism just still has too many things I’m not spiritually comfortable with, I’ve personally been looking into Orthodox Christianity. I’m literally in the very beginnings of my research so I can’t tell you much but so far it seems like Catholicism minus some of the.. Catholicism lol. I’m going to visit a church Sunday but from what I’ve been researching, they have beautiful churches with very divine atmospheres just like Catholics & they partake in sacraments and traditions and there’s just a sense of community and oneness that the Protestant church lacks. Might be worth it to look into along with Catholicism. I wouldn’t say Orthodoxy is perfectly in the middle of Catholicism and Protestantism but so far it seems like it does fall between the 2 but moreso Catholic leaning than Protestant. Blessings on your journey! Pray for mine as well.
The grace of god is a free gift, we cannot earn it,that’s why catholic’s baptise children, the child cannot earn the grace of god but it is given freely by God. Through baptism we become new creations, we enter into the life,death and resurrection of Jesus, and become part of the Catholic Church. Through good works we draw closer to Jesus and further away from sin, we must become lesser and he must become greater. God bless 🙏
Thinking about these big questions of Christianity is making me realize that there are no easy answers here. Your claim that Protestants lack authority to teach is very well supported and reasoned. You make it easy to see why many Catholics assert that the Catholic Church is needed to interpret Scripture and settle these disputes. I'm not ready to concede the necessity of a centralized teaching authority, but you are definitely making a very good case for one. If we take the "sola scriptura" idea to the extreme, then we can't really have any fixed beliefs because everything is open to interpretation. That being said, I think if a bunch of Christians believe something, but the Holy Spirit is pushing you to believe something else, it's important to resist the peer pressure. Of course, it's entirely possible that what we think is the prompting of the Spirit is really just our own desire. The important thing is to go on loving people who have different beliefs from us, something that Christians in the Middle Ages weren't very good at. I've felt God prompting me to love Catholics instead of looking down my nose at you folks. You are our brothers and sisters even if we don't agree on a lot of theological issues.
I lost Sola Scriptura when I realized 1.) I knew the Bible well enough to make it say practically whatever I wanted 2.) I am a wretched man and likely to get it wrong 3.) There are brilliant, Greek-speaking, well-studied pastors and writers who I loved (C.S. Lewis, John MacArthur, and even at one point [shudder] John Haggee) who all disagree with each other 4.) If I studied Greek and went to seminary, I'd be no closer to knowing the truth 5.) If I weren't as well-read, or smart, I'd have to totally rely on someone else...so Who? 6.) Maybe I'm not as well-read and smart as I think...which gets back to #2 I refused to become Catholic, so I was Agnostic for a while. God allowed me to be assaulted at work then hit by a drunk driver the next morning...I had a bit of pressure to sort things out. Then, in attending Mass and praying the Rosary to "try it out" crazy things started to happen. I reluctantly became Catholic (along with my wife) and never looked back (this is true because I haven't turned into a pillar of salt).
@@cactoidjim1477 You make a lot of excellent points. There are enough verses in the Bible that we can cherry-pick ones that go along with what we want. I guess it comes down to whether one has faith in the ability of Catholic Bible interpreters to come up with more accurate conclusions than Protestant Bible interpreters. It takes a lot of humility for you to say that you are likely to get it wrong with biblical interpretation, and I appreciate that. Thank you for sharing your personal story. I agree that God was definitely reaching out to you. I just kind of hope that God doesn't reach out to me in a similar manner because I just don't feel ready to become a Catholic. I think there is a lot of holiness in Catholicism, but it's just not what I've grown up with. I do feel that God is calling to confront my prejudices against Catholicism, though. I grew up being told that Martin Luther was the "good guy" and Pope Leo X was the "bad guy". But I've found so many wonderful Catholics online that help to dispel my prejudices.
PolymorphicPenguin - you make very good points. If you ever get a chance, go to a Catholic chapel that has the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Neil down before the Blessed Sacrament and seek the presence of Christ., John 6:40.- “everyone who “sees the Son”…has eternal life”. Christ’s presence is there just as He promised.
wms72, self-proclaimed Pope Peter had his mother-in-law. He must have been married in order to have a mother-in-law. But your Pope Francis is a fake because he is unmarried and yet your Church claimed apostolic succession. Further your Pope has to take the blame as he advocated unbiblical celibacy of priesthood which resulted for the massive sexual abuse of young innocent victims by Priests. Even Cardinals like Vatican Cardinal Marc Ouellet is the highest-ranking clergyman accused in a court document in Canada and was made public.. Any comments.
Jesus is to be the head of the Christian church and our mediator between God and man.Priests and Popes should not exist as intersession and ultimate authorities .thanks
@@93556108 It was written to several gentile congregations and all believers everywhere. These verses tell us how to live{basicially in the light of Jesus or doing as Jesus taught,which is the light} and understanding that we all sin to some degree or another and that we should confess those sins to God as soon as possible and turn from them and God forgives us. Jesus died for our sins,then rose again,we accept that and we are Christian,then we live our lives in appreciation for what He did for us,as sinnless as possible.thanks kind sir
@@joman388 ; I have a different perspective from yours. I say this verse 1John1:9 is written to unbelievers. In John’s days there is Gnosticism, a belief system that claim to have this divine supernatural being which this epistle was addressed to them. In its context; " 1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;” Firstly, John was trying to persuade them that Jesus existed from the beginning, and John personally had direct physical contact with Jesus. This verse must be referring to an unbeliever as a believer he would have known about this fact when he placed his faith in Jesus. Further in; "(1Jn 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Note John was referring this to an unbeliever, if we denied to have committed any sin, we only deceive ourselves and don’t possessed d the truth. Surely a believer would have known, he is a sinner who have sinned and he have the truth in them in order that he could placed his faith in Christ. In the next verse; "1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us”. Can this statement come from a believer? Of course not, a believer won’t say he had not sinned, and made God a liar. Further this verse stated “God’s word is not in him”. Don’t believers trusted God’s word? Surely, only unbelievers don’t trust in God’s word. But in the next verse; 1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” Now this verse addressed believers as it stated “my little children” as believers are considered as God’s children. For the rest of Chapter 2 of 1John it was referring to believers as Christ is their Advocate giving them His new commandments. That’s how I interpreted 1John1:9 in its historical context and the true meaning is referring to unbelievers whom Apostle John was persuading them the only solution is for them to confess their sin, God is just and faithful and will grant them all their sins and cleanse them from unrighteousness. Please read my comments carefully and please share your thoughts for me. Thank you.
I am not of the faith anymore but was born and raised into an evangelical Pentecost Christian church. Been digging deeper into the history of Christianity and am very intrigued to find that the catholic belief does have merit, maybe even more so than the Protestants. That being said still think there are quite a few brazen interpretations made by the Catholic Church to justify their traditions. In the case of the Virgin Mary. I don’t think there’s any need for her to be holy and the bible never says so. When has God ever used a perfect person to deliver his will? All previous accounts in the Old Testament have always included people who have sinned, so why would Mary be?
Old adam sinned, new Adam (Jesus) sinless. Old eve sinned. New Eve (Mary) sinless. Jesus took His human DNA from Mary (Jesus is the "FRUIT" of the womb of Mary) so its rather fitting she should be sinless. God bless. Hope this helps a bit. :)
@SidneyVenanciodelaTorre-yo4oz as a cradle Catholic turned Protestant who is open to returning to Catholicism, that I can get on board with... but Catholics take it toooo far. Why on earth do I have to pray the Salve Regina? Don't you think that's blasphemous? Hail Holy Queen... Mother of mercy, our life our sweetness and our hope... turn then most gracious advocate... Do you think God would want us to make anyone apart from Him our life our sweetness and our hope? Our only advocate? The Queen of Heaven is only mentioned twice in the Bible and in both times God rebuked the Israelites for their idolatry in worshipping her. And if you say you don't worship Mary... well, If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then what is it? A chicken? I live in a house full of Catholics and there's an altar in the living room of Mary with candles all lit up by her statue But I guess that's not worship? OK if you say so...
@@ubemon Our God is a jealous God who does not want to share His glory with IDOLS (false gods). With His own people though (people who do His will), BIG difference: "As the father has sent me, so I send you". And so the disciples were able to cure the sick, drive out demons, raise people from the dead, and even forgive sins. Mary is "blessed among women" and therefore has the most powerful and effective prayers ( refer to james 5:16) the why she is "our life, sweetness and our hope". Its not that Mary is a god or God but that Mary's prayers are more pleasing to God than everybody elses. So you may NOT pray the Salve Regina, but you'd be crazy not to. God bless. Hope this helps a bit. :)
That’s funny. Dr Craig thinks 680 AD is WAY late in the game to disavow monothelitism. I wonder if he would also think 1520 AD is WAY late for all the absolute novums of Protestant theology he DOES accept.
As a Protestant I found your video to be quite interesting. Personally, I believe there are Protestants who are saved, and Protestants who are not saved. Conversely, I believe there are Catholics who are saved, and Catholics who are not saved. I couldn't hope to pick which ones are and which ones are not, outside of inspecting their Fruits, and I personally draw comfort from 2 Timothy 2:19 on this topic: " Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” I am more than willing to stand beside a Catholic who is my brother/sister in the Lord and I hope both groups are able to do that more and more the closer we get to Christ's return. P.S. I like your channel's name Trent. It's clever and made me chuckle. Take care and God bless!
I baptized my baby when she was 5 months old. She died when she was 8 months old. I remember being so thankful to God that she was baptized. At the same time, I had a firm belief that she would still have entered heaven without it. I guess I feel like I would have been the one to bear the sin since I was the one responsible. But I also know that truth does not depend on my feelings.
Woah, since the baby was baptized and is totally innocent and didn't reach the age of reason around 7 years old..... the baby is no doubt in Heaven. She has to be.
Your child was sinless and pure because they were too young for accountability. Baptism did not save your child because your child was never condemned. I am truly sorry for you loss, however.
John Locke addressed the issue of who is a Christian in a famous work written in about 1690. His exegetical work was entitled 'The Reasonableness of Christianity'. In this work he argued persuasively that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus, the builder from Nazareth, is the Messiah of Jewish expectation. This is a very simple way of understanding Christianity which immediately gets past all secondary theological issues.
I agree almost completely. The only thing that makes me question the validity of Locke's argumentation is that there are Messianic Jews who explicitly resist being called Christians.
If you could lose your salvation, you would. It's Christ who intercedes for us to God, and who rebukes and chastens us when we stray. Did King David lose his salvation? Obviously not, yet he committed horrible sins. As for those who refuse to stop sinning, it's likely they never were saved to begin with. Tell us, then: when does someone lose their salvation, and how can Christ say "I will lose none of them the Father has given me" if salvation can be lost?
I am so glad that I am Catholic! Like another viewer commented one time, if we have over 30,000 Protestant denominations that have formed in the last 500 years, how many more will be formed in the next 500 years? God bless! 🙏
I guess you need to watch this other video of Trent Horn's, for things Catholics should stop saying. It's at the 17-minute mark. ua-cam.com/video/kJ8-TtaC73c/v-deo.html
Amen amen! The evangelical movement specifically has gone too far , and critise Catholics the most. Praise God for guys like Trent, Bryan Mericier, Matt Fradd, etc.
I think there’s more “unity” among Protestants today in the sense that many, even most, have eliminated most doctrinal considerations altogether. Of course, that’s not “unity” so much as indifference. I really started seeing that in the “seeker-friendly” movement. Today, you could visit a wide variety of Protestant denominations and not even realize which denomination you’re currently attending, except for seeing a logo somewhere.
My experience as a protestant was that the one thing the various denominations could agree on was that Catholics were wrong - and that was the only doctrine that mattered.
@@carissstewart3211 SO true. Anti-Catholicism is practically the central doctrine of protestantism, from the very beginning, but _especially_ now in our conspiracy theory-obsessed culture. One of those precious few things all protestants can enthusiastically get behind is a big circlejerk about how sick and perverse those "Roman Catholic" bootlickers are.
@@carissstewart3211 This is an interesting comment. To me, I had never really concerned myself with Catholic/Protestant difference my whole life, but as I've engaged Catholicism a little more over the last couple years, it seems they're very focused on this Catholic/Protestant difference. It's off-putting to me. It seems like a distraction from focusing on Christ.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 yeah i meant the primary source though. Everything i know about Protestantism is through people like Mike Winger. I could read them myself but Trent usually does a better job.
Would you want to bring back indulgences? Charging people money to get people out of purgatory seems unBiblical. That was wrong, just like today’s televangelist preachers.
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was no salvation outside the Ark which denotes the Church." - St. Thomas Aquinas
@@TLL418 Join the Byzantine Church or something.... Seriously, I sometimes wonder if protestant hatred of Catholicism isn't just anti Italian prejudice, it's always "rome" this, "rome" that. As if ANYTHING that we have to say pertains to a geographical location. It's utterly ignorant.
As one who grew up Protestant, and now find myself in between "denominations" (just left Calvinism last year and been searching Scripture) I found the eternal security question a little bit of a moot point which seems to be clearly lined throughout Scripture. Those who endure to the end will be saved. Those who do the will of the Father are the true believers. Those whose actions match their statements of faith. Those who do not walk away but keep the faith will be saved. We look forward to the adoption to become sons of God. It really is clear to me now that I left my interpretive goggles behind and just read. Faith, repentance and obedience is the path to salvation. It is not done by works because we can merit nothing but judgement or reward based upon our works, but salvation itself is faith and trust in God alone, and keeping that faith to the end of our life. As it is said in Matthew 25 when the Son of Man comes in his glory that all the nations will be gathered and He will separate the sheep from the goats. Who are the sheep and the goats? The sheep are the ones who obeyed and had love and mercy for others (good works) and the goats were those who did not have love and mercy for others (no good works/works of unrighteousness). God's grace is offered freely to us, and accepted by faith, and lived out in the good works laid out beforehand for us since the beginning of the world, to work in accordance with the law of Faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Nothing can separate us form the love of God? Of course! But one thing is missing there in that verse. Us. We can walk away and turn our backs on Him and not endure to the end, thus, not being saved. It is that continued faith and trust and walking according to faith to the end which Scripture has plainly told us will let us see salvation which is the resurrection. So eternal security? Sure! So long as you are being obedient to Christ and living according to His statutes. When we abide in Christ, and He in us, and find our all in all in Him, do we find our rest. Abide not, and he will cast us into the furnace. As Hebrews 6 says "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned" Once we have the Truth and are set free, if we turn again to our flesh and sin and turn away from God, how can there be any hope for us? Continued obedience, continued trusting loyalty to the end is the path we must take, trusting, putting our faith in Him and obeying Him in that trust. When we sin, we repent and get back up onto the path, not wander down the path of unrighteousness. So can we lose salvation? It is not really ours to have or lose yet as we only have a down payment of the Holy Spirit as a promise, if we endure to the end, then the promise will be filled sine we fulfilled our end of that covenant as best we could, and Christ fills in the rest for us and perfects us. All that is required is that faith, and that faith should lead to obedience shown through works. That is what I found in my plain reading. And I find myself more aligning with the Catholic church on many points, but hold in balance the interpretive authority versus the clear reading of the passages. Sola Scriptura for what is plain (Christ alone through faith by God's grace, to the end to be saved). In other matters, we can discuss, but to be dogmatic about anything aside from Christ, in my view, is just contentious. Sure, they can lead to differing viewpoints and we should explore those views and see their ultimate conclusions as to whether they are truly in line with Scripture in its plain teaching, and if they ultimately end up against Christ, then we can dismiss them. Hence, why I left Calvinism. It made God into a puppet master, denying His mercy, love and justice, making Him into a self-glorifying God with no regard for His creation which as "very good" in the beginning, and Has shown abundant mercy throughout history. It all ended up being about "what brings God the most glory" instead of what God has revealed to us as His love and mercy so we would not perish, but could be with Him. On baptism saving us, the passages tell us repentance AND baptism. Baptism as a sign of a pledge of a clear conscience. Washing of regeneration, which could be argued, but it is almost always seen hand in hand with repentance. And the only questions i posit are these: Can an infant repent? What does an infant only a few days old repent of? Does an infant have the capacity to understand what it is to repent? and of course it goes back to original sin, but I find the passage in Ezekiel must be taken into account that each one is responsible and held account for their own sins, not the sins of the father, so Adam's sin broke creation and brought death, but we are only affected by the curse, and are PRONE to sinning, not guilty of Adam's sin. "through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." and "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them," "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." All point to knowledge and understanding, conscience bearing witness for or against, all requiring knowledge. Infants have no knowledge yet, especially of moral choices, so how can they be held accountable for sin? What sin CAN be committed without knowledge of right or wrong? Especially at that young age. My view on it is children are born in what I would call a "neutral but decaying state" where they cannot be held guilty for any sin, but as they grow and their hearts are taught by experience, morals, or the Word of God, they begin to form morality. Once they begin understanding morality and what constitutes a right vs wrong action, not based on God's word but just in general the rules presented them, whether they obey or not will shape their next actions. When they intentionally do evil, they are sinning. When the do good, they are obedient. When they come to the knowledge of God and salvation through faith in Christ alone, their rejection condemns them and their acceptance saves them, provided their continued obedience and faith to the end as discussed above. My main points for fellowship and what I consider a Christian as these: 1) Is Jesus Christ God in Flesh? 2) Is salvation found in Christ alone? 3) Is believing in the heart and confessing with the mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, enough to be saved if you were to die in the next 5 minutes? If all three yes, then I can have fellowship. We may discuss and disagree on a myriad of other things, but those three I consider the litmus test of Christianity. Anyhow, I've droned on long enough and given my points. Good video though.
Wow. Just wow. You've given some excellent points for me to think about and study further! I'm a Protestant and I've been wrestling with a few things myself. I've found myself looking into some Catholic doctrine and although I would say I still disagree on many things, there are, however, a number of things starting to sway me to that side. I've been reading about church history and the early church fathers for more understanding, something I wish more protestants did and encouraged, obviously not all protestants are ignorant to Christian history but I do find it a common theme that Catholics tend to know more on that front than protestants. I hope I can gets some more answers and I thank you for your comment because it did help me with a lot that I've been thinking about! God bless you!
@skyeball6137 i am glad my own studies and answer has helped you. I pray the Truth of Scripture and of God permeates your mind and heart and brings you to a sure and steady faith and you walk in it to completion. I hope to meet you in paradise someday and learn how God has worked in your life during our mortal age.
It seems your 3-point test just sealed the fate of all infants, newborns, and toddlers. Hell would no doubt be their destination if your 3-point formula is God's standard for any that would inherit eternal life
@allopez8563 i never said the catholic church DID teach that as dogma. Although Augustine and the church DID believe it up until the middle ages when it was softened to limbo, whoch was then tracked back to where I stand on it now, thst infants that are not baptized are entrusted into Gods mercy. If I recall, that happened around 15 years ago? Or was it back in 92? I do not recall right now, but it was the position, not dogma, of the rcc in the past.
There is only one truth. For example, many Protestant denominations believe that baptism is regenerative. And that it is essential to salvation. Many Protestant denominations believe that baptism is merely symbolic and does nothing. These both can't be right, and if baptism is essential, then there are going to be a lot of people who will not gain eternity in Heaven because they've been misled.
If A=B and B=/=C then A=/=C. If A is sound doctrine and B is sound doctrine, they are equal. If C is not equal to B, then C is not sound doctrine. Things that disagree can't both be right.
@@matthewn2559 prove he wasn't. Prove when exactly Christ instituted baptism as a requirement for salvation. Jesus is God. He can do whatever He wants. Keep in mind that St. Dismas, the "good theif" was told by Jesus that, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Except we know Jesus didn't go to Heaven until His ascension, 40 days after the resurrection. So St. Dismas wasn't in Heaven on Good Friday. He was in "Paradise," for which the Greek word, Paradeiso, means Sheol. The Bosom of Abraham. The old Jewish word for Hell (not Gehenna). That's where Jesus was from his death on the cross until his resurrection. Preaching to the dead.
@@jeffscully50613 Please use your head. Are you Roman Catholic? If you are you exemplify what religious pride does-helps you to refuse correction which is based on Scripture. The fact that Roman Catholics believe and propagate the lie that Mary was a perpetual virgin is evidence of this. A plain reading of Scripture clearly teaches she wasn't. Mary was a godly women who should be honored but she was not a perpetual virgin and she does not intercede for people. One of the main errors of Roman Catholicism is it takes the "shadows and figures" of the Christian faith and attempts to make them the substance. Being baptized by some earthly false priest does not make one right with God. A true believer is baptized by Christ with the Holy Spirit when they come to saving faith in Christ. (see Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16) Water baptism is symbolic of what Christ has done for the true born again believer. Analogous to this is the putting on of a wedding ring- it is the vows which a couple take that constitutes the marriage not the putting on of the ring. The ring only symbolizes what those vows incorporate. I would recommend to you to read 2 Peter 3 verse 16. Much of Roman Catholic theology fulfills this verse.
When speaking about “Rome” and the reformation, Protestants sound one way. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, etc. But when teaching the faith as Biblically outlined, they sound another way. They admit you have to live a Christian life. Thy admit physical presence at church and community is necessary. They know if you sin you need to seek reconciliation with who you’ve wronged and th community.
Yes! They say that it’s Faith alone and that works have nothing to do with your salvation but they don’t act that way. Most Protestants I know do try to do good, but since they don’t teach this I have seen others who are simply “doing works for salvation” - probably many more than in the Catholic Church lol
Those who love Him keep his commands. Do you think this is in opposition to salvation by faith alone? If someone were to pursue salvation by doing every good work and living a perfect life we would say with the apostles that all have fallen short of the glory of God. Praise be to God that in Jesus Christ we have a sacrifice for our sins, once for all, that as His people we are made clean by his atonement! So then what good is my works? Do I gain more atonement from Jesus' death and resurrection by giving money to the poor? If that were the case then surely I could eventually attain full atonement through my good works if only I had enough of them. Since no amount of good works can attain for me atonement for my sins then it must rest purely on Christ's atoning work that I am saved. The outward working of my inward spirit is then a reflection of the saving work Christ has already done in me. It is continued obedience to the one who loved me and gave himself up for me. It is the fruit of one who remains in the vine. Attending church does not gain me salvation, reconciling for sin does not gain me salvation, those are things I do because I follow my savior and lord. I think Sola Fide is not in opposition to doing good works, but that good works are the natural outpouring of one who seeks Christ. What do you think?
@@frankN326 Hello Frank! Thanks for the charitable reply! Do I think keeping his commands is in opposition to Salvation by Faith Alone? No I see that we are called (and all serious Christians) do love Him by keeping His commands, but I also think these works are as necessary as our initial and ongoing Faith and Relationship with Christ. In other words, on day I came to the realization that God was real. And for the rest of my life (34 years) I have been doing the works best I can (obedience, prayer, self control, faithful in my marriage, getting closer to God and His will for me every year, standing up for His Truth, caring for those who don’t know Him, etc, etc). I do all of this out of love for Him. But I could just as easily spent the last 34 years mired in Sin and I my relationship with him would be a disaster. So what I am saying is that I don’t see how our salvation is “Faith alone”. As James says is must also have good works. Not for the sake of the works but for the sake of the relationship with Christ. This is my problem with Sola Fide. I think it is incomplete. Thoughts?
What I see is that for most Protestants, the essential doctrine of Protestantism is Sola Scriptura, not Sola Fide. As long as you agree that the Bible is your highest authority, what is actually is truth takes the back burner. In other words, Protestants are free to disagree with each other, even on what is "essential", as long as they don't claim the mantle of authority on interpreting the Bible. There is no human authority over anyone in interpreting scriptures.
Protestants are free to disagree with each other because there is so much disagreements within the Protestant sects. That’s one of the main reasons I left the nondenominational Protestant sects. Every sect I went to thought they knew the real truth, it was not logical.
My two cents; Ive read the bible almost in its entirety, excluding some old testament books, but read the new testament many times and to me its clear that God is interested in our hearts, not our vague rituals or arguments. I don’t count myself a catholic or protestant or anything for that matter, only Christian. Saying that I believe its vital to discuss, learn and even argue about scripture to have a better understanding of the word of God. Liturgy or customs aren’t at all bad in of itself, but when they are raised to the purpose of itself, without the changed new born heart, it is quite meaningless. We should all focus our minds on God and pray daily, and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who died for our Sins. As a last example of what I mean are the eastern orthodox and the so called old believers, who had an even violent parting on the matter of do you use two fingers or three fingers to make the sign of the cross. That wasn’t obviously the only reason for the separation, but it seems quite ridiculous to be honest. Church traditions are culture, and shouldn’t come between Christians falling on their knees before the almighty.
Non-domination falls under Protestant. Hint, just you and your Bible. Sola Scriptura. Church “traditions are culture”. Tell that to Saint Peter and early church fathers. 🤦♂️
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I really appreciate the emphasis you place on the heart in our relationship with God, and I agree that faith starts there. However, as a Catholic, I believe that our faith is meant to be lived out both internally and externally, and this is something rooted in Scripture. While God certainly looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), He has also given us specific ways to worship Him. For example, in the Old Testament, He established detailed instructions for sacrifices and festivals, and in the New Testament, Jesus instituted the sacraments like baptism (Matthew 28:19) and the Eucharist (Luke 22:19). These aren’t vague rituals-they’re outward signs of the grace we receive through Christ. I also see tradition as a vital part of the Christian faith. St. Paul himself told the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Tradition and Scripture together preserve the truth of the Gospel, ensuring that it’s faithfully passed down through the ages. It’s not about man-made customs but about guarding what Christ entrusted to His Church. When it comes to faith, I believe it’s not just an internal belief but something that must bear fruit in how we live and worship. James 2:17 reminds us that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” The sacraments and liturgy are not meaningless if they flow from a genuine faith-they are ways to encounter God, deepen our relationship with Him, and live out our faith in community. As for divisions over traditions, I agree that some arguments can seem petty. But at the same time, Christ prayed that His followers would “be one” (John 17:21). The Church’s role is to preserve unity in essential matters of faith and worship. The Catholic Church sees herself as the Church Christ founded, guided by the Holy Spirit to maintain this unity and safeguard the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). I think we all agree that our ultimate focus should be on Christ, who gave us the means to worship Him both inwardly and outwardly. The traditions and teachings of the Church are not meant to get in the way of that but to help us grow closer to Him. I really value the chance to discuss these things, as it helps us all to better understand God’s Word and His plan for us.
Protestants are in the odd position of Christians (through the valid baptism) that don't believe in Christianity (because they reject the Dogmas of the Catholic Church).
As a former Roman Catholic I can say this with the greatest certainty, You're saved by DONE not DO. For by grace are you saved through faith. If you're not right on this , nothing else matters. As a Roman Catholic I was Religious, but Lost. I lived it. I know where of I speak.
Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5-8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9-10, 1 Cor. 3:12-15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11-13).”
@@robertajaycart3491 Salvation does have three tenses. Past- I've been saved from sins Penalty by Trusting Christ ALONE. Present- I've am being saved from sin's Power. That's sanctification. Future- I shall be saved from sin's Presence. That's when I'm with Jesus in Heaven. All of this becomes my reality when I trust Christ' s death, burial and resurrection on my behalf. I don't add baptism, my good works, being part of the Catholic church and the rest of the sacraments and time in purgatory....all things Rome teaches her followers.
@Robert Szontagh Even when I thought of leaving Catholicism for personal reasons,The Holy Spirit intervened in my life and told me to stay because I needed the Sacraments. All those other things matter to Christ too. After becoming Catholic, I did 10 years of research, even giving up the TV and Internet for a while to study. You believe in Christ alone. Catholics believe in Christ also but also the Catholic church is the one true church started by Christ himself. The Catholic church was put here by Christ for the Salvation of man's soul.
@@robertajaycart3491 I didn't have personal reasons for leaving Rome. My family, My priests, my nuns were always kind to me. I had doctrinal reasons... Bible reasons. I was lost. What I was taught by the Church didn't match up with the Scriptures on important subjects like Salvation, Praying to Saints, Purgatory, Kissing Crucifixes, Praying Hail Marys , Baptism washing away original sin and the like.... Respectfully, I don't believe the Holy Spirit led you in your decision. He would not lead you in a path away from salvation and the Bible.
@@robertszontagh1297 As someone who battles these lies from the Catholic Church what you have just mentioned, and showed how rome wishing to add to the Holy perfect word of God. Thank you for showing the truth to others.
Trent, I would be curious to see how Craig would respond to the question: How can we trust the Canon of Scripture if it was determined through tradition and councils? In other words, how can the bar of Scripture affirm itself? I think you two could have a very good debate...
We trust them because we trust the true leader and founder of Catholic Church, Jesus Christ...The fact that the Church has withstood external and internal problems( horrible horrible Popes, heresies etc) shows this... Mathew: 16:18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
@@annmary6974 He's asking how Craig (a protestant) would answer the question, not about Catholics. Obviously Catholics trust the canon because it was affirmed by multiple ecumenical councils under the guidance of the Spirit that Jesus Christ promised he would send.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol The Spirit in question came at Pentecost, He is called "The Comforter," not "The Ecumenicist." With that loose of a justification, anybody can claim inspiration. Which is exactly what Prots do as well
@@fireandworms What on Earth are you talking about? The canon was not affirmed at Pentecost. It did not exist at Pentecost. All ecumenical councils are guided by the Spirit. That is a foundational doctrine of Catholicism. I never said the Spirit is called "ecumenicist" so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. My point is that Catholics have a rational basis for trust in the canon - namely, that it can be understood to be asserted by the Spirit, because we believe that Jesus kept his promise to ensure the Church would be the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Craig surely believes that Jesus keeps all his promises, so to get around this problem, presumably he believes that the ecclesia is just an invisible, unacknowledged, loose association between all people who believe in Christ. But such a vague demographic definition does not yield a structure that can make affirmations of anything. Such a definition of ecclesia is also problematic, because it would include most heresies. It would surely include all sorts of groups with disagreeing doctrines. So it doesn't make any single, coherent affirmation. Therefore, it can't be the pillar and bulwark of the truth without also being the pillar and bulwark of lies. It doesn't advocate a single truth, and it includes mutually exclusive claims, so how can it be understood as an authority on anything, let alone the canon? It would be better to narrow the authority structure, not broaden it. The problem, of course, is that Craig can't narrow it to his own personal church because his personal church did not exist when Jesus made these promises. So it can't have been what the earliest Christians understood to be the ecclesia. This is a huge problem because there's really nothing the ecclesia _can be_ if not the Church that existed at the time of these writings. And that is obviously the Catholic Church, whence the contemporary Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Gavin Ortlund defines a fourfold schema to distinguish doctrines: * First-rank doctrines are ESSENTIAL to the gospel itself. * Second-rank doctrines are URGENT for the health and practice of the church such that they frequently cause Christians to separate at the level of local church, denomination, and/or ministry. * Third-rank doctrines are IMPORTANT to Christian theology, but not enough to justify separation or division among Christians. * Fourth-rank doctrines are UNIMPORTANT to our gospel witness and ministry collaboration. Determining where to place particular doctrines and understanding how to engage with fellow believers and the outside world is complicated. Ortlund lays out four basic criteria that we should consider: 1. How clear is THE BIBLE on this doctrine? 2. What is this doctrine's importance to THE GOSPEL? 3. What is the testimony of the HISTORICAL CHURCH concerning this doctrine? 4. What is this doctrine's effect upon the CHURCH TODAY?
Perfect video 👍🙏❤️ .... btw, there's also a really good explanation on the topic in the video: "Questions for Protestants (with former baptist Steve Ray)" or something like that
Jesus was wrong. According to you, he should've said: "Not my *willS,* but Thy Wills; be done."_ LOL! This is obviously a joke. The Magisterium's opinion is interesting, but far from infallible. Even when Protestants show how it theologically fails, Catholics will deny it and hold their obviously false beliefs. However, there are objective things that have been falsified that even Catholics have to admit. For example, History has refuted the doctrine of the Papacy. - The Shepherd of Hermas nowhere talks about a bishop in Rome, but always refers to leadership in Rome in the PLURAL FORM. Vision 2, 8, 3 clearly states that presbyterS ruled over the church of Rome. This contradicts the modern false belief that there was a a Supreme episkopos (bishop) there. LOL! - I Clement 42 (a supposed Pope, LOL) clearly states there would be bishopS as leaders and not one monarchical bishop, as does Hermas Vis. 3,5,1. - Ignatius, WHO WAS A BISHOP APPOINTED BY PETER (Eusebius, Church History 3, 36) talks about many famous Christian authorities of the time, and NEVER EVER mentions A bishop in Rome. So it is a historical fact, there was not a Supreme Bishop in Rome in the First Century. Sooo, this is the best explanation: When the Church of Rome gained importance they wanted to justify their supremacy with a false narrative. That is why there are so many problems with the narrative: - Irenaeus says Peter and Paul appointed Linus (Against Heresies Book 3, chp 2-3) - But Eusebius says Linus was appointed by someone else after Peter's death (Church History, 3, 2) and gives a different list on who was the first bishop. - Even worse, Tertullian says Clement was the FIRST bishop appointed by Peter (Prescription of the Heretics 32).
@@prime_time_youtube So your point is that the Catholic idea of the papacy and apostolic succession is all false because of a group of carefully selected quotes from a carefully selected writings from carefully selected Church Fathers?
@@RumorHazi You must be kidding. I showed you how the EARLIEST Christian sources clearly state that there was no supreme bishop in Rome in the First Century. They did not even think about it. This is not a careful selection, THESE ARE THE EARLIEST SOURCES! As you can see, the Church of Rome was presided by multiple presbyters/bishops as the sources clearly state. Here is a quote from Raymond Brown, the famous Catholic scholar that applied the historical-critical method to study the Bible: _"The Presbyter-Bishops were not in any traceable way the successors of the twelve apostles [...] the affirmation that the episcopate was divinely established or established by Christ himself can be defended in the nuanced sense that the episcopate gradually emerged in a Church that stemmed from Christ and that this emergence was in the eyes of faith guided by the Holy Spirit."_ Historically speaking, Christ HIMSELF never instituted an apostolic succession, it is a late creation. Again, *Christ DID NOT talk about apostolic succession, never ever.* If you want to quote Mat 16, prepared to be destroyed by the Fathers who NEVER thought this was an indication of Apostolic Succession.
First, I have the highest respect for the Catholic Church and agree with it the vast majority of the time. I love shows like yours and listen often, and I consider yourself and Catholics in general my brothers and sisters in Christ. A few things, though, kept me from joining. 1)Though I agree that having an authoritative body for scripture interpretation and church governance creates more unity, it doesn't assure accurate interpretation. Of course, letting everyone interpret for themselves doesn't either. But at least it avoids the scenario of being duty-bound to accept a false interpretation (which can happen when any men interpret scripture) lest I be faulted for being at odds with the Church. This can create a horrible dilemma of feeling caught between two divine authorities, scripture and the teaching office of the church. And if you genuinely feel in your conscience that the church's interpretation of scripture is wrong, you are compelled as a Catholic to accept that you must be wrong and the magesterium correct. In that case, isn't the magesterium the highest authority in the church? I can accept prima scriptura over sola scripture. But I can't accept prima ecclesia over prima scriptura. I'm not implying that my interpretation is more likely to be correct. I'm saying that Truth is separate from anyone's reading of scripture. I may be wrong about many things, and I pray God corrects me. But I don't believe any man is necessarily less prone to the same degree of error. 2) This is a lesser point but one that bugs me. Why does the Church find it necessary to split hairs over various doctrines? For example, transubstantiation. Why is it necessary to be so specific on exactly how Christ is present in the Eucharist? Can't it just be a mystery? Why must people accept a highly specific description of how it occurs as apposed to all others? It just seems like over kill to me. My gut reaction to such a high level of specificity is to question. Do we really know that? How? It seems made up to settle an argument. 3) The Marian dogmas. I actually don't have anything against them as they are articulated. I agree that we protestants should give Mary much more honor than we do. But in practice, it strikes me as idolatrous. If there is one prayer every Catholic knows, it's the Hail Mary, a beautiful prayer. But I hear of it much more than any other from Catholics. It just seems wrong to elevate a prayer to Mary over prayers directly to God. Also, aren't half the Holy Days of obligation about Mary? Same problem. How is it not wrong to emphasize Mary more than Christ? It seems that Catholics have a view of divinity that is something of a continuum from man to God, while protestants see a chasm between man and God that is only bridged by Christ. I've heard Catholics say that God isn't in competition with his creation. Therefore to honor Mary is ultimately to honor God. But if that's the case, shouldn't paganism be valid?
Your problem is not fully understanding Mary...since the rosary itself points indeed to the life of Christ in a reflective way...it's all about Christ since it lays out Christ's life on earth from birth till death....
1) Catholicism teaches her teaching office/hierarchy has supernatural protection to avoid inserting errors in the faith. Not perfect clerics, not clerics actively doing the right thing, just avoiding error. This is moment where you believe or not. But look around - how many modern Christian churches have avoided women "pastors". 2)Splitting hairs over doctrine matter because what little we know about God as revealed by Christ is complex. And each error ultimately will take people away from Christ and change the culture of the Church. If you don't believe "minor" difficulties lead to big difference, spend a Sunday at a Mass versus a local megachurch. As for Mary, relatively speaking she's popular, but largely privately. The formal litgury of the Church is far more about Jesus, which makes sense. Mass is centered on Christ, not Mary.
@@atrifle8364 Thanks for your response. I've since settled these issues, for the most part, by coming to understand exactly what you've pointed out. I appreciate you sharing. It's encouraging when someone takes the time to provide a thoughtful answer. I'm actually in RCIA now! Not completely sure I'll join, but I'm leaning closer and closer as time goes on. Family issues with it are the main hesitation. Please pray for me.
This is where faith comes in. Do you believe Christ when he said that even the gates of hell shall not prevail? If yes, then lean not on your own understanding. But lean in Christ and trust he knows what he is doing when he appoints his overseer/pope. For catholics, we dont believe the Pope is Supreme, Christ is supreme. The pope is just his prime minister. Command responsibility is witht he king/jesus. My priest, the bishop, the pope.. all are in persona christi. They act in the person of christ.
Sunday is a holy day of obligation for Catholics, which is devoted to Christ. So there are many more holy days of obligation devoted to Jesus compared to Mary. Also, you neglected the fact that Catholics also say the "Our Father" and many other prayers regularly, including every Sunday at Mass. Also, there is no obligation to say the Hail Mary of do any other Marian devotions if one does not want to. It is available if one finds it helpful. A good book about the real Catholic teachings on Mary is "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre
I agree with the fact that they disagree on VERY important issues. In relation to baptism, some think that you don't need it at all despite what the Bible says.
The Word “Baptize”: Which baptism is related to salvation? Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, ====================================== New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (Acts 2:36)
@@SpotterVideo 😂 John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. CANNOT ENTER. Makes sense we are born without sanctifying grace which is needed for the kingdom, so we amend that through baptism. I cannot believe your ignorance, doesn't mention water? Oh really. You should probably stop trying to teach theology. While you are at it let's stop pretending like believing in Christ is the ONLY thing you have to do to waltz on in. Clearly it ain't so and the examples don't just end there either since we can lose salvation by becoming the wicked as opposed to remaining just people
@@wesboyce87 Yes he did, there are conditional baptisms it's just not the norm so if he wasn't before than yea. Christ was literally at his side. The Lord obviously understands there could be certain situations albeit rare
@@angelalemos9811 Those women who have had a baby can explain the water that comes forth with the child. Nicodemus was talking about child birth at one point in this passage. What happened when you were "born of the flesh"? Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Trent, these sorts of arguments arent valid, brother. The Scriptures indicate what's essential. If you want to say Protestants can't be certain with regard to their interpretation of what Scripture says is essential, then the Protestant can just say we Catholics can't be certain with regard to our interpretation of what the Church teaches to be essential.
I’m an evangelical Christian - and I’m so glad I found your channel. Whilst I do believe Sola Scriptura and sola Fide, I believe that is that we are saved by the grace of God if we put faith in him…… works are important, but not what earns us salvation. I think anyone who believes in Jesus as Lord and as the son of God - it would be strange for them to make a blanket statement saying catholics are not Christian. It is not biblically accurate for those saying scripture and faith alone can rule out Roman Catholics from the faith. Just my thoughts. I’m going to find more of your videos - this was a good watch! Thank you x
Not every Catholic believes in Catholicism. But everyone who believes in Catholicism the doctrine believes that anyone not part of the Catholic Church is not saved. I am 100% protestant and the bible is clear that we are saved by the gospel alone but we should see the fruit of the Spirit if or when you are saved.
@WorldsWildestFacts compelled works for fear of missing out on Heaven would be wrong. Works is the result of an inner work done by faith in Christ in the believer, evidenced by the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
quote---- it would be strange for them to make a blanket statement saying catholics are not Christian. It is not biblically accurate for those saying scripture and faith alone can rule out Roman Catholics from the faith... unquote >>>CHRISTIAN The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one", THAT IS NOT MY OPINION. .Written 2000 years ago!!! Christian--A FOLLOWER of Christ--A FOLLOWER of HIS TEACHINGS!!! #1--Where in the Bible did Jesus teach to REST on the first day of the week to make that day special? #2--Where in the Bible did Jesus BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special? #3--Where in the Bible did Jesus teach that God SANCTIFIED the first day of the week to make that day special? #4--Where in the Bible dis Jesus say God gave a name to the first day of the week to make that day special? #5--Where in the Bible dis Jesus teach that God DECLARED the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special? (Sunday keepers don’t realize that when they keep Sunday holy they are making a day holy that man ordained, not God, by doing that they have violated the 2nd commandment by making an image, they also violate the 4th commandment and the 9th commandment by lying about the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I’m sure you could find a few different commandments that are broken by keeping Sunday. That’s why the Bible says if you break one commandment you break them all. Please open your eyes brothers and sisters that keep Sunday before it is to late!) #6--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary prayed to/with beads. #7--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary went to/ will go to heaven. #8--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary is an mediator/intercessor. #9--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary remained a virgin all her life. #10--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary did not sin. #11--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught a mere man is Head of the church. #12--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught there are popes in God's kingdom. #13--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught we are to confess our sins to a priest. #14--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught there is an "one holy Apolistic church? #15--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught the seventh day is not the Sabbath. #16--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Rome is where Jesus will have His headquarters. #17--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Peter was in Rome. #18--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary is the Ark of the covenant. >>>FACT: I have asked OVER 100 supposed experts on Catholicism to reply to those questions. All I have received are out of context quotes, told to watch this or that video, or no reply at all!!! Will you answer them???? At least the first 5 basic questions FROM THE BIBLE. >>>> btw: BIBLE PROPHECY ROME DESTROYED If the Catholic religion iS the one Jesus taught, then why is it called the "Apostate church"? Why will it be destroyed? www.soonrussiaattacks.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Rome_Destroyed.htm >>>> John 14:6 NIV - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. So, when a religion teaches what contradicts what Jesus taught, is that religion the truth???? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Your assessment is partially correct. However, Trent is specifically addressing protestants who say it doesn’t matter that there are major differences in protestant theology because they are united in the ‘essentials.’ They cannot agree on what is ‘essential.’
@@patricklennon5195 No, I am completely correct. Trent argues as though there is something monolithic called Protestantism. There isn't. Thus, to argue that 'it' or 'they' can't respond to his question is to make an inane argument. Further, his question is based on a conviction that actually begs the question. Any Protestant could simply turn the question around and ask, why is it that the splintered 'original church' can't agree on the juridical authority of the Bishop of Rome? Why don't they have a single source of reality? Similarly, the Mormons could ask the same thing of Catholics. In fact, any identifiable distinct organization could ask the same question of any other group they cared to define for the purpose of asking the question.
@patricklennon5195 you won't find a church that does 100% the same as the other church and believe 100% the same things even if they are all under the same denomination. This is because there is more issues to discuss within the church like predestination, free will, calvinism, molinism, election, God's character and so much more. To say you have to 100% agree with me otherwise you are not a Christian would make you Jesus or perfect basically. That's why as protestants we want to see you argue your perspective biblically and the essentials are not things anyone can have a different form of for example how you are saved
I get tired of all the bickering of doctrines among protestants. I get tired of Catholics telling me I'm not saved when I was baptized as a teen in the name of the Holy Trinity.
@huwhitecat- so what, you believe in “baptism alone”? I think you can start another Protestant church if you can find at least one prooftext to support that. 😂
@@mikelopez8564 I believe the plan of salvation that the Church of Christ teaches. In no way is it baptism alone. God's Plan of Salvation GOD'S PART 1. The great love of God for man (John 3:16) 2. He gave His Son, Jesus Christ, as the Saviour (Luke 19:10) 3. Sent the Holy Spirit as a guide (John 16:13) 4. Gave the Gospel as "the power" unto salvation (Romans 1:16) 5. Provided atonement by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9) MAN'S PART 1. Hear the Gospel. (Romans 10:17, John 8:32) 2. Believe the Gospel (Hebrews 11:6, John 20:31) 3. Repent of past sins (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30) 4. Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10, Matthew 10:32) 5. Be Baptized (Galatians 3:27, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) 6. Be faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10)
There is a difference between a main doctrine and an important one. Whether baptism saves infants or not is certainly important, but not essential. A main doctrine is something that determines whether you're a Christian or not. These are the ones that I think make you a Christian(as a Protestant): 1. You believe the Trinity 2. You believe the resurrection 3. You have faith in Jesus as God the Son It might be an incomplete list if I think about it more, but I think that's it. I'm still not entirely sure whether Roman Catholics(ones that follow all the doctrines) are saved, but I'm leaning towards yes at the moment(I'd have to change my list if it's a no). My main problems with Roman Catholicism are these: 1. The gospel of it. Romans 11:6 is a pretty clear refutation of it, and Ephesians 2:8-10 shows that salvation is by grace through faith, which results in works. 2. The doctrines about Mary that the Roman Catholic church says are required for salvation. They are not supported by scripture. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on this, but I know that 3 of them are the bodily assumption, the perpetual virginity, and the immaculate conception. There is nothing in scripture that supports any of these, and certainly nothing clear. If you believe these three, fine; while I think you're wrong, it's not heretical(but saying you must believe them to be saved is nonsense), though praying to Mary is. It's idolatry. 3. Giving the Roman Catholic church the authority to interpret scripture. Not just to interpret it, but to tell you how you have to interpret it. "But it's tradition" is not an argument. If tradition said that you have to accept whatever the government says, obviously that's wrong, because scripture does not support it. The government frequently says wrong things. If a teaching is wrong, don't accept it. We are supposed to do good, and accepting wrong teachings is bad. 4. Placing tradition over scripture. Kind of the same thing as number 3. If scripture is against tradition, then tradition is wrong. I would cite the verse about how all scripture is profitable for teaching, correction, reproof, etc., but I don't remember what it was and I can't look it up because UA-cam might delete my comment. I think that's pretty much all I have to say.
If I as a Jew was looking at the wayward "Christians" I would conclude, based on all your different sects, that you are all confused. Clearly the Prophets taught that when the Messiah comes there would be unity under His rule. Jesus never brought this, you all followed Him, and now you have all sorts of murderous division. You can't even agree on Church government.
@@Lambdamale. but there is only one Christian sect, the Catholic Church and there is unity in 1 billion of us today and a continuity throughout the ages.
@@stcolreplover Not true at all. From the very beginning there has been division. It has only become more amplified with the passing of time and fog of history. Roman Catholicism is just one of the many sects that grew out of the early church. The Messiah was supposed to unite everyone. This has NOT happened.
Back when I was Protestant it was obvious to me that Protestants disagreed on many doctrines. And it really bothered me and seemed as evidence that something was wrong. I tried to ignore it, and I think that’s what most of them do.
@@tony1685 wow 1k plus comments, Tony is really out to convert Catholics :o, but at the end the people who truly seek God will be guided to the ultimate truth 🙏 Jesus is faithful to the church he established 🥰
@@johnyang1420 That’s true. I used to go to a Calvary Chapel in the early 2000’s, and at one point the pastor meet with a marketing strategist and one of the things they told our pastor to do was change the name of the church to a new upcoming trend like, Elevation, Refuge, Go Church, Compass, etc. Even Baptist churches do this. The all disguise what denomination they are.
Something else to think about, the thief on the cross. He wasn't baptized, didn't receive the sacraments, didn't say the rosary, couldn't go to church, didn't tithe, didn't keep the law, didn't keep the commandments, didn't keep the golden rule, didn't pray to Mary. What happened? He just said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy Kingdom." And Jesus said, "TODAY you will be with me in paradise." Not Limbo, or purgatory, but paradise.
The Catholic Church maintains that prior works are not needed to be justified by faith; Furthermore, being on a cross about to die, he cannot do all that, but he repented, bore his suffering with patience and defended Christ, he did few works as far as he could.
@@bg.k.7000 I do not know if you have read my commentary, because even without being able to do physical works, he did works for the few hours he was nailed to the cross after having believed. He repented; he bore his suffering with patience, humility and resignation, as opposed to the evil thief; and he publicly defended Christ. And what do you think of James 2:24: "24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
@@Mdangelo22302 What is happening is that you are not understanding what works mean; it is not mechanizing salvation, like you must do 1 work every hour to be saved; like the thief did 3 works in 3 hours, he was saved. No, that's not it; instead, it's about being congruent in where your faith is, doing the works that you can do with love and mercy, for others or for yourself, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." That is what the thief did, he was not saved because he did exactly 3 works, but because what he did was done out of love; repentance is love, patience is love and defending Christ is love for Christ. It all boils down to what if you love and are with Christ, for and with Christ you work out of love for others.
The break on which denominations think it's required is which ones still hold on to many Catholic practices (e.g. Anglicans). It's a clear line and he should have pointed that out.
@@christhewritingjester3164 To be blunt, most Protestants believe in Infant Baptism. Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Anglicans all infant baptize. Pentecostals, Anabaptists (namely mennonites and Amish) and Baptists/non-denoms are the only protestants that I can constantly attest to being Protestant that don't baptize infants. The other sects that don't baptize infants are either implicit or explict heretics. Baptists are just objectively a larger demographic than the mainline protestant denominations, regardless of sect.
My wife’s family is non-denominational Protestant. They’re so dissatisfied with mainstream Protestantism that they’re the type likely to start their own house church if they felt so led. Based on my talks with them, I believe they would say that the Holy Spirit is the underlying interpretive authority for a Christian. Thus, if one group doesn’t agree with another on the main things it is because they aren’t really listening to the Holy Spirit as individuals living in humble, sensitive, open community with each other discussing and praying together without some authoritarian structure of one kind or another telling them what to believe or get out. They’re really down on any kind of institutional Church authority, Protestant one’s especially since that’s the lens through which they view all Christian authorities. They’ve had so many bad experiences with Protestant authority figures in the different churches they have gone to and they just see the Catholic Church’s authority structure as an extreme form of what they already experienced. It has been very difficult to talk about authority with them. They aren’t afraid to follow their ideas to their logical and extreme conclusions and stick by them. For example, they basically acknowledge that the early Church is the Catholic Church but hold that the Church went off the rails in the first generation even as Paul is preaching to them since human beings are so unreliable. I’ve been looking for materials to help me more deeply explain the Biblical foundations for an authoritative, institutional, hierarchical Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit as an institution from going off the rails. Do you (or anyone) have any recommendations? So far I have Steve Ray’s book “Upon This Rock” and a handful of golden videos on UA-cam by Brant Pitre.
There was a good talk between Keith Nester and Joe Heschmeyer the other day that could give some food for thought. I think Joe may have a new book out in the topic.
@Freewhistler…there’s lots of good resources, but lately, anything by Joe Heschmeyer is excellent..his books on the Pope, also “The Early Church Was The Catholic Church” are must reads!
@@tony1685 I appreciate your attempt to help. Sadly, I don’t have time to engage your points. Moreover, God has instructed me in recent years to tend to the people in my own family and communities and not debate people on social media. If you want some engagement on these points I highly recommend Trent’s work on those topics. Matt Fradd’s videos are great too. You might also listen to On the Journey with Matt and Ken. Learn their arguments. Pray. Read the Bible. Use a good concordance. And then talk to the Catholics in your personal life. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Peace be with you.
Check out a book called By What Authority? by Mark Shea. Another good book is the Catholic Controversy by St. Frances de Sales. Also there's a video on the Catholic Truth channel called Catholic Questions for Protestants featuring Steve Ray. It provides a devastating argument against Protestantism and its lack of an authority structure. Takes notes and use the arguments in that video against your friends and family. I'm sure you'll make some progress with them if they're open to the truth.
I’ve currently been thinking about this also. The Protestant church seems to be the most divided “denomination” of Christianity. Great observations and I agree. That’s one major thing that turns me off from Protestantism I grow tired of trying to find a church and they all teach different things. Sola scriptura fails me because I don’t hold all knowledge and the Holy Spirit doesn’t magically endow understanding. We must seek after these things enjoying these videos.
Is it possible that part of your issue with "protestantism" is that you are defining it aa if there is ONE Protestant Church government that is hopelessly divided against itself, when in actuality,, if you broaden the question a bit, there are multitudes of differing Christian Church government that all have their own standards; Rome being oneof them?
@@Lambdamale. Jesus established ONE, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. Only one. Not tens of thousands. Jesus' Church has been with us for 1,989 years, having begun in AD 33, at the first Pentecost. After His resurrection Jesus appeared before the Apostles in the Upper Room where they held the Last Supper. He breathed on them, saying, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Whoever's sins you forgive will be forgiven. Whoever's sins you retain shall be retained. He gave them the authority to guide His Church, forgive the sins of those who confessed to them. Told them to go out and do what He had been doing with them for the previous three and a half years . . . spreading the Gospel. Jesus gave His ONE Church the authority to preach, teach, interpret scripture, and create doctrine that is bound on Earth and in Heaven. That is the authority represented by the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Every Christian in the first century, and for the first 15 centuries understood this. I would have been irresponsible for Jesus to have left the Apostles with a Church, and then left them to fend for themselves, and make up stuff as they went along. He left them the ability to be guided by the Holy Spirit in establishing laws, and doctrines that are bound on Earth and in Heaven. He left them His AUTHORITY. He gave St. Peter the ability to lead His Church in the office of pope. It didn't become known as the papal office for many centuries, but that office, nonetheless, was created by Jesus to be filled by Peter and his successors. If you believe in the Apostles ability/authority to replace Judas with Matthias as the 12th Apostle, or to accept Paul as an Apostle, then you believe and accept Apostolic succession. If you believe that Peter had the ability/authority to accept gentiles into Christ's Church without having to be circumcised, or without having to follow the rest of the Mosaic Laws (613 of them in all), then you accept his ability/authority to create doctrine bound on Earth and in Heaven.
@@jeffscully50613 We are 2000 years removed from the early church and much of its true nature in the beginning is subject to much debate. The NT Church was not founded the same way the Jewish Heirarchy was in Leviticus. The Jewish Heirarchy is explicit as to its character whereas the best we can do with the early church is glean the clues as to what it may have looked like. Nowhere in the NT did Jesus say "Here is the true nature of my church. Peter will be my first Pope, and he will have successors who speak infallible on matters of faith and Morals from now until I return" This is the conclusion you have drawn from your own gleaning of the clues. Others may go part way with you and conclude Peter, although pre- eminent, was no greater than any other Apostle. Still others may accept apostolic succession but reject Papal infallibility. The Apostolic age was a transitory age. The successors of the Apostles are not the same as the Apostles themselves, nor are the writings of later Fathers as authoritative as the writings if the first century which came down to us by the associates of the Apostles. Thats why the writings we use as canonical are all from the first century. So it's difficult to be dogmatic as to the true nature of the authority of their successors when they didn't really outline it verbatim. It's complicated even further when you get to the writings of the second century and beginning with Clement itself, (often touted as evidence of the Papacy). The letter itself is written in the name of the Church at Rome as a whole, and not as a Papal Bull. So at best it shows the doctrine of apostolic succession. It's complicated even further by the Ignatian writings which again, demonstrate Apostolic succession at most. The one phrase regarding Rome holding "the presidency" can also be translated as "which also PRESIDES in the place of the region of Rome...." Such a difference in translation not only muddies the waters but also makes one ask, is the Roman church presiding "in" or "from" the region of Rome? "In" or "from" makes ALL the difference in the world, but even then...it holds less weight than an uncontested phraseology as "who holds the presidency". Lastly, and again...Ignatius doesn't center out the Roman Bishop who "holds the presidency" or "presides" in the region of Rome; he centers out the Church as a whole. So again...I would need to clarify with Ignatius on this. Irenaeus unfortunately doesn't help us either, because not only is the very passage that Roman apologists use to prove the Papacy very contested (due to its being open to multiple translations), but it isn't at all what we would expect to find used as proof of the Papacy. We cannot forget that Irenaeus mentions the church of Rome being founded on BOTH PETER AND PAUL. at best you can say, well Peter's name is first, but we have to admit the argument would be stronger IF Paul's name was dropped all together. Furthermore if you read a few more sections, you see Irenaeus referring doctrinal disputes not to Rome, but generally speaking, ANY church which was "most ancient...with which the Apostles held constant intercourse".(3:4:1)... Do I mention how the entire Eastern block of the Church of Asia was going to walk away over the Easter controversy when threatened with excommunication from Bishop Victor in 180, quoting Peter himself saying "better men than us have said, we must obey God rather than man"....(Eusebuis) ..... So yes....Christ founded a Church. But the more I look into it, the more it appears to me, the true nature of what it is supposed to be is lost in the fog of history. Your entire apologetic (this applies to all of us) is the product of your own fallible interpretation of scripture and history. It is just one of billions of private interpretations of the early church. The Roman church is just one of thousands of possibilities for what the nature of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church could've looked like. Whether the first 1500 years of church history resembled your model, is highly suspect, even moreso when you take all the fraudulent documents into account Rome produced. It's a mess.
There is no Protestant church. There are many Christian churches that disagree with each other. Now, you should know that there is a lot of division among Catholics also. The only difference is that you don't want to recognize it
Can we all just get baptized, take communion, accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, repent and try to do better, perform good works of service, and trust the Bible but recognize no one is going to 100% understand the Bible perfectly and all we can do is put our heart in the right place? The labels don’t matter.
I was infant baptized in a catholic church. I am a protestant now, and I truly believe that this is legitimate, even though It was done born into a Roman catholic family. Also what this gentleman is talking about mostly generalities. I know that protestants are more dispersed than Roman catholic institutions. We need to be in tune with our own soul, no matter what kind of religious family we are born in. After a while, at one point in an individuals life, a person needs to come to grips about who they really are, which is a sinner,and seek out on their own what they need to do to be saved, which is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. And to put their faith, hope,and trust in Him, and Him alone. As a young man I was confused about a lot of things, and went astray at a young age, even though I was born into a religious family, and church, which I attended every Sunday for mass,like my dad. As for this gentleman, who is saying that protestants don't always agree on everything, that could be true. And if this gentleman believes in the apocrypha,to be sacred, and included along with the 66 books that the majority of Christians believe are the only ones to be regarded as Divinely inspired by God, that is his right. But most true Christians do not believe that additional books, like the Roman catholic apocryphal, belong to the sacred Canon.
@@tony1685 Tony, The comment was referring at those who want to know what the Catholic Church founded by Christ teaches, not what is in the Bible. That's a separate activity where the Church also guides you to the truth of what the Bible says by its biblical responses according to the subject in the Catechism. May God bless your discernment
@@tony1685 Tony, Sorry you feell frustrated. Being a protestant makes you an outsider of the one true Church. Don't ignore the FACT that the doctrine you love so much: "Sola Scriptura", is an invention by a person with no apostolic authority, Martin Luther. The sad thing is you are unable to see it as the illusion that it is. I hope you are able to reflect on that. May God bless your discernment.
@@tony1685 Read the Catechism for yourself. See what it teaches. Some suggest that child's version may be more easily understood. One Pope declared that there was no sslvation outside of the RCC. This was affirmed in the council of Trent Read and see how they explain that Mary is the mother of God. Yes, they say, of the eternal (no beginning) God. In 1958 they began to celebrate the feast of the assumption. Mary's assumption into heaven. Why did they need it? Because they taught that Mary was sinless.
@@joecastillo8798 Thank you for your comment. From it I can only surmise that you have not read all of it. The RCC believes that it is the only way to heaven. This was officially stated by a Pope many years ago and verified by the council of Trent. Did you read their reasoning on why Mary is the mother of God? The eternal, having no beginning, God. In 1958 the estsblidhed the feast of the Assumption. Why? Becajse Mary was born sinless and thefefore could not die. Otherwise how could she carry Jesus in her womb? Q. How could her mother carry her? I was sent a catechism some years ago. It stated that Mary was born with sin but... The RCC stzfds thst Jesus quoged the Septuagint. Read the article called, What is the Septuagint? It is proven to be written after Jesus walked this earth to be a perfect sinless sacrifice for our vile filthy sins.
It seems like you’re saying a pretty sophisticated intellectual understanding is required for salvation, which I have a hard time with. I think those who are maybe incapable of articulating something like the doctrine of the hypostatic union can still respond to the call of God and be saved. I get frustrated by the excessive hair splitting over how to be saved. It’s good news, right? Why is it so confusing then? I’ve gotten to the point where I have no idea what is specifically required of me to meet the criteria, so I’m just resorting to living my life in accordance with how I think Jesus would want me to live in response to the love he showed me. Since Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox and Anglicans, etc. cannot ever make a truly final, airtight argument for their particular branch being the only true church, I just choose to stay where I’m at, in the church tradition I’ve been in my whole life, and live my life as well as I can for God. I think my understanding is sufficient to enable me to be a willing instrument for the kingdom and I trust that the rest is in God’s hands.
What would make this argument between Catholicism vs Protestantism easier to weigh would be if the protestant denominations had a unified authority to debate against Catholics with. The point of this video is obviously to show the confusion and disorganization that has come about due to the litany of differences between protestant and other sects emerging with their own unique theologies over time. This is just one of the reasons why I love the Catholic church so much, because I don't have to wonder, as a Catholic there is no struggle between small theological differences because the Catholic church is unified under one authority. It will be impossible for the protestants to ever surpass the Catholic church in influence because they embrace the falsehood that their personal interpretation of the gospel is more important than the one that the authority above them that has laid out. Thus, they will never unify and will continue to splinter.
I will say, I honestly just wish (as a Protestant myself) wish that the church from the very beginning never broke up and just stuck with scripture and we wouldn’t be battling all the time. I think if we founded everything on that, by technicality, I would be catholic myself. The only thing holding me back from Catholicism has been the papacy and a a few other dogmas. But I think both sides should always be open to hearing each other out
It was Catholic Church under Pope Damasus that compiled the bible especially New Testament: Councils of Carthage and Hippo. As it says in bible: the Church is the pilar and foundation of truth!
I've always had questions about Protestants refusing to baptize babies. If you are saved by "faith alone" (not baptism), what about young children who are not old enough to really understand what that entails? Are they not saved? And if there is an explanation for why young children can be saved even though they don't have the requisite faith, is that explanation for the exception found somewhere in scripture? EDIT: I thought I would edit this comment since it received a few replies, and none really addressed my question (most seem to be focused on infant baptism). Leave infant baptism aside. This is my question: if you believe that faith in Christ as your saviour is a necessary element for you to be saved, then what happens to children who are too young to believe in Christ who pass away? My issue is that, if it is true that there is a faith alone requirement that you have to hold a very specific belief in your mind (that Christ is your saviour), children who can't speak yet or are incapable of holding this belief would not be "saved". I am just interested in an answer. Is there an exception for children who can't understand yet? And if so, what is that exception based on? I am not interested in debating whether or not infant baptism is proper.
Baptism replaced ritual circumcision for male Jewish babies eight days after they were born. Catholics have baptized infants from the beginning because the first Cstholics were also Jews.
Infant Baptism is in the Bible. Acts 2:38-39.. Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ 39: For the promise is for you, ***for your children*** and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.
Dan, A look at s ripture will show why Paul did not puxh for unnecessary infant baptism. Romans 7:8-9 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscience. For without the law sin was dead. For i was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. He was innocent before he reached the age of accountability. Sin was dead in him. But when he understood it he sinned and died spiritually.
Read the question. The question was about protestants believing it isn't baptism that saves but having some kind of certain view or belief in Jesus as your savior. My point was that young children who can't speak obviously can't believe in or understand Christ. So how are they "saved"?
Please take note that there is a difference between being saved and receiving eternal life. What is shown in Scripture is that salvation is principal to be saved from the system called the world (kosmos) that is equivalent to the realm of darkness and also called the perverted/twisted generation which refers mainly to religion while eternal life is in contrast to perishing forever or second death. If you really want to know more and enjoy Christ as your life, I will be more than glad to write to you. My email is: varelaadrian@hotmail.com. GBY!!! 2Cor.13.14
As a Christian raised in the Protestant Methodist tradition, baptized in water, I felt called to become a member of a Quaker meeting when I moved to anew city. I have been a member of an underground church in China, and I have a deep love for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Chruch. I so hope that we can heal all schisms one day. But as long as we clamor for positions of power over one another, that will never happen. Catholics and Orthodox are responsible for the breakdown in the unity of the Church, it is in the great schism that the seeds for a protestant revolution was sewed. The Chair of St Peter became arrogant, unwilling to share authority with the Eastern Churches. Language and culture played a part here too. The Eastern Churches, only saw the Chair of St Peter as first among equals. Today with our moder understanding of how language and culture can muddle understanding, we must at times rely of the Spirit to bridge the gap between our own fallibility, and our traditions which can get in the way of our fellowship with one another. I pray that I would certainly have the courage to give my life to save an non believer, let alone my catholic brothers and sisters whose faith and ministry I draw so much strength from. The reason I sit with the Quakers in silence, is because I ache at the arrogance of all churches, the way we have split from or excommunicated one another. It is truly sad, but I must believe that God has allowed it to teach his people and He will one day bring us all together again. I long for the simplest form of Faith. No Church in my opinion can offer that, only relationship with God the Father, through Christ Jesus, and baptism in the Holy Spirit. However, I love the Catholic and Orthodox Mass. I am thankful for the traditions of the Eastern and Latin Church. I respect the Pope, both the Chair of St Peter and the Orthodox Leaders, but also the great protestant teachers, many of whom have live a life that is proof of the saving love of Jesus. I mean what do we say about Messianic Jews who feel called to keep Kosher but also believe in Jesus? Are they not closer to the original approach to faith of the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem than any of us could ever be? Maybe I am wrong but to me the emergence of messianic Jewish congregations might be the thing that draws the churches closer together one day. Who knows. Of course, we have differences, but we need to always approach each other with humility, because it is our Pride and our abuse of authority which has led to division in the Church, yet even these things God uses for His glory. The salvation and life that is in Christ is present in many Churches, in the Orthodox believers, the Coptic faithful and Protestant believers, and in Catholic life. I imagine if Jesus walked into the Vatican today, he would have a few tables to overturn. He would do the same to Protestants as well. We have all fallen short, the divisions in the Church are also a result of time, language and culture, but the Holy Spirit is still evident in the lives of Christians regardless of denomination. What if one day, all Churches are destroyed, all worship is banned, all believers in Christ hunted, will not these divisions fall away as the faithful are left no Choice but to love one another? One thing a Protestant does not normally claim is that the movement is The Only Church. It is a movement, it is flawed. But a mature protestant can at least see how the Orthodox and Catholic views are flawed. What traditions do we have that distract us from Jesus? Has the meaning of veneration of Mary been distorted by time and practice in such a way that she is but an idol replacing Isis to some, but Theotokos to others? I see no evidence in first and second century Church tradition for Mary remaining a virgin or being immaculately conceived herself, or acending to heaven, yet I do not have a problem with her veneration if she assists us in feeling closer to God, just as with the life on any saint, although she is special. However, the veneration of Mary the Theotokos is not, I think, vital for Christian faith. I can even be a distraction if done improperly. Can we not find a middle ground on the issues that are not central to Christian life first? For me the Church is made up of those who have a relationship with Christ, who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, the denomination is irrelevant because God is bigger than our silly denominations. Yet at the same time, I hope that one day we could all celebrate the eucharist together. I have no problem believing that the eucharist is the blood and body of Christ, but I think it can be made available to us in a Catholic mass, an orthodox mass, a methodist communion and even through silent contemplation without any physical elements. That must be the Quaker/Methodist talking, but what i want to say is I love you my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters and I wish to learn from you.
If you’re eager to learn begin here: The official teaching of the Catholic Church (as stated by Trent) is that the sacrament of baptism infuses spiritual life in the adult or infant which is baptized. Christ, however, said this: Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. No infant believes (Protestant interpretation) or consumes the bread and wine (Catholic interpretation). They do neither; so according to Christ there is no life in them (until they do). Choose whom you will believe.
While I definitely think you have a point, and I understand that there's a historical grouping of Protestantism as a whole, something about comparing the views of one church with multiple church's views and saying look catholicism has an answer for this when protestants don't feels unfair. But each of the churches does have an answer, there wouldn't be multiple denominations if there was complete agreement. You can easily take it a step further back and say look at this question Christians can't answer cause the Catholics and Baptists and Presbyterians and etc all have different views, with the implication that you shouldn't join because of that division.
It is unfair and he commonly likes to blanket Protestantism because he doesn’t understand we don’t have a single authority like the Pope. You can blanket Catholicism by going back to their canon laws that they lean on.
Anyone: “Are Catholics Christians?”
Me 10 years ago: “definitely not”
Me 7 years ago: “yeah, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ”
Me now: “yes, and I am a Catholic Christian”, after being confirmed in November 2019, thanks be to God!
@kaylyn- you can’t see, but I’m smiling. Welcome home!
Seeing so many other people converting really encourages me that I'm making the right choice too. God bless!
Are Protestants Christian?
Kaylyn Madany, Biblically, are denominations the decisive factor for salvation?
@RAD Apologetics that's not the answer I'm seeking for please.
The disagreement over "once saved, always saved" seems like a pretty big deal to me. I've read some intense protestant arguments on both sides of that issue, yet both sides still claimed sola scriptura and accused the other of being "false teachers" and not Christian. Seems like Jesus should have left an authority to help the Church interpret Scripture...
Yes if only…….. ;D
Ah ok. I see what you did there..
@@vc508 Good one. (Let's give him the benefit of the doubt though.)
Where in the scripture Jesus told the apostles to write a book?
Gottem 🤪
In a way, Sola Scriptura is actually giving primacy to one’s own opinion. It’s one’s own opinion about how they interpret the Bible. It makes everyone the final authority.
It makes God the final authority.
absolutely, even Luther admitted to this as soon as he opened the gates to private interpretation
@@Illycrium The Bible is inspired by God. It is interpreted by man
@@Illycrium Hundreds of biblical passages are not clear, even ambiguous, and need an interpretation.
@@rhwinner correct. So the big question, how to interpret it? I would argue using God's word as a framework to interpret itself clears up 99% of these "ambiguous texts". Use scripture to interpret scripture.
One cannot make the case that this view compounds differing beliefs. When separating along these lines, sola scriptura believers have a lot more in common with each other than non-sola scriptura believers. This lumps together Mormans, Jehovah's witnesses, and catholicism in same place, but that's the point. If you do not believe that scripture alone is sufficient, then beliefs can fracture along a thousand different points. If you stick with sola scriptura, it's much, much harder to be led astray with heretical beliefs.
Trent, I am a Protestant but I deeply appreciate your willingness and ability to come on here and say what you do. I can tell that you have a lot of knowledge, and I thank you for sharing it.
I went and studied 1st Peter 3:21. I’ll put the whole verse here:
1 Peter 3:21
[21] “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (ESV)
It indeed does say baptism “saves” you. It also says, “not as removal of dirt from the body…” which literally means that water passing over you (baptism) does not cleanse anything or anyone. Rather it is instead an outward expression of inward faith.
These were not my words but almost word for word from my ESV study Bible.
As a Catholic, this is what I believe it to be as well. I guess I'm an outlier.
You are both incorrect.
The “not as removal of dirt from the body”(NABRE translate this as well) means it is not just a cleaning of your body from dirt because the original Greek could be understood “to bathing” (βαπτίζω baptizo also meaning immersing, washing and pouring) but a bathing/cleansing of your spirit and pledge to God.
‘Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit”.’ (John 3:5)
I have always thought there was a very easy Biblical answer to the question of the essentials: "Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved." If a person has done these things then they are a fellow Christian. I know that there will be questions about what the phrases within the statement mean, but that is where we begin. In regards to the place of scripture: The Bereans were praised when they checked with scripture to confirm that what Paul was preaching to them was accurate. If the teaching of tradition conflicts with the teaching of scripture, which should you follow? The answer to that question seems obvious to me. I do not think protestants dismiss tradition entirely. We can learn from what has been handed down to us. But we need to be careful with tradition or else we become like the pharisees who taught the traditions of men as the commandments of God. This problem is universal and can happen in protestant churches as easily as Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Finally, certain doctrines can be very important and yet not be essential. The security of the believer is a doctrine that protestants do not agree upon, and yet we still acknowledge that those on both sides of the doctrine are still Christian. There is more that can be said, but this is getting too long. I appreciate your perspective and consider you a brother in Christ.
As a fellow believer in the Lord Jesus Christ I know exactly where you are coming from. As an old woman now, I want to say how encouraged I was to read your comments. All man made structures fall away when we have come to know Jesus as our Saviour, when we see Him as being the Way, the Truth and the Life. The uncomplicated simplicity of His words stand in opposition to long and detailed formulae of religious doctrines and rituals. Also, both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have accumulated a lot of wealth over the centuries which, again, is completely out of step with the teaching of Jesus.
The problem is you do not know if the tradition is actually contradicting scripture, you only know if it is contradicting your interpretation of scripture. The Catholics believe they are following scripture.
@@bad_covfefe There are some things that we do take for granted - that translators are knowledgeable and that they are honest in their work of translating. The vast majority of scripture has obvious meanings. I have had philosophical debates along these lines (not about scripture) but more fundamentally can one human ever understand another human. My response is that we share a common human nature which makes it possible for us to understand one another. That is the whole purpose of language. The writers of the New Testament wrote to be understood and not just by some elite educated class. They wanted everyone to understand their message. Perhaps I have more faith in my reading comprehension than you do. You can talk about each individual's interpretation all you want. I can only say read for yourself and make up your own mind.
@@skiamach6208 Your entire comment ignores the reality that people have varying interpretations of every part of scripture. Why should I accept your interpretation in opposition to all the other interpretations of the exact same verses?
@@bad_covfefeI am not telling you to accept my interpretation. I am telling you to read it for yourself and make up your own mind. That is what my opening post was about. The Bereans were praised for checking Paul's teaching against what they could read for themselves in scripture. There are some passages which may be difficult to understand. But there is not a single important Christian creed that depends on obscure passages. Jesus is Lord. Jesus died and rose again. Jesus died as a ransom for sin. Confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved. These are very clear. My advice to anyone is stop relying on others to do your thinking and read it and think for yourself. That is my point.
The lack of authority regarding what is/isn’t Christianity is what drove me into the arms of the Catholic Church. It all depends on someone’s narrow or wide interpretation of the Bible.
Interpretation of anything necessarily involves the problem of confirmation bias, that includes the interpretation of the Bible. Which is probably precisely why Peter warned about personal interpretations apart from the Spirit in his letter.
It's just too easy to read your own preferences into the text and just assume that your reading is in line with "the Spirit" because your feelings tell you it is.
There has to be some standard outside of your interpretation by which your interpretation can be measured as being accurate or on par, and it can't just be the text itself because- as David Hume pointed out- the facts don't tell you anything about how they should be ordered or understood ethically or hierarchically. That's the point Trent addresses here when he talks about the ways various Protestant sects rank-order doctrines as essential or nonessential. Their rank-ordering is always dictated by their own traditions.
Seems like an odd reason to be a Catholic. I can think of a whole sum of reasons to think God would want disagreement in the church. It’s helped my walk with Christ immensely. If what God wanted was for us to have honest and rationale discussion, who are we to say God wouldn’t want that?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou - not really, we all need authority in our lives and we must submit ourselves to Christ’s authority and His Church. I think Protestants mistake free will as free will in all things. We have free will to choose to accept and follow Christ and that’s it. Beyond that, we are expected to obey Him.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou when I read this my knee jerk reaction was I hate it when my kids disagree, sure they might be learning something about living in this fallen world but when they do work together (even to my disadvantage, such as organizing chairs so the smaller ones can also get out the window, God help me) I have an explosion of joy. Of course God's ways are way above my own. Hello friend, I'd really love to understand why you find this to be a good thing to have His children at odds with each other, what do you mean?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou As a former Protestant, this argument always struck me as either odd (God doesn’t want us to know the truth because He wants us to disagree) or as relativistic (it doesn’t really matter what we believe as long as we believe something).
I found neither of those conclusions satisfying. Seeking truth and believing it exists, IMO, is one of the best reasons to become Catholic.
Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”. In the end with God, there won’t be Catholics, Protestants, Christians etc, there will just be “sons of God”.
Excellent
You are right, there will only be Christian. But Christians believe certain doctrines and have liturgical practices. All you have to do is study and see what the early Christians believed. The word "catholic" simply means universal. It started being used in the early 2nd century. Protestant ideas-- sola scriptura, salvation by faith alone--are novel ideas. Study the early Church Fathers. They don't speak of these things.
@@TheMenghi1 If you define Christian as “little Christ “, and meaning son of God, then in the end there will only be Christians. Heb.2:10, says, “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings”. The mission is not just arguing but spreading the gospel.
@@TheMenghi1it’s not about traditions and early church fathers. There is a level of importance but the bigger importance is scripture. What does the word of God teach.
@@trocha419You seem fail to grasp so many important points. Traditions in the early church actually came before any of the gospels of the New Testament were written. So it is ignorant to say traditions don't matter. The church and its growing traditions existed long before NT scriptures existed. The church and its traditions created scripture...scripture did not create the church.. Christian (the early Catholic Church) traditions superseded the only extant and accepted scripture of all Jews in the first century (the Torah) in 49 A.D. at the Council of Jerusalem. Described later in Acts 15. The Torah said that all Jews had to be circumcised at the eighth day, and converted Pharisees still wanted this requirement, but Peter, visiting from Rome, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, James, said no. No gospel had been written yet. The church Jesus founded took precedence over scripture.
What is the "Word of God" to you and who decides WHAT IT TEACHES in Protestant circles? Protestant sects can't agree on that. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? What does Peter warn against in interpreting what the bible is actually saying? Does any bible have the correct word of God? ? The much older Catholic bible? Or only Protestant bibles? Which one of the Protestant bibles, because there are some definite differences in meaning in English translations? Some change meanings from each other, so when a translator changes the original meaning from the Greek manuscripts, or the publisher does, is it now human interpretation and no longer the word of God? WHO DECIDES? Is it OK for the thousands of denominations to decide for themselves what is truth and what the bible teaches? And if they disagree....run off and start another church? If you are Presbyterian and you disagree with a Methodist, who is correct, or are both incorrect? BOTH CANNOT BE RIGHT. Who knows? The King James version is a very good bible but it departs from the original meaning of the Christian (Catholic) bible that existed for over a 1000 years before it in several key verses. A good example is Matt 6:7...the KJV was the first to use the words "vain repetition" to describe prayer Jesus frowned upon. But is this in fact true? No. Was it put in by human beings to attack Catholics praying the rosary? Is it still the word of God? Is it properly interpreted by Protestants?
How difficult can it be to quote 1 Pet. 3:21 in full? "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". So baptism does not save by means of removing uncleanness from our sinful nature (the flesh), but by constituting an appeal to God for a good conscience. Something that requires a conscious decision. Splashing water on someone's head per se does nothing with regard to salvation.
Thanks for this video Trent! What started me off in the pursuit of “the Church God wants me in” was the disunity within Protestantism, when Scripture calls us to be one
Hi there. Would you be so kind as to share how you overcame the abject revulsion and anathema that nonCatholics have for Mary, and our statues, etc? I'm just curious. Or maybe you didn't feel the same. TY and God bless you more and more.
Hi there. Would you be so kind as to share how you overcame the abject revulsion and anathema that nonCatholics have for Mary, and our statues, etc? I'm just curious. Or maybe you didn't feel the same. TY and God bless you more and more.
@@Men_In_Jesus My conversion to Catholicism and overcoming the aversion to such things was simply to open-mindedly listen the rationale behind why they believe what they believe.
It made sense to me from a theological perspective, and if I believed the Catholic Church to be the true Church I simply put aside my pride and accepted what she teaches.
@@jonphinguyen Robert Spencer made the same arguments over 20 years ago, yet he still left the Catholic Church when he realised the gross apostasy of Romanism
@@gospeltruth6368 did you have a response for the issues that Trent Horn brought up? Can you explain a valid authority structure in the protestant faith? Can you explain these issues? It seems like you are bypassing all of that to say, "Catholics are wrong." I'm really curious to hear a well-reasoned reply
I have had moments in my walk with Christ in the last couple of years where I had come to one particular conclusion and upon reading church councils I have overturned some of those beliefs because I am willing to accept them my personal interpretation does not outweigh tradition. I’m saying this as a protestant that has been investigating in Catholicism and being drawn more toward it. Please pray for me!
🙏
Could be the problem is most Christians get their truth from the innumerable Catholic Protestant bibles!
The bible has been changed.
Did God say? Come on, really?
God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal.
Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26.
Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY .
Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie.
And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say?
Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added?????
Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there.
BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting!
Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say?
Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses.
Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say?
Every change they make is an insult to God and His word.
God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19.
In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked.
This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT.
King James Bible online
Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: Look up: REPENT, REGENERATION, BELIEVE, FAITH, REDEMPTION, PERFECT, CONVERSATION, PREVENT, PROPITIATION etc.
Suppliers: Churchkjb.com
Localchurchbiblepublishers.com
Sources:
Adullum Films Documentary
-Tares Among the Wheat video
Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort.
Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com.
If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video.
It has some American History also.
I switched from evangelical to Anglican Catholic for these same reasons.
@@judyswiderski2682 KJV only cult?
@@joeferris6782
Was the proof that other bibles lie not enough for you? That they challenge God and His word hundreds of times not enough?
You have proven that Jesus is not your first love. Revelation 2:1-5.
I'm protestant and as I listened to you, I realized how I have never heard pushback on many of my protestant beliefs. I've learned so much from you so thanks for your content.
Be careful, you can’t I watch these videos. Next thing you know you be visiting a Catholic Church.
The more you learn scripture and the early church........as long as your honest with yourself........you'll end up Catholic.
Though I'm noticing a lot of christians that are not Catholic but they side with catholicism.
"How to be a christian"
and
"Shamounian"
are great youtube channels that don't say they are Catholic but they use catholicism to show protestants how they are wrong in their interpretation of the bible.
Question everything........you'll find the Truth
Sa. Hayes,
Be wise. Approach God as he wants to be approached.
SALVATION IS A HEART ISSUE!
Many believe that they are saved because they said the sinners prayer. Yet, "The heart is deceptive above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9.
That prayer may be from Arminianism which states that man can save himself by his free will. Calvinists say that God chooses and who can resist the Holy Spirit? Stephen told his persecutors that they do always resist the Holy Ghost. Acts 7:51.
Scripture says, " The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart and saveth them that be of a contrite spirit. Psalm 34:18, Isaiah 57:!5, 66:2.
Ask God to send the Holy Ghost to you, Luke 11:13. He will gently bring your sins to mind. This will be painful because pride hates it! As they come to mind, confess them to Jesus. Persevere. "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Ephesians 5:14. WHEN you see your desperate need for a sinless Saviour, CRY OUT to Jesus to save you. That is His desire.
Then call upon the name of the Lord. How? As Peter told the Jews who were pricked in the heart. Acts 2:38 and as Paul did. Acts 22:16. They were baptized, calling on the name of the Lord.
"Jesus answered and said, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " John 3:5. John's water baptism included the confessing of sins. Mark 1:1-5. Proverbs 28:13. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Luke 3:16.
Meditate on Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:6-14, Matthew 28:19-20, 1 Corinthians 12:12-14.
King James Bible on line.
Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary on line.
Read the King James Bible taken from the inspired Antioch manuscripts.
Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.
The inspired word of God instructs in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16. It quickens (gives life).
Hebrews 4:12. It shows the way of righteousness unto holiness. 2 Peter 1:2-11. Peter wrote to the Jews and non Jews. To those Paul ministered to.
Modern translations continually asks, Did God say??? Did he say, Mark 11:26? Yes.it is imperative to our walk with God. Did God say,
Acts 15:34??? How do they have the nerve to ask? It showed God's divine providence. Paul would needed Silas.
Throw those Babylonian god inspired books out?
YOU CANNOT DRINK THE CUP OF THE LORD AND THE CUP OF THE DEVILS. 1 Corinthians 10:21.Jesus must be your first love. Revelation 2:1-5. To put men or a man above Jesus is idolstry.
@@tony1685 sir.....do you understand that James and Betty White lied to you so many times and yet you are still SDA?
If you were honest to yourself......you would realize you've been lied to.
You know.....funny thing is
I bet you do realize SDA is wrong, you just don't want to accept it.
I say this, because you keep dodging when I tell you about James and Betty White.
I'm just waiting for you to tell me what they did that is wrong.
Then I will unload all the BS they have done.
I'll unload the BS 70ad that Jesus came already. I'll give the exact name of the guy who said this in 1970......not 70ad.
Please stop spreading your lies about catholicism.
Why not spread the good news instead to atheists, who truly need it?
Catholics already believe I Jesus Christ. You're preaching to the choir
You’re not Protestant then
You’re just a specific denomination
Different Protestants have discussions with each other
for me here is root of every thing to be a Christian, 1) you believe in the trinity and they are one 2) you believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and savoir 3) and you try to do the will of God the Father, this are the things you need to believe and do to be save because only Christians are allowed to go to heaven
But it is this issue which is being raised here. Consider, for instance, Oneness Pentecostalism.
@@alonsoperez-lona8193
I am a Oneness Pentecostal. Happy to answer and questions or critiques you might have.
We definitely do not accept the Trinity, which is in our view (based on scripture and history) is a development, both conceptually and terminologically. We do not accept it as a doctrine traceable to the Apostles to whom Christ opened the scriptures, poured out His Spirit and guided into all truth.
Respectfully and Kindly,
@@michaelwhitworth8214 thank you, I'll take you on your offer. In trinitarianism God is claimed to be, in short, "one God three people", and how this paradox makes sense is declared a mystery. Is it the same in your pov? Is the fact that there is only one God but there divine characters, so to speak, also considered a mystery without taking the additional step of saying they form a Trinity of three distinct people?
@@alonsoperez-lona8193
We do not believe that God is one being who exists eternally in or as three "persons."
Christianity is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The cornerstone of the Hebrew people and especially the prophets is "Hear of Israel, The LORD [YHWH] our God is One." There is only one True God and He is one Divine person (God is Spirit - John 4:24). The Jewish people had and have no conception of God as existing in or as three distinct persons.
This one God, became flesh and tabernacled among us in and as the man Christ Jesus. (John 1:1-18; 1st Timothy 3:16.) Jesus is indeed "Emmanuel" God with us. For all the fullness of deity dwelt in Christ (Colossians 2:9)
Father is a title for God that is relational: God is our Father in Creation and He is the Father of the nation of Israel, and He is particularly the Father of Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God (see Matthew 1:20-23 and Luke 1:35)
Holy Spirit is a title referring to God's essential nature: God is a Spirit. God is Holy, therefore God is the Holy Spirit. (There is only One Spirit - Ephesians 4:6 and only One Spirit by which we are baptized into Jesus Christ i. e., "Christ in you the hope of Glory.")
"Son" is a title referring to God incarnate (manifest in the flesh).
These are titles referring the One indivisible God, whose name as revealed in the new Testament is Jesus. In John 14, Jesus clearly teaches that He is God, by declaring Himself to be the Father and the Holy Spirit.
"God" is personal, not merely a nature or substance in which three divine person consist or that three divine persons posses thereby comprising the whole.
Logically speaking if God is a Trinity (one in three persons) then by necessity no one person of the Trinity could in the primary or fullest, sense be "God" as no one member is Himself also the other two members. At most one member of the Trinity could be "divine" (having the same nature or of the same substance as the others) but could not be "deity" itself. This necessary conclusion (of a Trinitarian formulation of God) stands in contradiction to Colossians 1:19 "For in Christ, all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell."
To say that "God" is a nature that can be shared by three persons is no different than saying that "humanity" is a nature that can be shared by multiple (three) persons.
For example: Peter, James, and John are each human (they share a common nature) but no one of them is humanity itself.
In contrast to this consider that before God created Eve, Adam was both "humanity" and a human. He was the sum total of that nature and the only expression of that nature.
Finally, consider that Adam ( a human) was made in the image of God. Adam, possesed or was comprised of body, mind/spirit and soul, yet he was still only one person. If the image bearer is one person then so two is the one in whose image we are made.
I hope this is a helpful overview of our view of God and our denial/rejection of the Trinity.
@@alonsoperez-lona8193
Good evening,
I tried to leave a reply earlier today but for some reason it didn't go through.
One thing that is absolutely certain is that if you don’t believe that Jesus is the Christ and that he is (minimally) the Son of God, that he died and that he resurrected, you arent a Christian (1 Corinthians 15:14)
I have a question ?
Can a heretic go to heaven ? For example a Nestorian or someone who radically deny that Jesus is God but says they "believe in Jesus" and claim to be saved by showing their fruits ?
@@lonelyberg1808 And I used to think heresies of this nature were done and over with. They keep popping up. I would hope not intentionally to refute the truth; but in a desire to make it simpler or easier. But it's not that simple to simply say one believes in this general sense.
I think tradition makes it abundantly clear that those claims are fundamental to Christianity, but that's not at all what 1 Corinthians 15:14 means. Here we go again with the usual citation-dropping without quotation. Let's look at what the passage actually says.
"Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep."
The obvious meaning of this whole passage is that the whole of Christ's message is utterly pointless if the general resurrection of the dead is a false claim. This is a philosophical, inductive argument. An argument ad absurdum actually. If we take the resurrection-denying faction's thesis to its logical conclusions, it results in refutation of the Gospel as a whole. He's trying to show that general resurrection is real by showing that the alternative would lead to an absurd conclusion. In that sense, he's demonstrating that the resurrection-denying faction's beliefs were internally contradictory. The denial of general resurrection is incompatible with other beliefs they claimed to hold.
Does that mean that Satan is a Christian?
Maybe you didn’t mean to just say if we believe these facts are true you are a Christian. But that is not what the Bible calls us to.
Jesus established a church and gave authority to it, If you don't follow the church, you are a heathen (MAT 18:17)
I read a good chapter a bit on that topic in the book 'Against the Protestant Gnostics' (By a Presbytarian, its a good read). It basically says that the lack of essential doctrines in modern day evangelicalism is not a sign of its ecumenism but rather growing liberalism as the set of distinctives and important doctrines dwindles. There was also a description of sacramental theology had become a 'dormant volcano'. Where once Calvin led a crusade against Rome for withholding wine from the people, now modern Calvinists view the sacrament as a mere token and offer naught but grapejuice.
Anyone who befriends a Protestant and denies that Protestantism is antisemitism are Nazi antisemites themselves. You must declare all Protestants are your eternal political enemy if you want to be on the virtuous side of history.
And that's coming from someone who believes that Every Catholic Mass crucifies Christ time and again. like the Canaanites sacrificed their children at the Statue of Mollock. What an imbecilic idea.
Protestantism is Liberalism.
Hi Ben. Remember that Reformed, and merely Calvinist is not the same thing. I agree with most of what you wrote here. Greetings from South Africa.
I recently watched your video "Why this thoughtful Protestant isn't Catholic (yet)" (which was an eloquent and hearty discussion, btw) and this nagging question in my head, "if no official authority, then what is the authority?" got a whole lot louder. To phrase it differently, an atheist coworker opened a comment with the words "You Christians all believe...". I don't even recall what it was we were all supposed to believe because all I could think was, "I wish! I wish we could all believe with one understanding."
Thank you for your exposition on this essential topic of essentials that essentially falls into as many pieces as there are leaders claiming an authoritative voice. To your note about having further dialog on this, I'd love to hear you discuss this and related matters with Douglas Wilson. (Just my two cents.)
[Present position: I'm a Protestant and active in my local church who I love. I'm not unhappy as a Protestant. Strangely, though, it's our evangelical mission that found me learning more about Catholicism since there are a lot of Catholics in the Philly area where I live. Besides the fact that there are also evangelical Catholics, I'm moved by the depth of faith I'm finding in some Catholics which, in turn, has opened my mind to step back and let Catholicism speak for itself. I still have a lot of questions, but they're getting answered by the likes of you, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, and Matt Fradd and his guests on Pints with Aquinas (as well as a few books).]
Might add Prof Scott Hahn and Stephen (Steve) Ray on your list.
It doesn't follow (even if Catholicism had perfect unity which they don't by far) that unity or authority claims =truth...I'm pretty sure the nazis were unified under Hitler that jews are inferior race but it doesn't obviously follow that it's true...of course I'm not making a 1 to 1 comparison but it served well enough to make the point.
Also see "Mike Winger"
Question is not the depth and sincerity of many Catholics, its the official dogma that is in question. Many. if not most, Catholics do not even know or practice the false dogma that is in the official writings of the Catholic papacy!
The final authority is the "Word of God" The Bible!
I also am happy to be protestant but the question is , are we really saved in protestantism started to bother me (
@@julsshan Your saved in the Lord
Thank you Trent. I will keep watching. You are a clear communicator. I appreciate it.
Clear communicator or now, everything this person says is FALSE. The very first thing he says is a lie. He PRETENDS the Bible doesn't say what essential beliefs makes a Christian Christian? Clearly the Catholic "bible" has led them astray. Then original Bible canon (the 66-book Bible Christians use not the Catholic one that adds the 7 with unconfirmed authorship) clearly shows Jesus teaching those who believe in the Father who sent Him will believe Him and also He says - that He is the Son of God and can forgive sins and is the Messiah. John 3:16 says the Father so loves the world that He gave His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will shall not perish but have eternal life. This means whoever believes in Jesus and what He says about Himself will be saved. What did He say about Himself? It is clearly written in Scripture - He is Son of God and Son of man, He is God's Word incarnate and came to give Himself as an atoning sacrifice to redeem sinners who put His faith in Him. He is always existing and perfectly sinless and He and the Father are one etc. On the cross he says to the thief that believes and honors Him that the thief would be with Him in paradise that very day - showing genuine faith in NOTHING else but Jesus Christ as who He says He is and what the prophecies said about Him. That is a believer - a Christian. But this faith is from the heart and not just on the tongue, and are NOT based on deeds. A true believer welcomes Jesus and love - but these are just products of their faith. Just cus you have a lot of theories and go to church and have a bunch of rules made by man to make you seem religious and pious - that does not save you. Neither is anyone who says they believe Jesus but bow down or pray to other figures like Mary or "saints." If you believed in Jesus you would not be worshipping anyone beyond Him. Jesus only and all that He says He is. You confess your sins to Gos and ask for Jesus to forgive you and receive His works on the cross by faith knowing He only can save you and will do so if you believe - that is what makes you Christian. The New Testament is SO CLEAR about that. A true believer will believe the Word of God in the Bible alone. They are forbidden to add or reduce anything - this means a true believer will uphold the Word of God in its entirety and fear God so they won't dare to change or edit the Word, I am not sure why you are lying but the Bible is so clear. You lack maybe salvation because you want rules made by man. But God came to us through a Person and He wants us to trust Him and believe Him and love Him only. It's not that complicated. Stop deceiving the masses, making salvation seem hard or difficult.
#1--Where in the Bible does God REST on the first day of the week to make that day special?
#2--Where in the Bible does God BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special?
#3--Where in the Bible does God SANCTIFY the first day of the week to make that day special?
#4--Where in the Bible does God give a name the first day of the week to make that day special?
#5--Where in the Bible does God DECLARE the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special?
(Sunday keepers don’t realize that when they keep Sunday holy they are making a day holy that man ordained, not God, by doing that they have violated the 2nd commandment by making an image, they also violate the 4th commandment and the 9th commandment by lying about the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I’m sure you could find a few different commandments that are broken by keeping Sunday. That’s why the Bible says if you break one commandment you break them all. Please open your eyes brothers and sisters that keep Sunday before it is to late!)
#6--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary prayed to/with beads.
#7--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary went to/ will go to heaven.
#8--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is an mediator/intercessor.
#9--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary remained a virgin all her life.
#10--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary did not sin.
#11--Quote the Holy Bible that says a mere man is Head of the church.
#12--Quote the Holy Bible that says there are popes in God's kingdom.
#13--Quote the Holy Bible that says we are to confess our sins to a
priest.
#14--Quote the Holy Bible that says there is an "one holy Apolistic church?
#15--Quote the Holy Bible that says the seventh day is not the Sabbath.
#16--Quote the Holy Bible that says Rome is where Jesus will have His headquarters.
#17--Quote the Holy Bible that says Peter was in Rome.
#18--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is the Ark of the covenant.
>>>FACT: I have asked OVER 100 supposed experts on Catholicism to reply to those questions.
All I have received are out of context quotes, told to watch this or that video, or no reply at all!!!
Will you answer them???? At least the first 5 basic questions FROM THE BIBLE.
>>>>
btw:
BIBLE PROPHECY ROME DESTROYED
If the Catholic religion iS the one Jesus taught, then why is it called the "Apostate church"? Why will it be destroyed?
www.soonrussiaattacks.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Rome_Destroyed.htm
>>>>
John 14:6 NIV -
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
So, when a religion teaches what contradicts what Jesus taught, is that religion the truth????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
@@mitchellosmer1293 The fact that you simply presuppose Sola Scriptura without proving it completely annihilates all of your arguements.
@@Arpitan_Carpenter quote---The fact that you simply presuppose Sola Scriptura without proving it completely annihilates all of your arguements...unquote
One "eats" God's Word by believing it and meditating upon it:
Isaiah 51:16 "I (the Lord) have put my words in your mouth ...".
Ezekiel 3:1 "... eat this scroll and go and speak to the House of Israel".
Jeremiah 15:16 "Your words were found and I did eat them ..."
Revelation 10:10 " I (John) took the little book out of the angel's hand and ate it".
>>>>***Hebrews 4:12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart), or seen implicitly through its lens.
.
*** Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”.
***Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”.
***Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”.
***Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
(--I will ask you, which NO ONE has replied to: Who's other writings does GOD tell us to accept as the truth??? QUOTE FROM the BIBLE!!!!)
Remember these words from Jesus: John 14:6 NIV -
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Since HE IS THE TRUTH, then when a church preaches their version of the truth, who is the truth??? Jesus or the "Church"???
@@mitchellosmer1293I think you don't understand what the poster is saying.. anyway back to your comment...
Question.... tell me where in the bible that God named the days 1_7
_ where in the bible that says Saturday is the 7 day?
I find that the question that really stumps Protestants who believe the Bible is the ultimate explicit authority that must be accepted literally is John 6.
I've heard dozens of "interpretations" of John 6. Almost all of them require the believer to practice linguistic gymnastics most Olympic gymnasts would envy.
I've also heard many former Protestant clergy converts to Catholicism say that they would simply avoid preaching or reading or mentioning John 6 because it really is so blatantly obvious what Jesus was telling us that they didn't want to be questioned on it.
I soo agree! When I was Protestant I did the same thing! But after becoming Eastern Orthodox, the literal understanding of John 6 became so clear! Christ's words are VERY specific and really can't be missed without a lot of gymnastics!
@@tony1685 nobody believed in sola scriptura, sola fidé, or sola gratia for the first 1,500 years of Christian history. It wasn't a thing. None of them. None of the Early Church Fathers believed in these things.
They certainly believed in the Euchsrist being the body, good, soul, and divinity of Jesus, however.
@@tony1685 What is the Bible? How many books does it consist of, and how do you know that?
@@tony1685 I'm trying to learn. Please help me. What is the Bible? How many books does it consist of, and how do you know that? I could really use some help.
This shows Protestants have their own traditions
Certainly the biblical canon is. Since, it's not in the Bible. Each Protestant doesn't individually determine for himself whether a book is canonical. He just accepts the traditional canon.
@@rhwinner yep if only they'd admit that that itself is a tradition
@@takmaps the main tradition of Protestants/Evangelicals is antisemitic bigotry and anyone who denies this or considers Protestants like William Lame Craig as an ally against Atheism is also an antisemite.
Protestants have lots of traditions. The difference between the heretical Roman church and the true church are that all of our traditions, whether it be the creeds, councils or anything else, are all proved by sacred Scripture.
This video was a joke. How did the gentleman find such a broad brush to paint anyone calling themselves protestant? At one point he called Jehovah witnesses protestants! He really can't believe that can be?
He called all of his issues crucial but the only one that was was faith alone but he grouped that with Sola Scriptura. Two separate issues.
@@bucky91361 The great thing of being Protestant, as you are, is calling the Catholic Church, heretical, by your own assumptions, and becoming yourself “the authority”, not the Bible, nor anything else, YOUR OWN OPINION. God bless!!
Your way of speaking is rational, logical and compassionate.
@YAJUN YUAN The Word “Baptize”:
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
@enforcer4383 Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation?
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony.
The conversion process is described below.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
@enforcer4383 Christian.
Yes, rational, logical, compassionate and wrong. See Hebrews 6: 1 - 2 for the seven elemental things true Christians believe - the Christ, repentance from sin, faith in God, water baptism, baptism in the Spirit (laying on of hands), resurrection of the dead, eternal judgement.
@MichaelFuller-jr7xo I read Hebrews 6: 1-2 and re-watched this video and failed to find what you were referring to as "wrong." Would you like to clarify?
As for stating that the New Testament does not give a list of required beliefs to be saved, I must disagree with Trent whole-heartedly. One must believe in the deity of Christ (John 8:34); one must believe that Jesus died for ones sins - atonement - and is risen from the dead (1Corinthians 15:1-4); one must repent of sin (1Corinthians 6:9-10); one must embrace the Father and the Son (1John 1:1-4 with 2:22-23; eternal Sonship is certainly in view); one must believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1John 4:1-3); one must practice righteousness and love of the brethren (1John 3:3-10); and so on.
There are many things beyond these non-negotiable saving requirements that Christians can be confused about and therefore disagree on - monotheletism vs dyothelitism being one of them. True Christians can be justified by faith alone and yet be confused about articulating the topic; true Christians can misplace faith in Mary and "saints" and still be saved as long as they are ultimately placing their faith in Jesus Christ; and so on.
I am not saying these and like issues are not important or significant or even strategic; I am simply saying that one can be confused about them and still be saved. On the flip side, one could be totally biblical on every point and miss salvation. One must truly from the heart believe on the risen Jesus Christ as God the Son, Savior and Lord and on that basis be born of God the Holy Spirit - that is the non-negotiable thing. Nothing else can save - neither Sola-Scripture-theological-correctness nor supposed sacraments.
I think this is why Catholicism has a depth and guidance that other denominations don't have. Catholic theologians aren't still debating the essential dogmas, which means they have a freedom to go deeper into doctrinal matters and offer more reasonable guidance on modern issues, ranging from IVF to the free market to freedom of the press. Just in the last five years, I've gone so much deeper into the encyclicals of the last century and into Catholic Social Teaching. Libertas and Centesimus Annus and Caritas in Veritate and so many others that speak so forcefully and biblically and reasonably (!) and coherently to our generation. In my opinion, Catholic belief and understanding is *the* formidable force against relativism and non-rationality today. Catholicism doesn't merely preserve the truths of faith, it incorporates reason as well.
@,Amy G
One small tweak.
The Catholic Church founded by Christ is not a denomination.
Only Protestant churches and sects are identified as such.
The one Church was given a universal mission by our Lord to go to all nations to teach and baptize; thus it had a "kataholos" or universal characteristic which was recognized by St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch who writes in 107AD:
LETTER TO THE SMYRNEANS CH. 8
▪︎See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
God bless.
Get information about what RCC did in the past. They held superstitions like witches which they burned alive. They had slaves and compelled violence against innocent like the massacre of Cathar cities. Relativism now does no harm in comparison
@@konyvnyelv. Yet her teachings are beautifully preserved in spite of the failings of her members. It just reveals to me that Christ will not allow his church to be corrupted by the abuses of men.
Well said!
@@konyvnyelv. Witch burnings were actually done almost entirely by protestants, the Catholic church condemned them as the 'witches' being burned didn't truly have any power.
My fiancé and I are on the path to discovering and possibly uniting to one of the apostolic faiths. Re-examining our faith and delving deeper. Great video 👍🏾
Praying for both of you !
I will include you both in my Rosary.
Pray to St.Josephine Bakhita my friend to guide you & St.Juan de Porres.
Come to Orthodoxy brother and sister 🙏☦️
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14.
Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (Acts 2:36)
===============================
The two verses below reveal what happens when a person comes to faith in Christ.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
==================================
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
I am a Protestant myself (a settled Protestant as Gavin would state), but you get a like from me still, as I can always appreciate a well articulated point that makes me think about things more deeply. It is clear to me that a lot of time and research went into this video, and that is always worth noting. You and "How to be Christian" are pretty much the only Catholic channels I can bear to watch, as you two are the only Catholics I've found thus far who try to debate at an intellectually honest level and I can respect that.
I agree with the other reply here. What I love about being a Catholic is being able to be intellectually honest. I do offend Protestants with my tone, but trust me, the feeling is mutual. Trent is patient and kind and that's great. Not all Catholics are, including myself, but neither are Protestants. But genuine Catholic arguments are all honest.
@@Seliz463 I am aware of Scott Hahn and Patrick Madrid (Hahn from another Catholic friend who recommended him and Madrid from his debates with James White). Not a huge fan of Madrid and Hahn is just okay (though to be fair I haven't watched a lot from Hahn). I will definitely be interested in that interview you mentioned however, so I will certainly be keeping my eyes open for that to drop.
And I did not intend to claim that Trent and 'how to become Christian' are the ONLY good Catholic sources out there, just that they are two very good ones that I as a Protestant am aware of. I just like people who can formulate a good argument. I see that some others commenting on my post here took some offense at what I said, and I am not sure why, as causing offense was the furthest thing from my mind when I wrote it.
@@Seliz463 Michael Lofton and Cameron Bertuzzi are clowns.
Funny I am Latin America who doesn't live in the US or Europe, and I can say the same. Most protestant I met in social media are intellectually dishonest.
It is as they are not afraid of lying.
On the other hand I am interested in knowing examples of Catholic intellectual dishonesty.
In what universe is this honest? The entire premise is a lie?! . The very first thing he says is a lie. He PRETENDS the Bible doesn't say what essential beliefs makes a Christian Christian? Clearly the Catholic "bible" has led them astray. Then original Bible canon (the 66-book Bible Christians use not the Catholic one that adds the 7 with unconfirmed authorship) clearly shows Jesus teaching those who believe in the Father who sent Him will believe Him and also He says - that He is the Son of God and can forgive sins and is the Messiah. John 3:16 says the Father so loves the world that He gave His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will shall not perish but have eternal life. This means whoever believes in Jesus and what He says about Himself will be saved. What did He say about Himself? It is clearly written in Scripture - He is Son of God and Son of man, He is God's Word incarnate and came to give Himself as an atoning sacrifice to redeem sinners who put His faith in Him. He is always existing and perfectly sinless and He and the Father are one etc. On the cross he says to the thief that believes and honors Him that the thief would be with Him in paradise that very day - showing genuine faith in NOTHING else but Jesus Christ as who He says He is and what the prophecies said about Him. That is a believer - a Christian. But this faith is from the heart and not just on the tongue, and are NOT based on deeds. A true believer welcomes Jesus and love - but these are just products of their faith. Just cus you have a lot of theories and go to church and have a bunch of rules made by man to make you seem religious and pious - that does not save you. Neither is anyone who says they believe Jesus but bow down or pray to other figures like Mary or "saints." If you believed in Jesus you would not be worshipping anyone beyond Him. Jesus only and all that He says He is. You confess your sins to Gos and ask for Jesus to forgive you and receive His works on the cross by faith knowing He only can save you and will do so if you believe - that is what makes you Christian. The New Testament is SO CLEAR about that. A true believer will believe the Word of God in the Bible alone. They are forbidden to add or reduce anything - this means a true believer will uphold the Word of God in its entirety and fear God so they won't dare to change or edit the Word, I am not sure why you are lying but the Bible is so clear. You lack maybe salvation because you want rules made by man. But God came to us through a Person and He wants us to trust Him and believe Him and love Him only. It's not that complicated. Stop deceiving the masses, making salvation seem hard or difficult.
As a Protestant, though I don’t agree with everything you believe, obviously, I applaud you and appreciate that you did seem to outline the various Protestant beliefs accurately, and pretty fairly.
Keep up the good work. You got my subscription 😎👍🏼
However you remain protestant!!!!
@@davido3026 correct.
@@cinemadolcewhy?
@@zeektm1762 I believe that Trent did a good job of fairly representing the various protestant positions, and accurately laying out what I, as a protestant, believe... and why i believe it.
My acknowledgement of his fairness is not an agreement with his conclusions. I remain convinced of my protestant expression of the faith.
I find Trent to be a highly knowledgeable and a good source of biblical wisdom on a great many topics. This is not at odds with my protestant beliefs, and does not require me to convert to a Roman Catholic expression of the Christian faith.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion. God Bless!
@@davido3026infant baptism, Mary's perpetual virginity, and confessing your sins to a priest is simply not biblical.
Love Ready to Harvest! I’ve learned so much on his channel, and he always presents it in such a fair manner.
It's like he knows we need an encyclopedia on all this but also knows people will watch a video more easily than even find such an encyclopedia. He does great work
@@tony1685 how do you define paganism?
@@tony1685 of course I do, Tony, because what you typed is tautological. But back to your definition, are you saying paganism is a synonym for herecy, that all herecy is paganism? Herecy is a belief contrary to the othodox belief of the Church that was started be Christ. So calling that Church paganism sounds like heresy. Referring only to the collection of books curated and preserved by the Holy Spirit through that church, then editing it and removing books from it, because the sect of Jews that rejected the Messiah when he came to them, sounds heretical; but does not sound pagan to me. But, I'm clearly not as well studied on these matters as you are. Perhaps we both should stop typing on youtube, pray for each other, and read the Gospel
@@tony1685 you've accused Trent. You did not expose anything but your own views. That you love accusing puts you in interesting company. Who is the accuser who we meet in Job? I agree we must practice discernment and from our conversation here, well let's just pray for each other because we might well both be more likely to mislead each other more than anything else.
@@tony1685 I did read and reread your hateful bs, that is derailing a comment about "Ready To Harvest's" youtube page because you enjoy making accusations and misusing scripture to do it. You should challenge Trent to a debate rather than waste your time with me. I do not trust anyone who does what you're doing. If you have a problem with Trent bring it to him. But instead you bring it to me. That's cowardice or it is being divisive for divisiveness' sake. Repent from your sin of calumny or bring it to Trent, not me. You just look pathetic to me, so I'll just keep praying for you.
Such a short, simple and helpful video.
I appreciate how thoughtful you are in these videos, I think Protestants look at church history even if they claim only in Sola scriptura. And I’d point to the early creeds in terms of essentials. Which all churches agree on, including Eastern Orthodoxy, oriental orthodox and Protestant. 11:04, when has a church counsel overruled my view of scripture, many times. I was going to church and didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus initially. The tradition and doctrine based down FROM church counsels overruled that heretical view.
Everything you laid are secondary issues imo. The sola’s aren’t essentials for salvation. Neither is infant baptism.
I’ll point to the wesleyan quadrilateral for a great way to glue all of this.
Most Christians I know would acknowledge Catholics are Christians. The issue is with Vatican 1. The Catholic Church claiming final authority as the church.
Ruslan I love your channel. Do you still attend an Armenian Apostolic church? I seen a video you did you were raised in this background
Episcopalian here... The Nicene Creed is a good summary of essential doctrines.
I like that. Who wrote it, though?
I believe it was Chesterton who used the example of surgeons debating over nuances in their trade. The nuance is detrimental he argued, as in this example of surgeons disagree on even a “small” matter then the treatment could be ineffective. Similarly for theology if there is dispute about nuances that’s an important matter to solve because it affects our salvation.
But you know, surgery is science and there is a right and a wrong in it INDEPENDENTLY from any authority. No one would ever say a method of doing surgery is right because a particular Pope of Physicians says that inspired by the Spirit of Science
@@konyvnyelv. There are boards of various medical doctors such as surgeons, and they have administrators and directors/heads. Someone has to decide what measures and procedures can be implemented. Without authority in professions or groups in general it's just chaos.
What really got me to convert from Protestantism is the weakness of Sola Scriptura. Here's a deductive argument which concludes that Sola Scripture is false:
1. If a doctrine cannot be proved from Scripture alone but is necessary for knowing the plan of salvation, then Sola Scriptura is false
2. The canon of Scripture is necessary for knowing the plan of salvation
3. The canon of Scripture cannot be proved from Scripture alone
(C) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false
Premise 1 is simply part of the essential definition of Sola Scriptura, so there's really no argument to be made there.
Premise 2 is more controversial, so I would support Premise 2 using the following reasoning:
***Christians accept the plan of salvation in the Christian Bible but reject the plan of salvation in the Quran, Book of Mormon, the Gnostic gospels, the Watchtower Literature, etc.
***The Christian Bible takes precedent because is inspired by God
***The canon of Scripture outlines for Christians which books are inspired by God (and also tells us which books aren't inspired by God)
***Therefore, if you don’t know the canon (which books God inspired), you don’t know the proper plan of salvation
***Therefore, the canon is essential for knowing the plan of salvation
Now my reasoning for Premise 3:
I honestly feel like this one is self explanatory. There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible. The best you can get as a protestant is to appeal to the witness of the holy spirit when you read certain books, the consensus of Christian tradition, or testing well attested books' doctrines against the doctrines of contested books.
The first option fails, because subjective feelings while reading a sacred text are used as confirmation of divine authority for heretical religions like Islam or Mormonism; this would place the Bible no higher than those writings - something Christians would prefer to avoid.
The second option fails, because then the Protestant would be using human tradition alone to establish a doctrine which is essential for salvation. This option is an affirmation of Premise 3 and my conclusion, since you are conceding the canon isn't found within Scripture so you must refer to oral tradition. This would mean oral tradition is required for salvation, putting oral tradition at the same level as Scripture, defeating Sola Scriptura.
The third option fails for similar reasons. To establish "well attested" books of the canon, you must affirm tradition which would contradict Sola Scriptura. Even if the well attested books were granted at no charge, the Protestant's still in a bind. They must now compare the doctrine of contested books to well attested books. Since Protestants don't believe anyone can infallibly interpret Scripture, than there will be as many Biblical canons as there are possible interpretations of Scriptural passages.
Hopefully this argument made sense. If anyone would like to interact with it, go for it! Perhaps I made a huge blunder!
@@gk7754 Glad you appreciated it! I really hope I can get some Protestant interaction with this argument so I can make it stronger or abandon it all together if their turns out to be some fatal flaw
"Protestantism is false because the the Word of God sucks"
@@InitialPC Cool, we kind of half agree on that one, at least about Protestantism being false :)
@@taylorj.1628 You either serve God or you serve Satan.
You do not serve God, you serve yourselves.
As a protestant I would point out that the traditional of the church Paul tells us about is scripture itself. Even when the old testament cannon was added to it was vetted and tested by prophetic word being fulfilled and proven to be in alignment with previous scripture. As we see Paul doing in the book of Acts bringing his new revelation by first proving from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ and debating with the Jews to prove what he was saying was consistent with all previous revelation.
So you were saying scripture cannot be self proving because that requires and outside accent. But that's a mute point because the tradition that was handed down by the apostles was the scriptures itself. And wasn't seriously contested what the cannon was until the 1500s when the Catholic church declared their cannon as 73 books. Which included extra canonical books that the Jews excluded from their cannon because the prophets had been silent for the period before Christ's coming.
“Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27).
“And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise…” (1 Maccabees 14:41).
The extra canonical books were included in the Greek old testament under headings that they were a history not the inspired scripture as the previous prophets. That's why to this day you will not find and of the extra canonical books in the Jewish scriptures. And the 66 book cannon is reliable because it was never seriously contested until hundreds of years later in the middle ages. Because there wasn't a disagreement the tradition of scripture was accepted organically not declared from the top down.
Ready to Harvest!! It is such an amazing channel, thanks for mentioning it
I'm ready to say openly that this video changed my life. The argument in 19:40 (that makes no sense to condemn someone else's baptism since they were not part of the separation and were born into a protestant religion) washed my soul, truly. Thanks, Trent.
Timestamp 21:15 We all know we want Trent to sit down with Mike Winger and dialogue about this. I'd pay money to get Mike to agree to this. I'm pretty sure Pints with Aquinas paid good money for William Lane Craig to debate with Jimmy Akin a while back.
Bringing Winger into the show has been open for a long time, he just doesn’t want to; I think because of scheduling, I guess
Pastor Mike won't do it, which is a shame. He says it's because he isn't a good debater, but I'd be happy to just see them have a casual conversation
Mike is over rated.
@@chrisbmbm5629 meh, I like Winger fine enough. He's a good protestant preacher, he's just got too much anti-Catholic stuff in his head and I'd like to see Trent get through to him
oh that condescending tone of Winger when talking about Catholicism... oh the blatant lies and misrepresentations... oh the scorn and mockery... the guy is not honest
The 10-years ago version of Mark Shea was really influential for me. His book, "By What Authority" hits this point - and it hit me hard.
Mark Shea is one Catholic who keeps me away from the faith. I've had the misfortune of trying to engage him in conversation. The Pope is another, incidentally (not my views *about* the Pope, but the current Pope doesn't seem very sincere in his Catholic faith).
Trent, on the other hand, does inspire me to take the arguments for Catholicism more seriously.
@@clintonwilcox4690 This is why I said, "the 10-years ago version". We all change...Mark has changed in some ways that concern me, even though I van understand some of it.
@@clintonwilcox4690 As for Pope Francis (or any pope) if God can drop Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying to Peter, He surely can call any Pope to Judgement in the next life before he declares heresy from the Chair of Peter.
SALVATION IS A HEART ISSUE!
Many believe that they are saved because they said the sinners prayer. Yet, "The heart is deceptive above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9.
That prayer may be from Arminianism which states that man can save himself by his free will. Calvinists say that God chooses and who can resist the Holy Spirit? Stephen told his persecutors that they do always resist the Holy Ghost. Acts 7:51.
Scripture says, " The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart and saveth them that be of a contrite spirit. Psalm 34:18, Isaiah 57:!5, 66:2.
Ask God to send the Holy Ghost to you, Luke 11:13. He will gently bring your sins to mind. This will be painful because pride hates it! As they come to mind, confess them to Jesus. Persevere. "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Ephesians 5:14. WHEN you see your desperate need for a sinless Saviour, CRY OUT to Jesus to save you. That is His desire.
Then call upon the name of the Lord. How? As Peter told the Jews who were pricked in the heart. Acts 2:38 and as Paul did. Acts 22:16. They were baptized, calling on the name of the Lord.
"Jesus answered and said, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " John 3:5. John's water baptism included the confessing of sins. Mark 1:1-5. Proverbs 28:13. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Luke 3:16.
Meditate on Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:6-14, Matthew 28:19-20, 1 Corinthians 12:12-14.
King James Bible on line.
Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary on line.
Read the King James Bible taken from the inspired Antioch manuscripts.
Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.
The inspired word of God instructs in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16. It quickens (gives life).
Hebrews 4:12. It shows the way of righteousness unto holiness. 2 Peter 1:2-11. Peter wrote to the Jews and non Jews. To those Paul ministered to.
Modern translations continually asks, Did God say??? Did he say, Mark 11:26? Yes.it is imperative to our walk with God. Did God say,
Acts 15:34??? How do they have the nerve to ask? It showed God's divine providence. Paul would needed Silas.
Throw those Babylonian god inspired books out?
YOU CANNOT DRINK THE CUP OF THE LORD AND THE CUP OF THE DEVILS. 1 Corinthians 10:21.Jesus must be your first love. Revelation 2:1-5. To put men or a man above Jesus is Idolstry.
@@clintonwilcox4690 Trent and Shea can destroy the whole protestant sola scriptura narrative. Sola scriptura disproves sola scriptura in scriptures. All protestant do is attack and gas light scriptures to throw shad on the Catholic Church
Also -- I have heard more than one Protestant, kind and educated individuals, say there is no physical Resurrection at the end of time; they struggled to believe we would have bodies, because of old age, infirmity, etc... and instead believed we would have 'spirit bodies' -- but that WE would not come OUT of the ground on judgement day... How could the Resurrection from the Dead not be essential?
No Protestant is a "kind and educated individual". Protestants are hateful uneducated antisemitic Nazi bigots and anyone who claims otherwise is antisemite themselves.
I believe most protestants are definitely dualists and actually gnostic to some degree because of what they read into St Paul.
@@jamessalerno4234 I agree -- especially those who have a more puritan leaning (spirit good, matter bad). Makes sense.
@@matthewbateman6487 I DON'T know what will happen during the General Resurrection of the dead during Jesus Christ SECOND COMING. But I do know that once we die our souls will separate from our bodies.
Because a faulty soteriology leads to many ancient heresies like gnosticism, even tho that wasn't the reformers intention
Lumping all types of Protestants together would be like lumping Rostacrucians, Gnostics, and Opus Dei with Catholics.
Except for this type of question they should be lumped together.
That basically proves what he says. Protestants disagree with each other on major issues.
But the Catholic Church had the authority to declare those beliefs as heretical. Those groups are basically protestant as they are protesting some teaching of the church.
You are correct. "Roman Catholics" don't believe everything in their catchesim or their "official" pronouncements. Protestant is not a church or organization, Trent eqivocates in his meaning of Protestant.
It is the Holy Spirit and the work God that makes you a Christian.
@@onwilson2 actually Catholics have to confirm all of the teachings of the catechism or they cease being Catholic.
“Seek the truth even if it’s inconvenient.”This is an advised from an atheist converted to Catholicism.
I am a devout Catholic now. Former atheist too!!!
That is awesome
I was "born" a Muslim in Iran, was baptized in an evangelical reformed church at the age of 10, became an apostate some 6 years later, and subsequently an atheist, but now I'm a Catholic and I pray to God that He might have mercy on my soul.
Don't trust that converso.
I really enjoy discussions of Catholicism/Protestantism that can be had without an excess of emotion or overly defensive posture. It’s very interesting to learn about these differences and become more knowledgeable without having the baggage of what so often disintegrates into argument or, sometimes, hatred between Christians.
Jesus started Catholic church. I joined. You can join too! Protestant churches started by men.
There is a channel on youtube called the ten minute bible something... its a protestant much like this man... of course going in the other direction.
Many civil... pragmatic breakdowns of this stuff, including a wonderful conversation with a Catholic theologian.
@@johnyang1420 I have two main concerns with the Catholic church's teaching.
1: Why do you pray to Mary? Jesus is our intercessor to God, we don't need another. (My concern is that Catholics idolize her)
2: How are you saved?
@@johnyang1420 Actually you'll find he started the Orthodox Church...
I am a non-Catholic however I'd admire Trent's (and many other Catholics) knowledge of Scripture, debate skills, intellect etc.
Question, at 19:15 Trent quotes the second Vatican Council ~ stating all Christians are brethren. So is the following true?
1) All Magisterium, Popes, and past Councils are equal in authority?
2) Is what they declare and write, to be taken with equal authority to the Bible?
3) Is what they declare and write to be taken with equal authority of each other, past and present?
Here is why my above questions matter and why I take issue with Trent's singular quote.
Pope Innocent 3rd - "Only Holy Roman Church can save"
Pope Pius 9, Vatican 1 - "Outside of the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved"
Pope Paul 6th - "Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's all worship the one true God"
If the Papacy is divine and objectively true how can we have evolving stances such as the above. Surely Trent knows his quote is somewhat cherry picked from history or I have this wrong.
Please someone let me know if I am mistaking the Catholic doctrine here and provide correction.
Thanks
Excellent point, Mr Cheddar! It won't be easy to refute.
A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible; only when he solemnly defines Dogma is it considered to be infallible teaching. Popes can hold differing opinions on a whole range of issues , but when it is declared dogma then not even future Popes can deny or change it .
@@danielmeadows3712 this is a matter of salvation which would be a matter of the faith in which the Pope cannot err, no?
@@sharplikecheddar2 please read, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 836 to 848.
@@danielmeadows3712 will do! Thanks for the reference!
Trent, I view your video title as a sort of taunting dare. And that title is erroneous and dishonest. Nine seconds into your video you make the false statement, "Today I want to talk about ONE QUESTION that Protestants can't answer." Really? After making the unexplained and slanderous statement "Protestants can sometimes argue like Atheists", you spew forth not one but a barrage of questions:
"What are the essential doctrines of Christianity?"
"What authority tells us what is required to be a Christian?"
"What is not required?"
"What beliefs would disqualify you from being a Christian?"
"Do Protestants agree on the main things?"
"Does the Bible explicitly reveal the main things?" (3:08)
"Can you lose your salvation?"
"Is eternal security an essential doctrine?"
"Does baptism save infants?"
"Can Christians deny sola scriptura or sola fide?"
"What beliefs about Jesus are essential to being a Christian?" (13:16)
[ here you contemptuously include the non-Christian Jehovah Witness cult under the heading Protestant. Shame on you! ].
"Are Catholics Christians?"
In spewing out this smokescreen of questions, I note that you either did not answer the questions yourself or you gave an erroneous answer.
I cannot of course speak for all Protestants any more than you can speak for all Roman Catholics (see below). I can only speak as an individual faith follower of the Lord Jesus. My allegiance is not to historical or contemporary Protestantism but to Christ. Saving faith is not intellectual assent to a list of doctrinal truths, it is personal faith in a personal Savior, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ who is revealed in the Holy Bible. In your red herring list of questions you seem to be implying that soteriology is such a complicated topic that we need an exalted hyper-clergy class to sort all these things out for us and explain them to us. I submit to you that such a hierarchical leadership structure is antithetical to both the teaching and example of Christ who said:
“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
and:
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
The Apostle Paul, used of God to leave behind a large portion of Holy Scripture, replied to the essential question, "What must I do to be saved?" with the simple answer"
"“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."
Not a complicated systematic theology. Not a body of doctrine requiring a PhD to understand. No, just a simple childlike faith in the Person of the LORD JESUS and a confident faith in the truth proclaimed from the cross, "It is finished!"
Your discussion of doctrinal disagreement within Protestantism connotes an implied untruth that there is complete doctrinal agreement within Roman Catholicism. At 16:14 you do reluctantly concede that this is greatly untrue. Even within Catholic clergy there is public disagreement on many topics, even something as central and important as whether salvation is possible outside of the Church of Rome. One priest on UA-cam, Father so and so (I don't recall his name) was clearly torn and conflicted by the obvious contradiction on this issue between Augustine & various church fathers and, on the other hand, the teaching of Vatican Two. Where is the purported monolithic, unified doctrine? By the way, this troubled priest argued that not even Roman Catholics can have the assurance of salvation. "There is no guarantee" he said, ignoring and contradicting clear statements to the contrary found in God's holy word. Is it not true that even many popes have agonized on their deathbeds, lacking assurance of a heavenly hope?
This lack of faith, unbelief actually, is an attack on the attributes and character of God. From the beginning in the garden Satan's strategy has always been to get our eyes off Christ and onto ourselves, either as self righteous Pharisees or as abject failures. The god of all false religions wants to keep mankind in a state of uncertainty. "Did God indeed say?" The God of the Holy Bible, by contrast, wants us to know where we stand with Him, wants us to flourish in that knowledge into an ever greater love for Him. This God inspired the Apostle John to write:
"And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you HAVE eternal life" - 1 John 5:1-13. (caps emphasis is mine).
By the way, where is the concept of the magisterium found in the Bible? Or Popes, Cardinals, indulgences, rosaries, etc., etc. ad nauseum? Is it not because these man made traditions are NOT found in the Bible the reason why those men who dared to translate the Bible into the common tongue were tortured and murdered in the most heinous ways by Roman Catholic clergy? I do not know what or who exactly your supposed Magisterium is. But then it is far from certain that the Roman Catholic church knows and agrees:
(from WikiPedia)
"Postconciliar era
The debate concerning the Magisterium, papal primacy and infallibility, and the authority to teach in general has not lessened since the official declaration of the doctrines. Instead, the Church has faced contrary arguments; at one end there are those with the tendency to regard even technically non-binding papal encyclicals as infallible statements and, at the other, are those who refuse to accept in any sense controversial encyclicals such as Humanae Vitae. There are also those who, like John Henry Newman, question whether the First Vatican Council was itself an ecumenical council, and as a result whether the dogma of papal infallibility itself as defined at that council was a fallible pronouncement. The situation is complicated by changing attitudes toward authority in an increasingly democratic world, the new importance placed on academic freedom, and new means of knowledge and communication. In addition, the authority of theologians is being revisited, with theologians pushing past the structures laid out by Pius XII to claim authority in theology in their own right such as was the case in the middle ages. Others simply regard themselves purely as academics not in the service of any institution. In September 2018, the Synod of Bishops was granted Magisterium over documents which are approved at their Synods." (end quote).
In contrast to all religious confusion, man made traditions, and prideful usurpation of divine authority, my faith is in the trustworthy Person of Christ. I am a born again child of a loving Heavenly Father. I am sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. Christ Jesus is the faithful Shepherd of my soul who will not let one of His flock be lost. The Lord Jesus Christ is my Surety, the guarantor of a better covenant and a better hope, my Redeemer who has co-signed that covenant with his own name and, as my advocate and only Mediator, pleads His shed blood before the accuser of the Brethren and before His eternal Father. Praise and glory to His name!
Eight months later and no response from Trent, the guy who named his channel after a religious council who spewed out curses and anathemas. Aren't you going to curse me Trent, for placing my undivided faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?
You always amazed me with your responses. Thank you Trent 🤗
The Word “Baptize”:
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
What the Bible says about Christian essentials:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." Mark 16
That’s one verse. What about James 2:24?
Define "believes" (also that's in the longer ending of Mark which may not be original to Mark)
Some protestants don't believe baptism is ordinarily necessary. Ordinarily being for most people who have the chance to actually believe or to get baptized.
@@jon6car Some Catholics believe pagans go to Heaven.
@@bguman what about Ephesians 2:9 mmm? Too much misunderstanding from you lots...
I'm a protestant-sort of, I don't go to church much but I try to obey God's teachings. I disagree with a lot of Catholic teachings but they are our brothers in Christ. I hate when there's animosity between churches.
agreed❤
Well said
Churches teach really different things. Although I think folky ways will give you some core Christian ideas, yet even Muslims and Atheists will keep some basic Christian morality.
Outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy you won't get Mary's role on Earth and in Heaven.
And if you are not a Catholic you won't see her enduring intercession on Earth.
All in all what people call Christianity might not be that all. Christianity might be far weirder than your mind us willing to accept.
I would consider myself a Protestant but recently I've been feeling this huge conviction about the understanding of my faith. I've been trying to research more and have stumbled upon many Catholic videos and literature, and although I currently still feel disagreement with regards to certain doctrine and dogma I still can't help the overwhelming feeling of needing to understand more. To deepen my faith. I've been reading about church history and then going to study the church fathers. I really wish I knew a Catholic priest or someone well rounded in their Catholic knowledge that could help me with these questions I have. If anybody has any book recommendations I will gladly take any advice! Thank you!
Thanks for sharing about your journey! I strongly recommend Theology & Sanity by Frank J. Sheed-it’s a very well written book on Catholic theology. And my favorite source for all things theology is the Thomistic Institute, which is run by Dominican priests. They have UA-cam videos and a podcast. Another podcast by Dominican priests is Godsplaining, which has easy-to-digest conversations about many different topics. Finally, if you’re looking for a Catholic Bible scholar, I recommend Brant Pitre’s UA-cam channel called Catholic Productions. All the best with your search! God bless you.
Hi friend! I was a protestant before I converted to Catholicism last year. Do you have Instagram? I'd love to chat if you do. As for reading recommendations, "Why we're Catholic" by the very same Trent Horn is a great introduction to why we have our beliefs as Catholics. I've also started to read "The Church Fathers know best" by Jimmy Akin. It has a whole encyclopedia of writings taken from the early church fathers dealing with all the matters of faith that the Church has believed since the very beginning, giving an eye to what early Christians believed.
Glad you are on your journey. Besides all the suggestions above, I'd recommend Eusebius of caesarea's - Church history.
And the Church fathers!
I like the recommendation of Frank Sheed's "A Map of Life". I know an atheist who came to Catholicism through that simple read. Why because no one provided him an explanation of his questions until this read. Blessing to all the truth seekers. I read this and own this book. Please give it a try.
Hi! I don’t really have any recommendations but I’m Protestant myself & have been feeling what you’ve been feeling lately and while Catholicism just still has too many things I’m not spiritually comfortable with, I’ve personally been looking into Orthodox Christianity. I’m literally in the very beginnings of my research so I can’t tell you much but so far it seems like Catholicism minus some of the.. Catholicism lol. I’m going to visit a church Sunday but from what I’ve been researching, they have beautiful churches with very divine atmospheres just like Catholics & they partake in sacraments and traditions and there’s just a sense of community and oneness that the Protestant church lacks. Might be worth it to look into along with Catholicism. I wouldn’t say Orthodoxy is perfectly in the middle of Catholicism and Protestantism but so far it seems like it does fall between the 2 but moreso Catholic leaning than Protestant. Blessings on your journey! Pray for mine as well.
The grace of god is a free gift, we cannot earn it,that’s why catholic’s baptise children, the child cannot earn the grace of god but it is given freely by God.
Through baptism we become new creations, we enter into the life,death and resurrection of Jesus, and become part of the Catholic Church.
Through good works we draw closer to Jesus and further away from sin, we must become lesser and he must become greater.
God bless 🙏
Very confusing and contradicting your post. Hope to chat with you. GBY
@@adrianvarela8890
No contradictions just facts
God bless 🙏
Thinking about these big questions of Christianity is making me realize that there are no easy answers here. Your claim that Protestants lack authority to teach is very well supported and reasoned. You make it easy to see why many Catholics assert that the Catholic Church is needed to interpret Scripture and settle these disputes. I'm not ready to concede the necessity of a centralized teaching authority, but you are definitely making a very good case for one. If we take the "sola scriptura" idea to the extreme, then we can't really have any fixed beliefs because everything is open to interpretation. That being said, I think if a bunch of Christians believe something, but the Holy Spirit is pushing you to believe something else, it's important to resist the peer pressure. Of course, it's entirely possible that what we think is the prompting of the Spirit is really just our own desire. The important thing is to go on loving people who have different beliefs from us, something that Christians in the Middle Ages weren't very good at. I've felt God prompting me to love Catholics instead of looking down my nose at you folks. You are our brothers and sisters even if we don't agree on a lot of theological issues.
I lost Sola Scriptura when I realized
1.) I knew the Bible well enough to make it say practically whatever I wanted
2.) I am a wretched man and likely to get it wrong
3.) There are brilliant, Greek-speaking, well-studied pastors and writers who I loved (C.S. Lewis, John MacArthur, and even at one point [shudder] John Haggee) who all disagree with each other
4.) If I studied Greek and went to seminary, I'd be no closer to knowing the truth
5.) If I weren't as well-read, or smart, I'd have to totally rely on someone else...so Who?
6.) Maybe I'm not as well-read and smart as I think...which gets back to #2
I refused to become Catholic, so I was Agnostic for a while. God allowed me to be assaulted at work then hit by a drunk driver the next morning...I had a bit of pressure to sort things out. Then, in attending Mass and praying the Rosary to "try it out" crazy things started to happen. I reluctantly became Catholic (along with my wife) and never looked back (this is true because I haven't turned into a pillar of salt).
@@cactoidjim1477 You make a lot of excellent points. There are enough verses in the Bible that we can cherry-pick ones that go along with what we want. I guess it comes down to whether one has faith in the ability of Catholic Bible interpreters to come up with more accurate conclusions than Protestant Bible interpreters. It takes a lot of humility for you to say that you are likely to get it wrong with biblical interpretation, and I appreciate that. Thank you for sharing your personal story. I agree that God was definitely reaching out to you. I just kind of hope that God doesn't reach out to me in a similar manner because I just don't feel ready to become a Catholic. I think there is a lot of holiness in Catholicism, but it's just not what I've grown up with. I do feel that God is calling to confront my prejudices against Catholicism, though. I grew up being told that Martin Luther was the "good guy" and Pope Leo X was the "bad guy". But I've found so many wonderful Catholics online that help to dispel my prejudices.
PolymorphicPenguin - you make very good points. If you ever get a chance, go to a Catholic chapel that has the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Neil down before the Blessed Sacrament and seek the presence of Christ., John 6:40.- “everyone who “sees the Son”…has eternal life”. Christ’s presence is there just as He promised.
@@Crusader33ad Thanks, Philip
1 John 2:27.
Luther, realizing getting rid of the one Pope made everyone his own pope, said "Now there are as many popes as there are heads!"
wms72, self-proclaimed Pope Peter had his mother-in-law. He must have been married in order to have a mother-in-law. But your Pope Francis is a fake because he is unmarried and yet your Church claimed apostolic succession. Further your Pope has to take the blame as he advocated unbiblical celibacy of priesthood which resulted for the massive sexual abuse of young innocent victims by Priests. Even Cardinals like Vatican Cardinal Marc Ouellet is the highest-ranking clergyman accused in a court document in Canada and was made public.. Any comments.
Jesus is to be the head of the Christian church and our mediator between God and man.Priests and Popes should not exist as intersession and ultimate authorities .thanks
@@joman388 agreed Brother. Please interpret this verse for me; 1John1:9 is it addressing believers or unbelievers. Thank you.
@@93556108 It was written to several gentile congregations and all believers everywhere. These verses tell us how to live{basicially in the light of Jesus or doing as Jesus taught,which is the light} and understanding that we all sin to some degree or another and that we should confess those sins to God as soon as possible and turn from them and God forgives us. Jesus died for our sins,then rose again,we accept that and we are Christian,then we live our lives in appreciation for what He did for us,as sinnless as possible.thanks kind sir
@@joman388 ; I have a different perspective from yours. I say this verse 1John1:9 is written to unbelievers.
In John’s days there is Gnosticism, a belief system that claim to have this divine supernatural being which this epistle was addressed to them.
In its context; " 1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;”
Firstly, John was trying to persuade them that Jesus existed from the beginning, and John personally had direct physical contact with Jesus. This verse must be referring to an unbeliever as a believer he would have known about this fact when he placed his faith in Jesus.
Further in; "(1Jn 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Note John was referring this to an unbeliever, if we denied to have committed any sin, we only deceive ourselves and don’t possessed d the truth.
Surely a believer would have known, he is a sinner who have sinned and he have the truth in them in order that he could placed his faith in Christ.
In the next verse; "1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us”. Can this statement come from a believer? Of course not, a believer won’t say he had not sinned, and made God a liar. Further this verse stated “God’s word is not in him”. Don’t believers trusted God’s word? Surely, only unbelievers don’t trust in God’s word.
But in the next verse; 1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” Now this verse addressed believers as it stated “my little children” as believers are considered as God’s children.
For the rest of Chapter 2 of 1John it was referring to believers as Christ is their Advocate giving them His new commandments.
That’s how I interpreted 1John1:9 in its historical context and the true meaning is referring to unbelievers whom Apostle John was persuading them the only solution is for them to confess their sin, God is just and faithful and will grant them all their sins and cleanse them from unrighteousness.
Please read my comments carefully and please share your thoughts for me. Thank you.
I am not of the faith anymore but was born and raised into an evangelical Pentecost Christian church. Been digging deeper into the history of Christianity and am very intrigued to find that the catholic belief does have merit, maybe even more so than the Protestants. That being said still think there are quite a few brazen interpretations made by the Catholic Church to justify their traditions. In the case of the Virgin Mary. I don’t think there’s any need for her to be holy and the bible never says so. When has God ever used a perfect person to deliver his will? All previous accounts in the Old Testament have always included people who have sinned, so why would Mary be?
Old adam sinned, new Adam (Jesus) sinless. Old eve sinned. New Eve (Mary) sinless. Jesus took His human DNA from Mary (Jesus is the "FRUIT" of the womb of Mary) so its rather fitting she should be sinless. God bless. Hope this helps a bit. :)
@SidneyVenanciodelaTorre-yo4oz as a cradle Catholic turned Protestant who is open to returning to Catholicism, that I can get on board with... but Catholics take it toooo far.
Why on earth do I have to pray the Salve Regina? Don't you think that's blasphemous?
Hail Holy Queen... Mother of mercy, our life our sweetness and our hope... turn then most gracious advocate...
Do you think God would want us to make anyone apart from Him our life our sweetness and our hope? Our only advocate?
The Queen of Heaven is only mentioned twice in the Bible and in both times God rebuked the Israelites for their idolatry in worshipping her.
And if you say you don't worship Mary... well, If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then what is it? A chicken?
I live in a house full of Catholics and there's an altar in the living room of Mary with candles all lit up by her statue
But I guess that's not worship? OK if you say so...
@@ubemon Our God is a jealous God who does not want to share His glory with IDOLS (false gods). With His own people though (people who do His will), BIG difference: "As the father has sent me, so I send you". And so the disciples were able to cure the sick, drive out demons, raise people from the dead, and even forgive sins. Mary is "blessed among women" and therefore has the most powerful and effective prayers ( refer to james 5:16) the why she is "our life, sweetness and our hope". Its not that Mary is a god or God but that Mary's prayers are more pleasing to God than everybody elses. So you may NOT pray the Salve Regina, but you'd be crazy not to. God bless. Hope this helps a bit. :)
That’s funny. Dr Craig thinks 680 AD is WAY late in the game to disavow monothelitism. I wonder if he would also think 1520 AD is WAY late for all the absolute novums of Protestant theology he DOES accept.
Good point
You can’t find a discussion of monothelitism in scripture. You can find lots of discussion about salvation by faith in scripture.
As a Protestant I found your video to be quite interesting. Personally, I believe there are Protestants who are saved, and Protestants who are not saved. Conversely, I believe there are Catholics who are saved, and Catholics who are not saved. I couldn't hope to pick which ones are and which ones are not, outside of inspecting their Fruits, and I personally draw comfort from 2 Timothy 2:19 on this topic: "
Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
I am more than willing to stand beside a Catholic who is my brother/sister in the Lord and I hope both groups are able to do that more and more the closer we get to Christ's return.
P.S. I like your channel's name Trent. It's clever and made me chuckle. Take care and God bless!
I baptized my baby when she was 5 months old. She died when she was 8 months old. I remember being so thankful to God that she was baptized. At the same time, I had a firm belief that she would still have entered heaven without it. I guess I feel like I would have been the one to bear the sin since I was the one responsible. But I also know that truth does not depend on my feelings.
So sorry to hear about your loss. God you
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me." You listened. That's good. You will see your baby again.
Woah, since the baby was baptized and is totally innocent and didn't reach the age of reason around 7 years old..... the baby is no doubt in Heaven. She has to be.
Catechism: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them."
Your child was sinless and pure because they were too young for accountability. Baptism did not save your child because your child was never condemned. I am truly sorry for you loss, however.
John Locke addressed the issue of who is a Christian in a famous work written in about 1690. His exegetical work was entitled 'The Reasonableness of Christianity'. In this work he argued persuasively that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus, the builder from Nazareth, is the Messiah of Jewish expectation. This is a very simple way of understanding Christianity which immediately gets past all secondary theological issues.
I agree almost completely. The only thing that makes me question the validity of Locke's argumentation is that there are Messianic Jews who explicitly resist being called Christians.
I think the “once saved always saved “ notion
Is bizarre
If you really analyze it, it contradicts a lot of fundamental Christian beliefs, even their own.
and it's un-Biblical
If you could lose your salvation, you would. It's Christ who intercedes for us to God, and who rebukes and chastens us when we stray. Did King David lose his salvation? Obviously not, yet he committed horrible sins. As for those who refuse to stop sinning, it's likely they never were saved to begin with.
Tell us, then: when does someone lose their salvation, and how can Christ say "I will lose none of them the Father has given me" if salvation can be lost?
@@georgelugenalt200
“The wages of sin, is death”
Yes u can lose your salvation
Yes, bizarre. Most importantly, it’s heretical
I am so glad that I am Catholic! Like another viewer commented one time, if we have over 30,000 Protestant denominations that have formed in the last 500 years, how many more will be formed in the next 500 years? God bless! 🙏
How is that an argument against Protestants?
I guess you need to watch this other video of Trent Horn's, for things Catholics should stop saying. It's at the 17-minute mark.
ua-cam.com/video/kJ8-TtaC73c/v-deo.html
Amen amen! The evangelical movement specifically has gone too far , and critise Catholics the most. Praise God for guys like Trent, Bryan Mericier, Matt Fradd, etc.
@@tony1685 yes, and are very confident about it. Is it theit true faith or an agenda vs Catholic church itself.
@@tony1685 read the whole context of the Scripture and remember of 'be one'.
Great video, Trent! Such an interesting topic!!!
1Jn 2:23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also.
I think there’s more “unity” among Protestants today in the sense that many, even most, have eliminated most doctrinal considerations altogether. Of course, that’s not “unity” so much as indifference. I really started seeing that in the “seeker-friendly” movement. Today, you could visit a wide variety of Protestant denominations and not even realize which denomination you’re currently attending, except for seeing a logo somewhere.
Southern Baptist of AZ is very different from Southern Baptist of ID. From personal experience.
My experience as a protestant was that the one thing the various denominations could agree on was that Catholics were wrong - and that was the only doctrine that mattered.
@@carissstewart3211 Great point.
@@carissstewart3211 SO true. Anti-Catholicism is practically the central doctrine of protestantism, from the very beginning, but _especially_ now in our conspiracy theory-obsessed culture. One of those precious few things all protestants can enthusiastically get behind is a big circlejerk about how sick and perverse those "Roman Catholic" bootlickers are.
@@carissstewart3211 This is an interesting comment. To me, I had never really concerned myself with Catholic/Protestant difference my whole life, but as I've engaged Catholicism a little more over the last couple years, it seems they're very focused on this Catholic/Protestant difference. It's off-putting to me. It seems like a distraction from focusing on Christ.
You should do a video/series on debunking Martin Luther’s 95 theses
We’ll I’m not sure many Catholics would refute the 95 anymore
@@2BluntsLater any good orthodox Catholic would refute. A few modernists would be hip to them.
Lots of videos on that
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 yeah i meant the primary source though. Everything i know about Protestantism is through people like Mike Winger. I could read them myself but Trent usually does a better job.
Would you want to bring back indulgences? Charging people money to get people out of purgatory seems unBiblical. That was wrong, just like today’s televangelist preachers.
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was no salvation outside the Ark which denotes the Church."
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Church, living body, not a building. Sorry but scripture doesn’t say “be a part of the Roman Catholic Church to go to heaven” 🙃
@@TLL418
Join the Byzantine Church or something.... Seriously, I sometimes wonder if protestant hatred of Catholicism isn't just anti Italian prejudice, it's always "rome" this, "rome" that. As if ANYTHING that we have to say pertains to a geographical location. It's utterly ignorant.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I love Italy. Would love to visit. Just don’t like contradictions to scripture
@@TLL418
contradictions according to who? you?
who are you?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj who is anyone 😂
As one who grew up Protestant, and now find myself in between "denominations" (just left Calvinism last year and been searching Scripture) I found the eternal security question a little bit of a moot point which seems to be clearly lined throughout Scripture.
Those who endure to the end will be saved. Those who do the will of the Father are the true believers. Those whose actions match their statements of faith. Those who do not walk away but keep the faith will be saved. We look forward to the adoption to become sons of God.
It really is clear to me now that I left my interpretive goggles behind and just read. Faith, repentance and obedience is the path to salvation. It is not done by works because we can merit nothing but judgement or reward based upon our works, but salvation itself is faith and trust in God alone, and keeping that faith to the end of our life. As it is said in Matthew 25 when the Son of Man comes in his glory that all the nations will be gathered and He will separate the sheep from the goats. Who are the sheep and the goats? The sheep are the ones who obeyed and had love and mercy for others (good works) and the goats were those who did not have love and mercy for others (no good works/works of unrighteousness). God's grace is offered freely to us, and accepted by faith, and lived out in the good works laid out beforehand for us since the beginning of the world, to work in accordance with the law of Faith, which is in Christ Jesus.
Nothing can separate us form the love of God? Of course! But one thing is missing there in that verse. Us. We can walk away and turn our backs on Him and not endure to the end, thus, not being saved. It is that continued faith and trust and walking according to faith to the end which Scripture has plainly told us will let us see salvation which is the resurrection.
So eternal security? Sure! So long as you are being obedient to Christ and living according to His statutes. When we abide in Christ, and He in us, and find our all in all in Him, do we find our rest. Abide not, and he will cast us into the furnace.
As Hebrews 6 says "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned"
Once we have the Truth and are set free, if we turn again to our flesh and sin and turn away from God, how can there be any hope for us? Continued obedience, continued trusting loyalty to the end is the path we must take, trusting, putting our faith in Him and obeying Him in that trust. When we sin, we repent and get back up onto the path, not wander down the path of unrighteousness. So can we lose salvation? It is not really ours to have or lose yet as we only have a down payment of the Holy Spirit as a promise, if we endure to the end, then the promise will be filled sine we fulfilled our end of that covenant as best we could, and Christ fills in the rest for us and perfects us. All that is required is that faith, and that faith should lead to obedience shown through works.
That is what I found in my plain reading. And I find myself more aligning with the Catholic church on many points, but hold in balance the interpretive authority versus the clear reading of the passages. Sola Scriptura for what is plain (Christ alone through faith by God's grace, to the end to be saved). In other matters, we can discuss, but to be dogmatic about anything aside from Christ, in my view, is just contentious. Sure, they can lead to differing viewpoints and we should explore those views and see their ultimate conclusions as to whether they are truly in line with Scripture in its plain teaching, and if they ultimately end up against Christ, then we can dismiss them. Hence, why I left Calvinism. It made God into a puppet master, denying His mercy, love and justice, making Him into a self-glorifying God with no regard for His creation which as "very good" in the beginning, and Has shown abundant mercy throughout history. It all ended up being about "what brings God the most glory" instead of what God has revealed to us as His love and mercy so we would not perish, but could be with Him.
On baptism saving us, the passages tell us repentance AND baptism. Baptism as a sign of a pledge of a clear conscience. Washing of regeneration, which could be argued, but it is almost always seen hand in hand with repentance. And the only questions i posit are these: Can an infant repent? What does an infant only a few days old repent of? Does an infant have the capacity to understand what it is to repent?
and of course it goes back to original sin, but I find the passage in Ezekiel must be taken into account that each one is responsible and held account for their own sins, not the sins of the father, so Adam's sin broke creation and brought death, but we are only affected by the curse, and are PRONE to sinning, not guilty of Adam's sin. "through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." and "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."
All point to knowledge and understanding, conscience bearing witness for or against, all requiring knowledge. Infants have no knowledge yet, especially of moral choices, so how can they be held accountable for sin? What sin CAN be committed without knowledge of right or wrong?
Especially at that young age.
My view on it is children are born in what I would call a "neutral but decaying state" where they cannot be held guilty for any sin, but as they grow and their hearts are taught by experience, morals, or the Word of God, they begin to form morality. Once they begin understanding morality and what constitutes a right vs wrong action, not based on God's word but just in general the rules presented them, whether they obey or not will shape their next actions. When they intentionally do evil, they are sinning. When the do good, they are obedient. When they come to the knowledge of God and salvation through faith in Christ alone, their rejection condemns them and their acceptance saves them, provided their continued obedience and faith to the end as discussed above.
My main points for fellowship and what I consider a Christian as these:
1) Is Jesus Christ God in Flesh?
2) Is salvation found in Christ alone?
3) Is believing in the heart and confessing with the mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, enough to be saved if you were to die in the next 5 minutes?
If all three yes, then I can have fellowship. We may discuss and disagree on a myriad of other things, but those three I consider the litmus test of Christianity.
Anyhow, I've droned on long enough and given my points.
Good video though.
Wow. Just wow. You've given some excellent points for me to think about and study further! I'm a Protestant and I've been wrestling with a few things myself. I've found myself looking into some Catholic doctrine and although I would say I still disagree on many things, there are, however, a number of things starting to sway me to that side. I've been reading about church history and the early church fathers for more understanding, something I wish more protestants did and encouraged, obviously not all protestants are ignorant to Christian history but I do find it a common theme that Catholics tend to know more on that front than protestants.
I hope I can gets some more answers and I thank you for your comment because it did help me with a lot that I've been thinking about! God bless you!
@skyeball6137 i am glad my own studies and answer has helped you. I pray the Truth of Scripture and of God permeates your mind and heart and brings you to a sure and steady faith and you walk in it to completion. I hope to meet you in paradise someday and learn how God has worked in your life during our mortal age.
The Catholic Church never said non baptized infants went to hell.
The Church just didn't have a dogma. The Limbo is just a theological thesis.
It seems your 3-point test just sealed the fate of all infants, newborns, and toddlers.
Hell would no doubt be their destination if your 3-point formula is God's standard for any that would inherit eternal life
@allopez8563 i never said the catholic church DID teach that as dogma. Although Augustine and the church DID believe it up until the middle ages when it was softened to limbo, whoch was then tracked back to where I stand on it now, thst infants that are not baptized are entrusted into Gods mercy. If I recall, that happened around 15 years ago? Or was it back in 92? I do not recall right now, but it was the position, not dogma, of the rcc in the past.
Just because "protestants" disagree on something does not validate or invalidate that something.
There is only one truth.
For example, many Protestant denominations believe that baptism is regenerative. And that it is essential to salvation. Many Protestant denominations believe that baptism is merely symbolic and does nothing.
These both can't be right, and if baptism is essential, then there are going to be a lot of people who will not gain eternity in Heaven because they've been misled.
If A=B and B=/=C then A=/=C. If A is sound doctrine and B is sound doctrine, they are equal. If C is not equal to B, then C is not sound doctrine. Things that disagree can't both be right.
@@jeffscully50613 Was the thief on the cross baptized?
@@matthewn2559 prove he wasn't. Prove when exactly Christ instituted baptism as a requirement for salvation.
Jesus is God. He can do whatever He wants.
Keep in mind that St. Dismas, the "good theif" was told by Jesus that, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Except we know Jesus didn't go to Heaven until His ascension, 40 days after the resurrection. So St. Dismas wasn't in Heaven on Good Friday. He was in "Paradise," for which the Greek word, Paradeiso, means Sheol. The Bosom of Abraham. The old Jewish word for Hell (not Gehenna). That's where Jesus was from his death on the cross until his resurrection. Preaching to the dead.
@@jeffscully50613 Please use your head. Are you Roman Catholic? If you are you exemplify what religious pride does-helps you to refuse correction which is based on Scripture.
The fact that Roman Catholics believe and propagate the lie that Mary was a perpetual virgin is evidence of this. A plain reading of Scripture clearly teaches she wasn't. Mary was a godly women who should be honored but she was not a perpetual virgin and she does not intercede for people.
One of the main errors of Roman Catholicism is it takes the "shadows and figures" of the Christian faith and attempts to make them the substance. Being baptized by some earthly false priest does not make one right with God. A true believer is baptized by Christ with the Holy Spirit when they come to saving faith in Christ. (see Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16) Water baptism is symbolic of what Christ has done for the true born again believer. Analogous to this is the putting on of a wedding ring- it is the vows which a couple take that constitutes the marriage not the putting on of the ring. The ring only symbolizes what those vows incorporate.
I would recommend to you to read 2 Peter 3 verse 16. Much of Roman Catholic theology fulfills this verse.
When speaking about “Rome” and the reformation, Protestants sound one way. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, etc. But when teaching the faith as Biblically outlined, they sound another way. They admit you have to live a Christian life. Thy admit physical presence at church and community is necessary. They know if you sin you need to seek reconciliation with who you’ve wronged and th community.
Yes! They say that it’s Faith alone and that works have nothing to do with your salvation but they don’t act that way. Most Protestants I know do try to do good, but since they don’t teach this I have seen others who are simply “doing works for salvation” - probably many more than in the Catholic Church lol
Those who love Him keep his commands. Do you think this is in opposition to salvation by faith alone? If someone were to pursue salvation by doing every good work and living a perfect life we would say with the apostles that all have fallen short of the glory of God. Praise be to God that in Jesus Christ we have a sacrifice for our sins, once for all, that as His people we are made clean by his atonement! So then what good is my works? Do I gain more atonement from Jesus' death and resurrection by giving money to the poor? If that were the case then surely I could eventually attain full atonement through my good works if only I had enough of them. Since no amount of good works can attain for me atonement for my sins then it must rest purely on Christ's atoning work that I am saved. The outward working of my inward spirit is then a reflection of the saving work Christ has already done in me. It is continued obedience to the one who loved me and gave himself up for me. It is the fruit of one who remains in the vine. Attending church does not gain me salvation, reconciling for sin does not gain me salvation, those are things I do because I follow my savior and lord. I think Sola Fide is not in opposition to doing good works, but that good works are the natural outpouring of one who seeks Christ. What do you think?
@@frankN326 Hello Frank! Thanks for the charitable reply!
Do I think keeping his commands is in opposition to Salvation by Faith Alone?
No I see that we are called (and all serious Christians) do love Him by keeping His commands, but I also think these works are as necessary as our initial and ongoing Faith and Relationship with Christ.
In other words, on day I came to the realization that God was real. And for the rest of my life (34 years) I have been doing the works best I can (obedience, prayer, self control, faithful in my marriage, getting closer to God and His will for me every year, standing up for His Truth, caring for those who don’t know Him, etc, etc).
I do all of this out of love for Him.
But I could just as easily spent the last 34 years mired in Sin and I my relationship with him would be a disaster.
So what I am saying is that I don’t see how our salvation is “Faith alone”. As James says is must also have good works. Not for the sake of the works but for the sake of the relationship with Christ.
This is my problem with Sola Fide. I think it is incomplete.
Thoughts?
What I see is that for most Protestants, the essential doctrine of Protestantism is Sola Scriptura, not Sola Fide. As long as you agree that the Bible is your highest authority, what is actually is truth takes the back burner. In other words, Protestants are free to disagree with each other, even on what is "essential", as long as they don't claim the mantle of authority on interpreting the Bible. There is no human authority over anyone in interpreting scriptures.
Protestants are free to disagree with each other because there is so much disagreements within the Protestant sects. That’s one of the main reasons I left the nondenominational Protestant sects. Every sect I went to thought they knew the real truth, it was not logical.
You must've read what I wrote before because I think the same way. Ha! :)
@@namapalsu2364 I always believed it but if I read what you said and we agree fantastic! Great minds think alike.
@@tony1685 All truth is God’s truth. How do you know what Biblical truth is?
@@tony1685 but how do you know that your interpretation of what is written is correct?
My two cents; Ive read the bible almost in its entirety, excluding some old testament books, but read the new testament many times and to me its clear that God is interested in our hearts, not our vague rituals or arguments. I don’t count myself a catholic or protestant or anything for that matter, only Christian. Saying that I believe its vital to discuss, learn and even argue about scripture to have a better understanding of the word of God. Liturgy or customs aren’t at all bad in of itself, but when they are raised to the purpose of itself, without the changed new born heart, it is quite meaningless. We should all focus our minds on God and pray daily, and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who died for our Sins.
As a last example of what I mean are the eastern orthodox and the so called old believers, who had an even violent parting on the matter of do you use two fingers or three fingers to make the sign of the cross. That wasn’t obviously the only reason for the separation, but it seems quite ridiculous to be honest. Church traditions are culture, and shouldn’t come between Christians falling on their knees before the almighty.
Non-domination falls under Protestant. Hint, just you and your Bible. Sola Scriptura.
Church “traditions are culture”. Tell that to Saint Peter and early church fathers. 🤦♂️
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I really appreciate the emphasis you place on the heart in our relationship with God, and I agree that faith starts there. However, as a Catholic, I believe that our faith is meant to be lived out both internally and externally, and this is something rooted in Scripture. While God certainly looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), He has also given us specific ways to worship Him. For example, in the Old Testament, He established detailed instructions for sacrifices and festivals, and in the New Testament, Jesus instituted the sacraments like baptism (Matthew 28:19) and the Eucharist (Luke 22:19). These aren’t vague rituals-they’re outward signs of the grace we receive through Christ.
I also see tradition as a vital part of the Christian faith. St. Paul himself told the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Tradition and Scripture together preserve the truth of the Gospel, ensuring that it’s faithfully passed down through the ages. It’s not about man-made customs but about guarding what Christ entrusted to His Church.
When it comes to faith, I believe it’s not just an internal belief but something that must bear fruit in how we live and worship. James 2:17 reminds us that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” The sacraments and liturgy are not meaningless if they flow from a genuine faith-they are ways to encounter God, deepen our relationship with Him, and live out our faith in community.
As for divisions over traditions, I agree that some arguments can seem petty. But at the same time, Christ prayed that His followers would “be one” (John 17:21). The Church’s role is to preserve unity in essential matters of faith and worship. The Catholic Church sees herself as the Church Christ founded, guided by the Holy Spirit to maintain this unity and safeguard the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
I think we all agree that our ultimate focus should be on Christ, who gave us the means to worship Him both inwardly and outwardly. The traditions and teachings of the Church are not meant to get in the way of that but to help us grow closer to Him. I really value the chance to discuss these things, as it helps us all to better understand God’s Word and His plan for us.
This was very useful and informative
@YAJUN YUAN I don’t get it. That timestamp talks about, are Catholics Christians! Don’t understand
Nice backdrop and setup! Have you thought about putting a crucifix in the background?
A giant, ultra realistic one too
@Jimmy Melonseed- A life-sized one!
Protestants are in the odd position of Christians (through the valid baptism) that don't believe in Christianity (because they reject the Dogmas of the Catholic Church).
As are many Catholics.
Very true!!!
As a former Roman Catholic I can say this with the greatest certainty, You're saved by DONE not DO. For by grace are you saved through faith. If you're not right on this , nothing else matters. As a Roman Catholic I was Religious, but Lost. I lived it. I know where of I speak.
Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5-8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9-10, 1 Cor. 3:12-15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11-13).”
@@robertajaycart3491 Salvation does have three tenses. Past- I've been saved from sins Penalty by Trusting Christ ALONE. Present- I've am being saved from sin's Power. That's sanctification. Future- I shall be saved from sin's Presence. That's when I'm with Jesus in Heaven. All of this becomes my reality when I trust Christ' s death, burial and resurrection on my behalf. I don't add baptism, my good works, being part of the Catholic church and the rest of the sacraments and time in purgatory....all things Rome teaches her followers.
@Robert Szontagh
Even when I thought of leaving Catholicism for personal reasons,The Holy Spirit intervened in my life and told me to stay because I needed the Sacraments.
All those other things matter to Christ too.
After becoming Catholic, I did 10 years of research, even giving up the TV and Internet for a while to study.
You believe in Christ alone. Catholics believe in Christ also but also the Catholic church is the one true church started by Christ himself. The Catholic church was put here by Christ for the Salvation of man's soul.
@@robertajaycart3491 I didn't have personal reasons for leaving Rome. My family, My priests, my nuns were always kind to me. I had doctrinal reasons... Bible reasons. I was lost. What I was taught by the Church didn't match up with the Scriptures on important subjects like Salvation, Praying to Saints, Purgatory, Kissing Crucifixes, Praying Hail Marys , Baptism washing away original sin and the like.... Respectfully, I don't believe the Holy Spirit led you in your decision. He would not lead you in a path away from salvation and the Bible.
@@robertszontagh1297 As someone who battles these lies from the Catholic Church what you have just mentioned, and showed how rome wishing to add to the Holy perfect word of God. Thank you for showing the truth to others.
Trent, I would be curious to see how Craig would respond to the question: How can we trust the Canon of Scripture if it was determined through tradition and councils? In other words, how can the bar of Scripture affirm itself? I think you two could have a very good debate...
Craig would talk for 30 minutes and you would be left without an answer but a bunch of quotables that prottys prop up on their shoulders
We trust them because we trust the true leader and founder of Catholic Church, Jesus Christ...The fact that the Church has withstood external and internal problems( horrible horrible Popes, heresies etc) shows this...
Mathew: 16:18
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
@@annmary6974 He's asking how Craig (a protestant) would answer the question, not about Catholics. Obviously Catholics trust the canon because it was affirmed by multiple ecumenical councils under the guidance of the Spirit that Jesus Christ promised he would send.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol The Spirit in question came at Pentecost, He is called "The Comforter," not "The Ecumenicist." With that loose of a justification, anybody can claim inspiration. Which is exactly what Prots do as well
@@fireandworms What on Earth are you talking about? The canon was not affirmed at Pentecost. It did not exist at Pentecost. All ecumenical councils are guided by the Spirit. That is a foundational doctrine of Catholicism. I never said the Spirit is called "ecumenicist" so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. My point is that Catholics have a rational basis for trust in the canon - namely, that it can be understood to be asserted by the Spirit, because we believe that Jesus kept his promise to ensure the Church would be the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Craig surely believes that Jesus keeps all his promises, so to get around this problem, presumably he believes that the ecclesia is just an invisible, unacknowledged, loose association between all people who believe in Christ. But such a vague demographic definition does not yield a structure that can make affirmations of anything. Such a definition of ecclesia is also problematic, because it would include most heresies. It would surely include all sorts of groups with disagreeing doctrines.
So it doesn't make any single, coherent affirmation. Therefore, it can't be the pillar and bulwark of the truth without also being the pillar and bulwark of lies. It doesn't advocate a single truth, and it includes mutually exclusive claims, so how can it be understood as an authority on anything, let alone the canon?
It would be better to narrow the authority structure, not broaden it. The problem, of course, is that Craig can't narrow it to his own personal church because his personal church did not exist when Jesus made these promises. So it can't have been what the earliest Christians understood to be the ecclesia. This is a huge problem because there's really nothing the ecclesia _can be_ if not the Church that existed at the time of these writings. And that is obviously the Catholic Church, whence the contemporary Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Gavin Ortlund defines a fourfold schema to distinguish doctrines:
* First-rank doctrines are ESSENTIAL to the gospel itself.
* Second-rank doctrines are URGENT for the health and practice of the church such that they frequently cause Christians to separate at the level of local church, denomination, and/or ministry.
* Third-rank doctrines are IMPORTANT to Christian theology, but not enough to justify separation or division among Christians.
* Fourth-rank doctrines are UNIMPORTANT to our gospel witness and ministry collaboration.
Determining where to place particular doctrines and understanding how to engage with fellow believers and the outside world is complicated. Ortlund lays out four basic criteria that we should consider:
1. How clear is THE BIBLE on this doctrine?
2. What is this doctrine's importance to THE GOSPEL?
3. What is the testimony of the HISTORICAL CHURCH concerning this doctrine?
4. What is this doctrine's effect upon the CHURCH TODAY?
Perfect video 👍🙏❤️ .... btw, there's also a really good explanation on the topic in the video: "Questions for Protestants (with former baptist Steve Ray)" or something like that
William Lane Craig: "I'm sola scriptura therefore I'm a monothelite."
Jesus Christ: "Not my will, but Thy Will, be done."
Good point
Jesus was wrong. According to you, he should've said: "Not my *willS,* but Thy Wills; be done."_ LOL!
This is obviously a joke.
The Magisterium's opinion is interesting, but far from infallible. Even when Protestants show how it theologically fails, Catholics will deny it and hold their obviously false beliefs.
However, there are objective things that have been falsified that even Catholics have to admit. For example, History has refuted the doctrine of the Papacy.
- The Shepherd of Hermas nowhere talks about a bishop in Rome, but always refers to leadership in Rome in the PLURAL FORM. Vision 2, 8, 3 clearly states that presbyterS ruled over the church of Rome. This contradicts the modern false belief that there was a a Supreme episkopos (bishop) there. LOL!
- I Clement 42 (a supposed Pope, LOL) clearly states there would be bishopS as leaders and not one monarchical bishop, as does Hermas Vis. 3,5,1.
- Ignatius, WHO WAS A BISHOP APPOINTED BY PETER (Eusebius, Church History 3, 36) talks about many famous Christian authorities of the time, and NEVER EVER mentions A bishop in Rome.
So it is a historical fact, there was not a Supreme Bishop in Rome in the First Century. Sooo, this is the best explanation: When the Church of Rome gained importance they wanted to justify their supremacy with a false narrative. That is why there are so many problems with the narrative:
- Irenaeus says Peter and Paul appointed Linus (Against Heresies Book 3, chp 2-3)
- But Eusebius says Linus was appointed by someone else after Peter's death (Church History, 3, 2) and gives a different list on who was the first bishop.
- Even worse, Tertullian says Clement was the FIRST bishop appointed by Peter (Prescription of the Heretics 32).
@@prime_time_youtube So your point is that the Catholic idea of the papacy and apostolic succession is all false because of a group of carefully selected quotes from a carefully selected writings from carefully selected Church Fathers?
@@RumorHazi You must be kidding. I showed you how the EARLIEST Christian sources clearly state that there was no supreme bishop in Rome in the First Century. They did not even think about it. This is not a careful selection, THESE ARE THE EARLIEST SOURCES!
As you can see, the Church of Rome was presided by multiple presbyters/bishops as the sources clearly state.
Here is a quote from Raymond Brown, the famous Catholic scholar that applied the historical-critical method to study the Bible:
_"The Presbyter-Bishops were not in any traceable way the successors of the twelve apostles [...] the affirmation that the episcopate was divinely established or established by Christ himself can be defended in the nuanced sense that the episcopate gradually emerged in a Church that stemmed from Christ and that this emergence was in the eyes of faith guided by the Holy Spirit."_
Historically speaking, Christ HIMSELF never instituted an apostolic succession, it is a late creation.
Again, *Christ DID NOT talk about apostolic succession, never ever.*
If you want to quote Mat 16, prepared to be destroyed by the Fathers who NEVER thought this was an indication of Apostolic Succession.
Whatever. I’ve responded 4 times and it gets deleted. No idea why.
First, I have the highest respect for the Catholic Church and agree with it the vast majority of the time. I love shows like yours and listen often, and I consider yourself and Catholics in general my brothers and sisters in Christ. A few things, though, kept me from joining.
1)Though I agree that having an authoritative body for scripture interpretation and church governance creates more unity, it doesn't assure accurate interpretation. Of course, letting everyone interpret for themselves doesn't either. But at least it avoids the scenario of being duty-bound to accept a false interpretation (which can happen when any men interpret scripture) lest I be faulted for being at odds with the Church. This can create a horrible dilemma of feeling caught between two divine authorities, scripture and the teaching office of the church. And if you genuinely feel in your conscience that the church's interpretation of scripture is wrong, you are compelled as a Catholic to accept that you must be wrong and the magesterium correct. In that case, isn't the magesterium the highest authority in the church? I can accept prima scriptura over sola scripture. But I can't accept prima ecclesia over prima scriptura.
I'm not implying that my interpretation is more likely to be correct. I'm saying that Truth is separate from anyone's reading of scripture. I may be wrong about many things, and I pray God corrects me. But I don't believe any man is necessarily less prone to the same degree of error.
2) This is a lesser point but one that bugs me. Why does the Church find it necessary to split hairs over various doctrines? For example, transubstantiation. Why is it necessary to be so specific on exactly how Christ is present in the Eucharist? Can't it just be a mystery? Why must people accept a highly specific description of how it occurs as apposed to all others? It just seems like over kill to me. My gut reaction to such a high level of specificity is to question. Do we really know that? How? It seems made up to settle an argument.
3) The Marian dogmas. I actually don't have anything against them as they are articulated. I agree that we protestants should give Mary much more honor than we do. But in practice, it strikes me as idolatrous. If there is one prayer every Catholic knows, it's the Hail Mary, a beautiful prayer. But I hear of it much more than any other from Catholics. It just seems wrong to elevate a prayer to Mary over prayers directly to God. Also, aren't half the Holy Days of obligation about Mary? Same problem. How is it not wrong to emphasize Mary more than Christ?
It seems that Catholics have a view of divinity that is something of a continuum from man to God, while protestants see a chasm between man and God that is only bridged by Christ. I've heard Catholics say that God isn't in competition with his creation. Therefore to honor Mary is ultimately to honor God. But if that's the case, shouldn't paganism be valid?
Your problem is not fully understanding Mary...since the rosary itself points indeed to the life of Christ in a reflective way...it's all about Christ since it lays out Christ's life on earth from birth till death....
1) Catholicism teaches her teaching office/hierarchy has supernatural protection to avoid inserting errors in the faith. Not perfect clerics, not clerics actively doing the right thing, just avoiding error. This is moment where you believe or not. But look around - how many modern Christian churches have avoided women "pastors".
2)Splitting hairs over doctrine matter because what little we know about God as revealed by Christ is complex. And each error ultimately will take people away from Christ and change the culture of the Church. If you don't believe "minor" difficulties lead to big difference, spend a Sunday at a Mass versus a local megachurch. As for Mary, relatively speaking she's popular, but largely privately. The formal litgury of the Church is far more about Jesus, which makes sense. Mass is centered on Christ, not Mary.
@@atrifle8364 Thanks for your response. I've since settled these issues, for the most part, by coming to understand exactly what you've pointed out. I appreciate you sharing. It's encouraging when someone takes the time to provide a thoughtful answer.
I'm actually in RCIA now! Not completely sure I'll join, but I'm leaning closer and closer as time goes on. Family issues with it are the main hesitation. Please pray for me.
This is where faith comes in. Do you believe Christ when he said that even the gates of hell shall not prevail? If yes, then lean not on your own understanding. But lean in Christ and trust he knows what he is doing when he appoints his overseer/pope. For catholics, we dont believe the Pope is Supreme, Christ is supreme. The pope is just his prime minister. Command responsibility is witht he king/jesus.
My priest, the bishop, the pope.. all are in persona christi. They act in the person of christ.
Sunday is a holy day of obligation for Catholics, which is devoted to Christ. So there are many more holy days of obligation devoted to Jesus compared to Mary. Also, you neglected the fact that Catholics also say the "Our Father" and many other prayers regularly, including every Sunday at Mass. Also, there is no obligation to say the Hail Mary of do any other Marian devotions if one does not want to. It is available if one finds it helpful. A good book about the real Catholic teachings on Mary is "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre
I'm so glad the Thief on the Cross had all these answers before He died on the Cross with Jesus
The thief wasn’t saved bc of sola fide, he was saved because he was repentant before his death.
@@stevied3400 Faith.
@@stevied3400Also called faith
The main question is who is Jesus of Nazareth. Saved through Christ, not a church.
I agree with the fact that they disagree on VERY important issues. In relation to baptism, some think that you don't need it at all despite what the Bible says.
Did the thief on the cross get baptized?
The Word “Baptize”: Which baptism is related to salvation?
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
======================================
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14.
Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (Acts 2:36)
@@SpotterVideo 😂 John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
CANNOT ENTER. Makes sense we are born without sanctifying grace which is needed for the kingdom, so we amend that through baptism. I cannot believe your ignorance, doesn't mention water? Oh really. You should probably stop trying to teach theology. While you are at it let's stop pretending like believing in Christ is the ONLY thing you have to do to waltz on in. Clearly it ain't so and the examples don't just end there either since we can lose salvation by becoming the wicked as opposed to remaining just people
@@wesboyce87 Yes he did, there are conditional baptisms it's just not the norm so if he wasn't before than yea. Christ was literally at his side. The Lord obviously understands there could be certain situations albeit rare
@@angelalemos9811 Those women who have had a baby can explain the water that comes forth with the child. Nicodemus was talking about child birth at one point in this passage. What happened when you were "born of the flesh"?
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Trent, these sorts of arguments arent valid, brother. The Scriptures indicate what's essential. If you want to say Protestants can't be certain with regard to their interpretation of what Scripture says is essential, then the Protestant can just say we Catholics can't be certain with regard to our interpretation of what the Church teaches to be essential.
thanks for posting! GBY
That reading from the Second Vatican Counsel was very good. Very clear. Thank you.
council
I’m an evangelical Christian - and I’m so glad I found your channel. Whilst I do believe Sola Scriptura and sola Fide, I believe that is that we are saved by the grace of God if we put faith in him…… works are important, but not what earns us salvation.
I think anyone who believes in Jesus as Lord and as the son of God - it would be strange for them to make a blanket statement saying catholics are not Christian. It is not biblically accurate for those saying scripture and faith alone can rule out Roman Catholics from the faith. Just my thoughts. I’m going to find more of your videos - this was a good watch! Thank you x
“Faith without works is dead” works are mandatory
Not every Catholic believes in Catholicism. But everyone who believes in Catholicism the doctrine believes that anyone not part of the Catholic Church is not saved. I am 100% protestant and the bible is clear that we are saved by the gospel alone but we should see the fruit of the Spirit if or when you are saved.
@WorldsWildestFacts compelled works for fear of missing out on Heaven would be wrong. Works is the result of an inner work done by faith in Christ in the believer, evidenced by the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
@WorldsWildestFacts Did the thief on the cross do any work to be saved or was it just him believing in who Jesus is?
quote---- it would be strange for them to make a blanket statement saying catholics are not Christian. It is not biblically accurate for those saying scripture and faith alone can rule out Roman Catholics from the faith... unquote
>>>CHRISTIAN
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one",
THAT IS NOT MY OPINION. .Written 2000 years ago!!!
Christian--A FOLLOWER of Christ--A FOLLOWER of HIS TEACHINGS!!!
#1--Where in the Bible did Jesus teach to REST on the first day of the week to make that day special?
#2--Where in the Bible did Jesus BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special?
#3--Where in the Bible did Jesus teach that God SANCTIFIED the first day of the week to make that day special?
#4--Where in the Bible dis Jesus say God gave a name to the first day of the week to make that day special?
#5--Where in the Bible dis Jesus teach that God DECLARED the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special?
(Sunday keepers don’t realize that when they keep Sunday holy they are making a day holy that man ordained, not God, by doing that they have violated the 2nd commandment by making an image, they also violate the 4th commandment and the 9th commandment by lying about the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I’m sure you could find a few different commandments that are broken by keeping Sunday. That’s why the Bible says if you break one commandment you break them all. Please open your eyes brothers and sisters that keep Sunday before it is to late!)
#6--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary prayed to/with beads.
#7--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary went to/ will go to heaven.
#8--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary is an mediator/intercessor.
#9--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary remained a virgin all her life.
#10--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary did not sin.
#11--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught a mere man is Head of the church.
#12--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught there are popes in God's kingdom.
#13--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught we are to confess our sins to a priest.
#14--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught there is an "one holy Apolistic church?
#15--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught the seventh day is not the Sabbath.
#16--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Rome is where Jesus will have His headquarters.
#17--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Peter was in Rome.
#18--Quote the Holy Bible that says Jesus taught Mary is the Ark of the covenant.
>>>FACT: I have asked OVER 100 supposed experts on Catholicism to reply to those questions.
All I have received are out of context quotes, told to watch this or that video, or no reply at all!!!
Will you answer them???? At least the first 5 basic questions FROM THE BIBLE.
>>>>
btw:
BIBLE PROPHECY ROME DESTROYED
If the Catholic religion iS the one Jesus taught, then why is it called the "Apostate church"? Why will it be destroyed?
www.soonrussiaattacks.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Rome_Destroyed.htm
>>>>
John 14:6 NIV -
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
So, when a religion teaches what contradicts what Jesus taught, is that religion the truth????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Protestantism simply means 'not Catholic.' Protestantism isn't a 'thing' and therefore 'it' doesn't need uniform beliefs.
Your assessment is partially correct. However, Trent is specifically addressing protestants who say it doesn’t matter that there are major differences in protestant theology because they are united in the ‘essentials.’ They cannot agree on what is ‘essential.’
@@patricklennon5195 No, I am completely correct. Trent argues as though there is something monolithic called Protestantism.
There isn't. Thus, to argue that 'it' or 'they' can't respond to his question is to make an inane argument.
Further, his question is based on a conviction that actually begs the question.
Any Protestant could simply turn the question around and ask, why is it that the splintered 'original church' can't agree on the juridical authority of the Bishop of Rome? Why don't they have a single source of reality?
Similarly, the Mormons could ask the same thing of Catholics. In fact, any identifiable distinct organization could ask the same question of any other group they cared to define for the purpose of asking the question.
@patricklennon5195 you won't find a church that does 100% the same as the other church and believe 100% the same things even if they are all under the same denomination. This is because there is more issues to discuss within the church like predestination, free will, calvinism, molinism, election, God's character and so much more. To say you have to 100% agree with me otherwise you are not a Christian would make you Jesus or perfect basically. That's why as protestants we want to see you argue your perspective biblically and the essentials are not things anyone can have a different form of for example how you are saved
I get tired of all the bickering of doctrines among protestants.
I get tired of Catholics telling me I'm not saved when I was baptized as a teen in the name of the Holy Trinity.
no Catholic should say that, you certainly were saved at the time. Do you remain in Grace though?
@huwhitecat- so what, you believe in “baptism alone”?
I think you can start another Protestant church if you can find at least one prooftext to support that. 😂
So many Protestants told me I wasn’t saved BECAUSE I was Catholic.
@@Crusader33ad They are wrong and they should examine the log in their own eye.
@@mikelopez8564 I believe the plan of salvation that the Church of Christ teaches. In no way is it baptism alone.
God's Plan of Salvation
GOD'S PART
1. The great love of God for man (John 3:16)
2. He gave His Son, Jesus Christ, as the Saviour (Luke 19:10)
3. Sent the Holy Spirit as a guide (John 16:13)
4. Gave the Gospel as "the power" unto salvation (Romans 1:16)
5. Provided atonement by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9)
MAN'S PART
1. Hear the Gospel. (Romans 10:17, John 8:32)
2. Believe the Gospel (Hebrews 11:6, John 20:31)
3. Repent of past sins (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30)
4. Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10, Matthew 10:32)
5. Be Baptized (Galatians 3:27, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)
6. Be faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10)
There is a difference between a main doctrine and an important one. Whether baptism saves infants or not is certainly important, but not essential. A main doctrine is something that determines whether you're a Christian or not. These are the ones that I think make you a Christian(as a Protestant):
1. You believe the Trinity
2. You believe the resurrection
3. You have faith in Jesus as God the Son
It might be an incomplete list if I think about it more, but I think that's it. I'm still not entirely sure whether Roman Catholics(ones that follow all the doctrines) are saved, but I'm leaning towards yes at the moment(I'd have to change my list if it's a no). My main problems with Roman Catholicism are these:
1. The gospel of it. Romans 11:6 is a pretty clear refutation of it, and Ephesians 2:8-10 shows that salvation is by grace through faith, which results in works.
2. The doctrines about Mary that the Roman Catholic church says are required for salvation. They are not supported by scripture. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on this, but I know that 3 of them are the bodily assumption, the perpetual virginity, and the immaculate conception. There is nothing in scripture that supports any of these, and certainly nothing clear. If you believe these three, fine; while I think you're wrong, it's not heretical(but saying you must believe them to be saved is nonsense), though praying to Mary is. It's idolatry.
3. Giving the Roman Catholic church the authority to interpret scripture. Not just to interpret it, but to tell you how you have to interpret it. "But it's tradition" is not an argument. If tradition said that you have to accept whatever the government says, obviously that's wrong, because scripture does not support it. The government frequently says wrong things. If a teaching is wrong, don't accept it. We are supposed to do good, and accepting wrong teachings is bad.
4. Placing tradition over scripture. Kind of the same thing as number 3. If scripture is against tradition, then tradition is wrong. I would cite the verse about how all scripture is profitable for teaching, correction, reproof, etc., but I don't remember what it was and I can't look it up because UA-cam might delete my comment.
I think that's pretty much all I have to say.
So as long as I believe in the Trinity, do I have to believe the Holy Spirit is God?
Trent you are ignoring history if your point is that the Catholic Church is unified in its magisterium teachings. We both know that is not the case.
Agreed.
Give some examples for the benefit of some viewers of Trent's video here.
Even if the Protestant authority structure somewhat worked (clearly doesn’t), it would not mean that authority was legitimate.
The 3rd Reich is the Protestant authority structure. Anyone who denies this is antisemite
If I as a Jew was looking at the wayward "Christians" I would conclude, based on all your different sects, that you are all confused. Clearly the Prophets taught that when the Messiah comes there would be unity under His rule. Jesus never brought this, you all followed Him, and now you have all sorts of murderous division. You can't even agree on Church government.
@@Lambdamale. but there is only one Christian sect, the Catholic Church and there is unity in 1 billion of us today and a continuity throughout the ages.
@@stcolreplover Not true at all. From the very beginning there has been division. It has only become more amplified with the passing of time and fog of history. Roman Catholicism is just one of the many sects that grew out of the early church. The Messiah was supposed to unite everyone. This has NOT happened.
Back when I was Protestant it was obvious to me that Protestants disagreed on many doctrines. And it really bothered me and seemed as evidence that something was wrong. I tried to ignore it, and I think that’s what most of them do.
@@tony1685 Yet Jesus named the 2 greatest commandment.
@@tony1685 wow 1k plus comments, Tony is really out to convert Catholics :o, but at the end the people who truly seek God will be guided to the ultimate truth 🙏 Jesus is faithful to the church he established 🥰
@@tony1685 Tony friend don't bring up the stupid 10 commandment argument it will Bury your protestantism in mere minutes.
Protestants are running a business!!!
@@johnyang1420 That’s true. I used to go to a Calvary Chapel in the early 2000’s, and at one point the pastor meet with a marketing strategist and one of the things they told our pastor to do was change the name of the church to a new upcoming trend like, Elevation, Refuge, Go Church, Compass, etc. Even Baptist churches do this. The all disguise what denomination they are.
Something else to think about, the thief on the cross. He wasn't baptized, didn't receive the sacraments, didn't say the rosary, couldn't go to church, didn't tithe, didn't keep the law, didn't keep the commandments, didn't keep the golden rule, didn't pray to Mary. What happened? He just said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy Kingdom." And Jesus said, "TODAY you will be with me in paradise." Not Limbo, or purgatory, but paradise.
The Catholic Church maintains that prior works are not needed to be justified by faith; Furthermore, being on a cross about to die, he cannot do all that, but he repented, bore his suffering with patience and defended Christ, he did few works as far as he could.
Your right, he could not do anything yet he was saved. The idea of works has anything to do with salvation is dangerous.
@@bg.k.7000 I do not know if you have read my commentary, because even without being able to do physical works, he did works for the few hours he was nailed to the cross after having believed. He repented; he bore his suffering with patience, humility and resignation, as opposed to the evil thief; and he publicly defended Christ.
And what do you think of James 2:24: "24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
@@josedanieIrazo I read all about thieves works on the cross. Matthew 27:44. I wouldn't want to rest on a work like that for salvation.
@@Mdangelo22302 What is happening is that you are not understanding what works mean; it is not mechanizing salvation, like you must do 1 work every hour to be saved; like the thief did 3 works in 3 hours, he was saved. No, that's not it; instead, it's about being congruent in where your faith is, doing the works that you can do with love and mercy, for others or for yourself, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." That is what the thief did, he was not saved because he did exactly 3 works, but because what he did was done out of love; repentance is love, patience is love and defending Christ is love for Christ.
It all boils down to what if you love and are with Christ, for and with Christ you work out of love for others.
Excellent listening! Thanks Trent Horn!
Nice to know. I knew the baptism of infants was one thing they disagree on. Thanks Trent!
The break on which denominations think it's required is which ones still hold on to many Catholic practices (e.g. Anglicans). It's a clear line and he should have pointed that out.
@@christhewritingjester3164 To be blunt, most Protestants believe in Infant Baptism. Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Anglicans all infant baptize. Pentecostals, Anabaptists (namely mennonites and Amish) and Baptists/non-denoms are the only protestants that I can constantly attest to being Protestant that don't baptize infants. The other sects that don't baptize infants are either implicit or explict heretics. Baptists are just objectively a larger demographic than the mainline protestant denominations, regardless of sect.
My wife’s family is non-denominational Protestant. They’re so dissatisfied with mainstream Protestantism that they’re the type likely to start their own house church if they felt so led. Based on my talks with them, I believe they would say that the Holy Spirit is the underlying interpretive authority for a Christian. Thus, if one group doesn’t agree with another on the main things it is because they aren’t really listening to the Holy Spirit as individuals living in humble, sensitive, open community with each other discussing and praying together without some authoritarian structure of one kind or another telling them what to believe or get out.
They’re really down on any kind of institutional Church authority, Protestant one’s especially since that’s the lens through which they view all Christian authorities. They’ve had so many bad experiences with Protestant authority figures in the different churches they have gone to and they just see the Catholic Church’s authority structure as an extreme form of what they already experienced.
It has been very difficult to talk about authority with them. They aren’t afraid to follow their ideas to their logical and extreme conclusions and stick by them. For example, they basically acknowledge that the early Church is the Catholic Church but hold that the Church went off the rails in the first generation even as Paul is preaching to them since human beings are so unreliable.
I’ve been looking for materials to help me more deeply explain the Biblical foundations for an authoritative, institutional, hierarchical Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit as an institution from going off the rails. Do you (or anyone) have any recommendations? So far I have Steve Ray’s book “Upon This Rock” and a handful of golden videos on UA-cam by Brant Pitre.
There was a good talk between Keith Nester and Joe Heschmeyer the other day that could give some food for thought. I think Joe may have a new book out in the topic.
Rod Bennett’s « Four Witnesses » maybe
@Freewhistler…there’s lots of good resources, but lately, anything by Joe Heschmeyer is excellent..his books on the Pope, also “The Early Church Was The Catholic Church” are must reads!
@@tony1685 I appreciate your attempt to help. Sadly, I don’t have time to engage your points. Moreover, God has instructed me in recent years to tend to the people in my own family and communities and not debate people on social media. If you want some engagement on these points I highly recommend Trent’s work on those topics. Matt Fradd’s videos are great too. You might also listen to On the Journey with Matt and Ken. Learn their arguments. Pray. Read the Bible. Use a good concordance. And then talk to the Catholics in your personal life. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Peace be with you.
Check out a book called By What Authority? by Mark Shea. Another good book is the Catholic Controversy by St. Frances de Sales. Also there's a video on the Catholic Truth channel called Catholic Questions for Protestants featuring Steve Ray. It provides a devastating argument against Protestantism and its lack of an authority structure. Takes notes and use the arguments in that video against your friends and family. I'm sure you'll make some progress with them if they're open to the truth.
I’ve currently been thinking about this also. The Protestant church seems to be the most divided “denomination” of Christianity. Great observations and I agree. That’s one major thing that turns me off from Protestantism I grow tired of trying to find a church and they all teach different things. Sola scriptura fails me because I don’t hold all knowledge and the Holy Spirit doesn’t magically endow understanding. We must seek after these things enjoying these videos.
Is it possible that part of your issue with "protestantism" is that you are defining it aa if there is ONE Protestant Church government that is hopelessly divided against itself, when in actuality,, if you broaden the question a bit, there are multitudes of differing Christian Church government that all have their own standards; Rome being oneof them?
Understanding is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
@@Lambdamale. Jesus established ONE, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. Only one. Not tens of thousands.
Jesus' Church has been with us for 1,989 years, having begun in AD 33, at the first Pentecost.
After His resurrection Jesus appeared before the Apostles in the Upper Room where they held the Last Supper. He breathed on them, saying, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Whoever's sins you forgive will be forgiven. Whoever's sins you retain shall be retained. He gave them the authority to guide His Church, forgive the sins of those who confessed to them. Told them to go out and do what He had been doing with them for the previous three and a half years . . . spreading the Gospel.
Jesus gave His ONE Church the authority to preach, teach, interpret scripture, and create doctrine that is bound on Earth and in Heaven. That is the authority represented by the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Every Christian in the first century, and for the first 15 centuries understood this.
I would have been irresponsible for Jesus to have left the Apostles with a Church, and then left them to fend for themselves, and make up stuff as they went along. He left them the ability to be guided by the Holy Spirit in establishing laws, and doctrines that are bound on Earth and in Heaven.
He left them His AUTHORITY. He gave St. Peter the ability to lead His Church in the office of pope. It didn't become known as the papal office for many centuries, but that office, nonetheless, was created by Jesus to be filled by Peter and his successors.
If you believe in the Apostles ability/authority to replace Judas with Matthias as the 12th Apostle, or to accept Paul as an Apostle, then you believe and accept Apostolic succession.
If you believe that Peter had the ability/authority to accept gentiles into Christ's Church without having to be circumcised, or without having to follow the rest of the Mosaic Laws (613 of them in all), then you accept his ability/authority to create doctrine bound on Earth and in Heaven.
@@jeffscully50613 We are 2000 years removed from the early church and much of its true nature in the beginning is subject to much debate. The NT Church was not founded the same way the Jewish Heirarchy was in Leviticus. The Jewish Heirarchy is explicit as to its character whereas the best we can do with the early church is glean the clues as to what it may have looked like.
Nowhere in the NT did Jesus say "Here is the true nature of my church. Peter will be my first Pope, and he will have successors who speak infallible on matters of faith and Morals from now until I return"
This is the conclusion you have drawn from your own gleaning of the clues.
Others may go part way with you and conclude Peter, although pre- eminent, was no greater than any other Apostle.
Still others may accept apostolic succession but reject Papal infallibility.
The Apostolic age was a transitory age. The successors of the Apostles are not the same as the Apostles themselves, nor are the writings of later Fathers as authoritative as the writings if the first century which came down to us by the associates of the Apostles. Thats why the writings we use as canonical are all from the first century. So it's difficult to be dogmatic as to the true nature of the authority of their successors when they didn't really outline it verbatim.
It's complicated even further when you get to the writings of the second century and beginning with Clement itself, (often touted as evidence of the Papacy). The letter itself is written in the name of the Church at Rome as a whole, and not as a Papal Bull. So at best it shows the doctrine of apostolic succession.
It's complicated even further by the Ignatian writings which again, demonstrate Apostolic succession at most. The one phrase regarding Rome holding "the presidency" can also be translated as "which also PRESIDES in the place of the region of Rome...." Such a difference in translation not only muddies the waters but also makes one ask, is the Roman church presiding "in" or "from" the region of Rome? "In" or "from" makes ALL the difference in the world, but even then...it holds less weight than an uncontested phraseology as "who holds the presidency". Lastly, and again...Ignatius doesn't center out the Roman Bishop who "holds the presidency" or "presides" in the region of Rome; he centers out the Church as a whole. So again...I would need to clarify with Ignatius on this.
Irenaeus unfortunately doesn't help us either, because not only is the very passage that Roman apologists use to prove the Papacy very contested (due to its being open to multiple translations), but it isn't at all what we would expect to find used as proof of the Papacy. We cannot forget that Irenaeus mentions the church of Rome being founded on BOTH PETER AND PAUL. at best you can say, well Peter's name is first, but we have to admit the argument would be stronger IF Paul's name was dropped all together. Furthermore if you read a few more sections, you see Irenaeus referring doctrinal disputes not to Rome, but generally speaking, ANY church which was "most ancient...with which the Apostles held constant intercourse".(3:4:1)...
Do I mention how the entire Eastern block of the Church of Asia was going to walk away over the Easter controversy when threatened with excommunication from Bishop Victor in 180, quoting Peter himself saying "better men than us have said, we must obey God rather than man"....(Eusebuis) .....
So yes....Christ founded a Church. But the more I look into it, the more it appears to me, the true nature of what it is supposed to be is lost in the fog of history.
Your entire apologetic (this applies to all of us) is the product of your own fallible interpretation of scripture and history. It is just one of billions of private interpretations of the early church. The Roman church is just one of thousands of possibilities for what the nature of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church could've looked like. Whether the first 1500 years of church history resembled your model, is highly suspect, even moreso when you take all the fraudulent documents into account Rome produced. It's a mess.
There is no Protestant church. There are many Christian churches that disagree with each other.
Now, you should know that there is a lot of division among Catholics also. The only difference is that you don't want to recognize it
Can we all just get baptized, take communion, accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, repent and try to do better, perform good works of service, and trust the Bible but recognize no one is going to 100% understand the Bible perfectly and all we can do is put our heart in the right place?
The labels don’t matter.
I was infant baptized in a catholic church. I am a protestant now, and I truly believe that this is legitimate, even though It was done born into a Roman catholic family. Also what this gentleman is talking about mostly generalities. I know that protestants are more dispersed than Roman catholic institutions. We need to be in tune with our own soul, no matter what kind of religious family we are born in. After a while, at one point in an individuals life, a person needs to come to grips about who they really are, which is a sinner,and seek out on their own what they need to do to be saved, which is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. And to put their faith, hope,and trust in Him, and Him alone. As a young man I was confused about a lot of things, and went astray at a young age, even though I was born into a religious family, and church, which I attended every Sunday for mass,like my dad. As for this gentleman, who is saying that protestants don't always agree on everything, that could be true. And if this gentleman believes in the apocrypha,to be sacred, and included along with the 66 books that the majority of Christians believe are the only ones to be regarded as Divinely inspired by God, that is his right. But most true Christians do not believe that additional books, like the Roman catholic apocryphal, belong to the sacred Canon.
Truly, if one desires to be a Catholic that person should read the catechism to see what the church's beliefs are.
@@tony1685
Tony,
The comment was referring at those who want to know what the Catholic Church founded by Christ teaches, not what is in the Bible. That's a separate activity where the Church also guides you to the truth of what the Bible says by its biblical responses according to the subject in the Catechism.
May God bless your discernment
@Judy Swiderski
Judy, I agree totally.
Ignore the "protesting" trolls.
God bless.
@@tony1685
Tony,
Sorry you feell frustrated. Being a protestant makes you an outsider of the one true Church. Don't ignore the FACT that the doctrine you love so much: "Sola Scriptura", is an invention by a person with no apostolic authority, Martin Luther. The sad thing is you are unable to see it as the illusion that it is.
I hope you are able to reflect on that.
May God bless your discernment.
@@tony1685
Read the Catechism for yourself. See what it teaches. Some suggest that child's version may be more easily understood.
One Pope declared that there was no sslvation outside of the RCC. This was affirmed in the council of Trent
Read and see how they explain that Mary is the mother of God.
Yes, they say, of the eternal (no beginning) God.
In 1958 they began to celebrate the feast of the assumption. Mary's assumption into heaven.
Why did they need it? Because they taught that Mary was sinless.
@@joecastillo8798
Thank you for your comment. From it I can only surmise that you have not read all of it.
The RCC believes that it is the only way to heaven. This was officially stated by a Pope many years ago and verified by the council of Trent.
Did you read their reasoning on why Mary is the mother of God?
The eternal, having no beginning, God.
In 1958 the estsblidhed the feast of the Assumption. Why? Becajse Mary was born sinless and thefefore could not die. Otherwise how could she carry Jesus in her womb? Q. How could her mother carry her?
I was sent a catechism some years ago. It stated that Mary was born with sin but...
The RCC stzfds thst Jesus quoged the Septuagint. Read the article called, What is the Septuagint? It is proven to be written after Jesus walked this earth to be a perfect sinless sacrifice for our vile filthy sins.
It seems like you’re saying a pretty sophisticated intellectual understanding is required for salvation, which I have a hard time with. I think those who are maybe incapable of articulating something like the doctrine of the hypostatic union can still respond to the call of God and be saved. I get frustrated by the excessive hair splitting over how to be saved. It’s good news, right? Why is it so confusing then? I’ve gotten to the point where I have no idea what is specifically required of me to meet the criteria, so I’m just resorting to living my life in accordance with how I think Jesus would want me to live in response to the love he showed me. Since Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox and Anglicans, etc. cannot ever make a truly final, airtight argument for their particular branch being the only true church, I just choose to stay where I’m at, in the church tradition I’ve been in my whole life, and live my life as well as I can for God. I think my understanding is sufficient to enable me to be a willing instrument for the kingdom and I trust that the rest is in God’s hands.
What would make this argument between Catholicism vs Protestantism easier to weigh would be if the protestant denominations had a unified authority to debate against Catholics with. The point of this video is obviously to show the confusion and disorganization that has come about due to the litany of differences between protestant and other sects emerging with their own unique theologies over time. This is just one of the reasons why I love the Catholic church so much, because I don't have to wonder, as a Catholic there is no struggle between small theological differences because the Catholic church is unified under one authority. It will be impossible for the protestants to ever surpass the Catholic church in influence because they embrace the falsehood that their personal interpretation of the gospel is more important than the one that the authority above them that has laid out. Thus, they will never unify and will continue to splinter.
Thank you for the video!
I will say, I honestly just wish (as a Protestant myself) wish that the church from the very beginning never broke up and just stuck with scripture and we wouldn’t be battling all the time. I think if we founded everything on that, by technicality, I would be catholic myself. The only thing holding me back from Catholicism has been the papacy and a a few other dogmas. But I think both sides should always be open to hearing each other out
What about the papacy and other dogmas do you disagree with?
It was Catholic Church under Pope Damasus that compiled the bible especially New Testament: Councils of Carthage and Hippo. As it says in bible: the Church is the pilar and foundation of truth!
I've always had questions about Protestants refusing to baptize babies. If you are saved by "faith alone" (not baptism), what about young children who are not old enough to really understand what that entails? Are they not saved?
And if there is an explanation for why young children can be saved even though they don't have the requisite faith, is that explanation for the exception found somewhere in scripture?
EDIT: I thought I would edit this comment since it received a few replies, and none really addressed my question (most seem to be focused on infant baptism).
Leave infant baptism aside. This is my question: if you believe that faith in Christ as your saviour is a necessary element for you to be saved, then what happens to children who are too young to believe in Christ who pass away? My issue is that, if it is true that there is a faith alone requirement that you have to hold a very specific belief in your mind (that Christ is your saviour), children who can't speak yet or are incapable of holding this belief would not be "saved".
I am just interested in an answer. Is there an exception for children who can't understand yet? And if so, what is that exception based on? I am not interested in debating whether or not infant baptism is proper.
Baptism replaced ritual circumcision for male Jewish babies eight days after they were born. Catholics have baptized infants from the beginning because the first Cstholics were also Jews.
Infant Baptism is in the Bible.
Acts 2:38-39.. Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ
39: For the promise is for you, ***for your children*** and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.
Dan,
A look at s ripture will show why Paul did not puxh for unnecessary infant baptism.
Romans 7:8-9
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscience. For without the law sin was dead.
For i was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
He was innocent before he reached the age of accountability.
Sin was dead in him.
But when he understood it he sinned and died spiritually.
Read the question. The question was about protestants believing it isn't baptism that saves but having some kind of certain view or belief in Jesus as your savior. My point was that young children who can't speak obviously can't believe in or understand Christ. So how are they "saved"?
Please take note that there is a difference between being saved and receiving eternal life. What is shown in Scripture is that salvation is principal to be saved from the system called the world (kosmos) that is equivalent to the realm of darkness and also called the perverted/twisted generation which refers mainly to religion while eternal life is in contrast to perishing forever or second death. If you really want to know more and enjoy Christ as your life, I will be more than glad to write to you. My email is: varelaadrian@hotmail.com. GBY!!! 2Cor.13.14
As a Christian raised in the Protestant Methodist tradition, baptized in water, I felt called to become a member of a Quaker meeting when I moved to anew city. I have been a member of an underground church in China, and I have a deep love for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Chruch. I so hope that we can heal all schisms one day. But as long as we clamor for positions of power over one another, that will never happen. Catholics and Orthodox are responsible for the breakdown in the unity of the Church, it is in the great schism that the seeds for a protestant revolution was sewed. The Chair of St Peter became arrogant, unwilling to share authority with the Eastern Churches. Language and culture played a part here too. The Eastern Churches, only saw the Chair of St Peter as first among equals. Today with our moder understanding of how language and culture can muddle understanding, we must at times rely of the Spirit to bridge the gap between our own fallibility, and our traditions which can get in the way of our fellowship with one another. I pray that I would certainly have the courage to give my life to save an non believer, let alone my catholic brothers and sisters whose faith and ministry I draw so much strength from. The reason I sit with the Quakers in silence, is because I ache at the arrogance of all churches, the way we have split from or excommunicated one another. It is truly sad, but I must believe that God has allowed it to teach his people and He will one day bring us all together again. I long for the simplest form of Faith. No Church in my opinion can offer that, only relationship with God the Father, through Christ Jesus, and baptism in the Holy Spirit. However, I love the Catholic and Orthodox Mass. I am thankful for the traditions of the Eastern and Latin Church. I respect the Pope, both the Chair of St Peter and the Orthodox Leaders, but also the great protestant teachers, many of whom have live a life that is proof of the saving love of Jesus. I mean what do we say about Messianic Jews who feel called to keep Kosher but also believe in Jesus? Are they not closer to the original approach to faith of the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem than any of us could ever be? Maybe I am wrong but to me the emergence of messianic Jewish congregations might be the thing that draws the churches closer together one day. Who knows. Of course, we have differences, but we need to always approach each other with humility, because it is our Pride and our abuse of authority which has led to division in the Church, yet even these things God uses for His glory. The salvation and life that is in Christ is present in many Churches, in the Orthodox believers, the Coptic faithful and Protestant believers, and in Catholic life. I imagine if Jesus walked into the Vatican today, he would have a few tables to overturn. He would do the same to Protestants as well. We have all fallen short, the divisions in the Church are also a result of time, language and culture, but the Holy Spirit is still evident in the lives of Christians regardless of denomination. What if one day, all Churches are destroyed, all worship is banned, all believers in Christ hunted, will not these divisions fall away as the faithful are left no Choice but to love one another? One thing a Protestant does not normally claim is that the movement is The Only Church. It is a movement, it is flawed. But a mature protestant can at least see how the Orthodox and Catholic views are flawed. What traditions do we have that distract us from Jesus? Has the meaning of veneration of Mary been distorted by time and practice in such a way that she is but an idol replacing Isis to some, but Theotokos to others? I see no evidence in first and second century Church tradition for Mary remaining a virgin or being immaculately conceived herself, or acending to heaven, yet I do not have a problem with her veneration if she assists us in feeling closer to God, just as with the life on any saint, although she is special. However, the veneration of Mary the Theotokos is not, I think, vital for Christian faith. I can even be a distraction if done improperly. Can we not find a middle ground on the issues that are not central to Christian life first? For me the Church is made up of those who have a relationship with Christ, who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, the denomination is irrelevant because God is bigger than our silly denominations. Yet at the same time, I hope that one day we could all celebrate the eucharist together. I have no problem believing that the eucharist is the blood and body of Christ, but I think it can be made available to us in a Catholic mass, an orthodox mass, a methodist communion and even through silent contemplation without any physical elements. That must be the Quaker/Methodist talking, but what i want to say is I love you my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters and I wish to learn from you.
If you’re eager to learn begin here:
The official teaching of the Catholic Church (as stated by Trent) is that the sacrament of baptism infuses spiritual life in the adult or infant which is baptized.
Christ, however, said this:
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
No infant believes (Protestant interpretation) or consumes the bread and wine (Catholic interpretation). They do neither; so according to Christ there is no life in them (until they do). Choose whom you will believe.
While I definitely think you have a point, and I understand that there's a historical grouping of Protestantism as a whole, something about comparing the views of one church with multiple church's views and saying look catholicism has an answer for this when protestants don't feels unfair. But each of the churches does have an answer, there wouldn't be multiple denominations if there was complete agreement. You can easily take it a step further back and say look at this question Christians can't answer cause the Catholics and Baptists and Presbyterians and etc all have different views, with the implication that you shouldn't join because of that division.
It is unfair and he commonly likes to blanket Protestantism because he doesn’t understand we don’t have a single authority like the Pope. You can blanket Catholicism by going back to their canon laws that they lean on.