This was a light switch moment for me when I saw how the themes of the “reformation” consistently carried out to their logical end lead to the enlightenment and the various political revolutions to come. Ive been a hardcore Calvinist for 20 years but am now planning to enter the Catholic Church. Protestantism leads to chaos, endless schisms, and ultimately the disintegration of society as a whole. Catholicism is orderly, rooted, and in harmony with the Logos of all things.
The 'hocus pocus" (Hoc est Corpus Meum) sneer, so often used by atheists, is increasingly used by "Bibleists" - ignoring the fact that Luther absolutely believed in the real presence. Q: What has happened to Protestantism since the 1500s? It has become unrecognizable.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Hmmm… Where is your charity? LOL. You are correct about Protestantism not having all the truth that they claim, but if we are not the image of Jesus, we are just as wrong, but in a different way. Immerse yourself in the life of Jesus, through the Gospels and you will not become so religiously defensive. Q. If the Reformation was so wrong, why was there a Counter Reformation within the Church and why are we now divided about V2?
. We're just as wrong? How did you arrive at that? The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus started and the Holy Spirit maintains. Wholeheartedly believing that means someone is correct. Not incorrect, regardless of them being in the "image of Jesus"
@djpodesta So not going to answer? The question had to do with the confidence you have in your belief you shared. You made a strong statement. I'm wondering how you arrived at it.
@@djpodestaFirst, the Protestants permanently cut themselves off from the church AND HER TEACHINGS. This is the key part *TEACHING* The catholic reformation was about bringing all of her clergymen and priests BACK into alignment with her teaching. None of it involved altering her teachings, but it did involve putting more boundaries up, using more discernment in discipline and practices, and increasing education of priests so ignorance didn’t lead to heresies. That is totally different than claiming that the teachings of an entire council is heresy. If you think that, you are the Protestant who think the Holy Spirit has failed to preserve his church through the TEACHING of the church.
I just hate it when they attack Mary out of spiteful hatred, and proceed to lecture Catholics about what the bible is for or against, when Protestants pick and choose what to believe out of the bible...
Protestants seem to suffer from selective hearing & sight, they cherry pick what they like & avoid what challenges them. I also believe that by not receiving Grace via His sacraments that they suffer from darkened intellects which impacts their judgement.
Every "end times prophet", every "rapture" fanatic, in truth every single non-Catholic with a bible has the "secret" to salvation. I am trying to link up two UA-cam odd-balls for some scintillating conversation: one who believes that the 10 Commandments and Gospels are to be disregarded, and only Paul to be read. The other can "prove" that Paul was a heretic with a false gospel. It's like the line from Dire Strait's song, Industrial Disease: "Two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong"
Not just “secret” knowledge, but divorcing all internal belief and spiritual growth from any physical expressions of it. It’s all in the heart and there’s nothing allowed to express it physically.
@@vinciblegaming6817 If faith is not made manifest then it is no more than a thought process. St. John the Baptist counseled, "Bear fruit befitting repentance" Matthew 3:8-10
“I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.” The Marburg Colloquy
Was a member of the atheist religion for almost 35 years. This year has been spent trying to find the true Jesus, the true bible, and the true church. Honestly, the protestant and the evangelist still bother my heart, but not as bad as the islam or catholic. Yhank you for the information.
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
It's a meaningful thing to get the old arguments out of circulation, or to get them assigned to a done and handled category. But it doesn't mean that any argument against Catholic propositions or for Protestant positions can be described as "arguing like an atheist." Catholics, for example, agree with the actual use of-and framework of-sola scriptura... until that term is used. The Protestant position is literally that scripture must be interpreted according to orthodox hermeneutics, history, the church fathers, and just about all (if not all) of the same methods that the Catholic church used to arrive at positions on many/most core scriptures. I'm a theologian trained at a Baptist school (though not a Baptist myself), and we were taught the Catholic approach because it was and is the universal approach. Anti-Catholics don't like this, but Catholics don't acknowledge it. So, it's an artificial separation based on Catholics hating reformers and Protestants finding Catholics to have created positions outside of the scriptural framework.
Your description of Protestantism does not compute. Everything you recite was quickly cherry-picked and quote-mined to death by individual "reform" leaders in order to derive a novel and personally acceptable doctrine. The very concept of the protest equated to chaos from early on, its DNA being the human ego. Nevertheless, Pandora's box was opened and theological entropy quickly ensued, devolving Christianity into near meaninglessness.
@@FranzBazar I got it the way I said it. The Catholic church believes that the scripture is authoritative and is divinely inspired. It's profoundly important and is the word of God. Catholic teaching says this, and that no doctrine of the church, no dogma, can controvert or be in conflict with or supercede scripture. And, the church worked to theologically identify and preserve with integrity that scripture because of its authority that the church doesn't deny, but affirms alongside its own authority. That's so close to sola scriptura the way it's actually taught and used in Protestant theology. I can say that as a theologian trained at a Baptist school, though I don't fly that flag. That may not be the way the loudest proponents take it, but it's the actual truth.
@@HAL9000-su1mz And the response by the church was immediately, and has never stopped being, human ego. Pride. And it was NOT the only instance of that particular Pandora's box being opened. But Luther was a huge personality at a time when the critiques came to a head with an easy individual to pin it on. He was a mess. He became more of one when rejected by the church he loved enough to risk it all. And Christianity has never devolved into meaninglessness.
My goodness. This opening of this argument is scraping the bottom of the barrel regarding comparisons between Protestantism and Atheism. We Catholics refer to science before we accept a miracle. We even use a scientific argument for the Priest withdrawing the wine from the Laity. Luther and Calvin were wrong on some of their beliefs, just as the Church is wrong in places. Why are our modern apologists straying from the teachings of past apologists? - They are basically Reformed Catholic Protestants, denying their protests; yet straying in their teachings nonetheless. All religious people need to be careful the way that they argue. But to claim something as demonic, without showing how the demon turned a believer from believing in Christ is just plain superstitious ignorance.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I think that I will give the comment that I see as fitting the content. You don’t have to read my comment if it gives you ants in your pants. I am not the one who made the argument.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Waiting? Head to your safe space for reassurance… the confessional. I am tired of know all - know nothing people who back bite others and expect everything on a plate for them to devour; pretending they are Holy and righteous; yet blind to their own hypocrisy. If I am so anti Catholic, then I must be a devil for you to avoid…. BOO! Run to the safety of your butt pleasing (failed ex-Protestant) superstars… and lap up every word that they drop to gain an audience that they use to build their lifestyles (at your expense) because you are too lazy to immerse yourself in the practices of your own faith… drive through religion. As a caveat. Have you noticed how your idol hasn’t even the conscience to inquire why a fellow believer would make the comment that I have shared here?
I am Protestant, not a cessationist, I believe in miracles, but not in the Marian apparitions. The problem with this "you argue like atheists" logic is this: "Because Protestants believe in the resurrection, they are therefore required to believe in every extra-Biblical apparition/group miracle claim, otherwise they are arguing against their own belief in the resurrection, like atheists." The reason we believe in the resurrection is because it is very clearly in Scripture. The reason we do not believe in the Marian Dogmas (except for theotokos) is because they are not clearly in Scripture. We are being consistent, not inconsistent. We believe in miracles, but not in establishing new doctrine on the basis of such claims alone.
@@henrybayard6574The Scriptural evidence supports the fact that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after the birth of Jesus. This is a normal reading of Scripture. There is also nothing about her assumption and her immaculate conception. These doctrines are built on typology (for instance, Mary as the new Eve, Mary as the Ark of the Covenant). Typology is good and helpful to support doctrines that are clear in other Scriptures. But typology is too subjective to establish and require doctrines on that basis alone.
@@jmferris542 The reason I asked this was because your spiritual leaders Martin Luther, John Calvin, John wesley ALL believed in it. They believed in sola scriptura which means that that belief was based on scripture!!
@@henrybayard6574 Yes Luther and Wesley believed in the perpetual virginity, and Calvin basically did but also didn't seem to want to defend it dogmatically. Here's Calvin: "He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place *afterwards*, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." The Reformation was not a "one and done" event. Luther and Calvin were Catholic and Wesley was Anglican (Anglicans still hold to the PV). So they are men who were devout and these ideas had a strong hold. It took centuries to sort through traditions which had taken centuries to develop and become deeply rooted. In addition, the perpetual virginity question is actually, as Calvin said, just a "question of curiosity." I'm not sure why Mary and Joseph's marital life is such a huge issue or fear. And in addition, perpetual virginity requires some strange work-arounds to explain how Mary delivered Jesus without compromising her virginity, as the first century Jews would have believed. It's as if a normal upbringing in a normal family would just be too human for Christ's humanity. But it's not really worth the disputation. What concerns us more are the Marian devotions and excesses, people praying for her protection and "consecrating their lives to her" and so forth. This is far more troubling.
@@jmferris542 Thanks for the concession as to the reformers and their views. Ultimately I'm interested in explaining certain of these dogmas. The next dogma is her immaculate conception. You mentioned earlier that typology was used too much regarding Mary is that correct??
Or atheists argue like Protestants! …. Look I’m sick of all these RC videos bashing Protestants… the RC’s have plenty of stuff to sort out in their own house.Jesus is Lord
In 1 John 5:1, it starts off with “whosoever”, not Peter. So Peter is not the only one who confesses Jesus is the Christ. Since my comment keeps getting deleted, I am responding here. Matthew 16 says nothing about pope, infallibility, nor succession, that is doing eisegesis to the text. The point is not to show the truth was revealed to Peter first, as we see in John 1:40-42 Andrew told Peter Jesus was the Christ, but this was based on flesh and blood. In Matthew 16, this time, the Father revealed to Peter Jesus was the Christ. This is based on the spirit, not flesh and blood. 1 John 5:1 hints to us what happened to Peter. The rest of the apostles also experienced this, except for Judas. As we see in Matthew 16:20, Jesus told them not to tell anyone. So those who experienced the inner change, also had the keys amongst the apostles as we see later on, in Matthew 18:18. The term binding and loosing only applied to the house of Israel, not Gentiles. Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, never used the phrase "binding and loosing". He used the phrase "grafted in". You can't bind and loosen what is not already there. This discontinued with the house of Israel, binding and loosing, when the sign in the sky occurred on May 2, AD66. They house became desolate just a few years after the temple was destroyed, on September 22, AD73 during their last Yom Teruah, fulfilling Matthew 23:36, 38, 1 Thessalonians 4:16. You are right, you keep bumping into me, and you never seem to know what you are talking about Matthew.
Hello again sir! Seem to run into you quite a bit on the interwebs lol. I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to show. The point of Matthew 16 is that this truth was revealed to Peter before any of the other disciples, and that Jesus gives him the keys and the power to loose and bind, which flows from Peter to the rest of the Church. It was first revealed to Peter, then through him and the Apostles to us. So the fact that all of us now have this truth revealed to us does nothing to disprove the Papacy. :D
![SAINTS and the Protestant ONE MEDIATOR Argument [1 Tim. 2:5]](/img/n.gif)
This was a light switch moment for me when I saw how the themes of the “reformation” consistently carried out to their logical end lead to the enlightenment and the various political revolutions to come.
Ive been a hardcore Calvinist for 20 years but am now planning to enter the Catholic Church. Protestantism leads to chaos, endless schisms, and ultimately the disintegration of society as a whole. Catholicism is orderly, rooted, and in harmony with the Logos of all things.
The 'hocus pocus" (Hoc est Corpus Meum) sneer, so often used by atheists, is increasingly used by "Bibleists" - ignoring the fact that Luther absolutely believed in the real presence.
Q: What has happened to Protestantism since the 1500s? It has become unrecognizable.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Hmmm… Where is your charity? LOL.
You are correct about Protestantism not having all the truth that they claim, but if we are not the image of Jesus, we are just as wrong, but in a different way.
Immerse yourself in the life of Jesus, through the Gospels and you will not become so religiously defensive.
Q. If the Reformation was so wrong, why was there a Counter Reformation within the Church and why are we now divided about V2?
. We're just as wrong? How did you arrive at that? The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus started and the Holy Spirit maintains.
Wholeheartedly believing that means someone is correct. Not incorrect, regardless of them being in the "image of Jesus"
@@Michael-pw2td I am glad that you have such confidence in your own beliefs. Blessings.
@djpodesta So not going to answer? The question had to do with the confidence you have in your belief you shared. You made a strong statement. I'm wondering how you arrived at it.
@@djpodestaFirst, the Protestants permanently cut themselves off from the church AND HER TEACHINGS.
This is the key part *TEACHING*
The catholic reformation was about bringing all of her clergymen and priests BACK into alignment with her teaching. None of it involved altering her teachings, but it did involve putting more boundaries up, using more discernment in discipline and practices, and increasing education of priests so ignorance didn’t lead to heresies.
That is totally different than claiming that the teachings of an entire council is heresy. If you think that, you are the Protestant who think the Holy Spirit has failed to preserve his church through the TEACHING of the church.
They make arguments from silence and from their pre conceived ideas 💡. I’m praying big time for all my Protestant friends to become Catholic ❤
I just hate it when they attack Mary out of spiteful hatred, and proceed to lecture Catholics about what the bible is for or against, when Protestants pick and choose what to believe out of the bible...
Let’s wrap it all up in one - how do you attain salvation?
@@_ROMANS_116, by God’s grace through our faith that works through our love of God and of our neighbor... right?
@@voxangeli9205 no
@@_ROMANS_116 Let's wrap it up is Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos) or not?
@@_ROMANS_116, why no? Show it to me why it's a no.
The continuous line of miracles now with added scientific proof is a signpost to the validity of the Catholic Church.
Protestants seem to suffer from selective hearing & sight, they cherry pick what they like & avoid what challenges them.
I also believe that by not receiving Grace via His sacraments that they suffer from darkened intellects which impacts their judgement.
@@geoffjs Protestantism involves Christ, but is founded on the individual human ego.
Thank you for promoting Catholicism with your content I really appreciate the effort you put in.
I have seen connections between Protestantism and Gnosticism
Every "end times prophet", every "rapture" fanatic, in truth every single non-Catholic with a bible has the "secret" to salvation. I am trying to link up two UA-cam odd-balls for some scintillating conversation: one who believes that the 10 Commandments and Gospels are to be disregarded, and only Paul to be read. The other can "prove" that Paul was a heretic with a false gospel.
It's like the line from Dire Strait's song, Industrial Disease: "Two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong"
Calvinism is semi Manachean.. so don’t be suprised
Not just “secret” knowledge, but divorcing all internal belief and spiritual growth from any physical expressions of it. It’s all in the heart and there’s nothing allowed to express it physically.
@@vinciblegaming6817 If faith is not made manifest then it is no more than a thought process. St. John the Baptist counseled, "Bear fruit befitting repentance" Matthew 3:8-10
@@HAL9000-su1mzLOL. Funny. Protestantism is illogical, unhistorical, and unbiblical. But it can’t even get past the “test of logic.”
“I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.” The Marburg Colloquy
Was a member of the atheist religion for almost 35 years. This year has been spent trying to find the true Jesus, the true bible, and the true church.
Honestly, the protestant and the evangelist still bother my heart, but not as bad as the islam or catholic.
Yhank you for the information.
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
The miracle doubters mustn't have read John 14:12.
Grazie di cuore.
It's a meaningful thing to get the old arguments out of circulation, or to get them assigned to a done and handled category. But it doesn't mean that any argument against Catholic propositions or for Protestant positions can be described as "arguing like an atheist." Catholics, for example, agree with the actual use of-and framework of-sola scriptura... until that term is used. The Protestant position is literally that scripture must be interpreted according to orthodox hermeneutics, history, the church fathers, and just about all (if not all) of the same methods that the Catholic church used to arrive at positions on many/most core scriptures. I'm a theologian trained at a Baptist school (though not a Baptist myself), and we were taught the Catholic approach because it was and is the universal approach. Anti-Catholics don't like this, but Catholics don't acknowledge it. So, it's an artificial separation based on Catholics hating reformers and Protestants finding Catholics to have created positions outside of the scriptural framework.
That's not right at all. Catholics don't agree with anything whatsoever about Sola Scriptura, I'm not sure Where you got that.
Your description of Protestantism does not compute. Everything you recite was quickly cherry-picked and quote-mined to death by individual "reform" leaders in order to derive a novel and personally acceptable doctrine. The very concept of the protest equated to chaos from early on, its DNA being the human ego. Nevertheless, Pandora's box was opened and theological entropy quickly ensued, devolving Christianity into near meaninglessness.
@@FranzBazar Neither do the Orthodox! They categorically rejected the 'reform' independently of the Catholic Church 500 years ago. And rightly so.
@@FranzBazar I got it the way I said it. The Catholic church believes that the scripture is authoritative and is divinely inspired. It's profoundly important and is the word of God. Catholic teaching says this, and that no doctrine of the church, no dogma, can controvert or be in conflict with or supercede scripture. And, the church worked to theologically identify and preserve with integrity that scripture because of its authority that the church doesn't deny, but affirms alongside its own authority. That's so close to sola scriptura the way it's actually taught and used in Protestant theology. I can say that as a theologian trained at a Baptist school, though I don't fly that flag. That may not be the way the loudest proponents take it, but it's the actual truth.
@@HAL9000-su1mz And the response by the church was immediately, and has never stopped being, human ego. Pride. And it was NOT the only instance of that particular Pandora's box being opened. But Luther was a huge personality at a time when the critiques came to a head with an easy individual to pin it on. He was a mess. He became more of one when rejected by the church he loved enough to risk it all. And Christianity has never devolved into meaninglessness.
Does the Catholic Church teach that you need to follow the 10 commandments to gain salvation?
Why do you always ask the same question in everyone’s videos? Stick to the topic of the videos.
@@NuLeif I can never get an answer. Can you help
@Lone_BrotherinChrist no. I don’t know who that is. What’s the deal?
@Lone_BrotherinChrist oh heck no. That’s all jacked up as well. Very few really understand the Bible rightly divided! Grace and peace
My goodness. This opening of this argument is scraping the bottom of the barrel regarding comparisons between Protestantism and Atheism.
We Catholics refer to science before we accept a miracle. We even use a scientific argument for the Priest withdrawing the wine from the Laity.
Luther and Calvin were wrong on some of their beliefs, just as the Church is wrong in places.
Why are our modern apologists straying from the teachings of past apologists? - They are basically Reformed Catholic Protestants, denying their protests; yet straying in their teachings nonetheless.
All religious people need to be careful the way that they argue.
But to claim something as demonic, without showing how the demon turned a believer from believing in Christ is just plain superstitious ignorance.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I think that I will give the comment that I see as fitting the content.
You don’t have to read my comment if it gives you ants in your pants.
I am not the one who made the argument.
Hey, aren't you a so-called "catholic", i.e. Lutheran? Tell the truth. I recognize your trolling.
Waiting......
@@HAL9000-su1mz Waiting? Head to your safe space for reassurance… the confessional.
I am tired of know all - know nothing people who back bite others and expect everything on a plate for them to devour; pretending they are Holy and righteous; yet blind to their own hypocrisy.
If I am so anti Catholic, then I must be a devil for you to avoid…. BOO! Run to the safety of your butt pleasing (failed ex-Protestant) superstars… and lap up every word that they drop to gain an audience that they use to build their lifestyles (at your expense) because you are too lazy to immerse yourself in the practices of your own faith… drive through religion.
As a caveat. Have you noticed how your idol hasn’t even the conscience to inquire why a fellow believer would make the comment that I have shared here?
@@HAL9000-su1mz Waiting? For the powerlessly joyless to explode? Nah… My comment stands and you can be upset by it. Truth over-rides feelings.
I am Protestant, not a cessationist, I believe in miracles, but not in the Marian apparitions. The problem with this "you argue like atheists" logic is this: "Because Protestants believe in the resurrection, they are therefore required to believe in every extra-Biblical apparition/group miracle claim, otherwise they are arguing against their own belief in the resurrection, like atheists."
The reason we believe in the resurrection is because it is very clearly in Scripture. The reason we do not believe in the Marian Dogmas (except for theotokos) is because they are not clearly in Scripture. We are being consistent, not inconsistent. We believe in miracles, but not in establishing new doctrine on the basis of such claims alone.
Do you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary as biblical??
@@henrybayard6574The Scriptural evidence supports the fact that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after the birth of Jesus. This is a normal reading of Scripture. There is also nothing about her assumption and her immaculate conception. These doctrines are built on typology (for instance, Mary as the new Eve, Mary as the Ark of the Covenant). Typology is good and helpful to support doctrines that are clear in other Scriptures. But typology is too subjective to establish and require doctrines on that basis alone.
@@jmferris542 The reason I asked this was because your spiritual leaders Martin Luther, John Calvin, John wesley ALL believed in it. They believed in sola scriptura which means that that belief was based on scripture!!
@@henrybayard6574 Yes Luther and Wesley believed in the perpetual virginity, and Calvin basically did but also didn't seem to want to defend it dogmatically. Here's Calvin:
"He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place *afterwards*, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."
The Reformation was not a "one and done" event. Luther and Calvin were Catholic and Wesley was Anglican (Anglicans still hold to the PV). So they are men who were devout and these ideas had a strong hold. It took centuries to sort through traditions which had taken centuries to develop and become deeply rooted. In addition, the perpetual virginity question is actually, as Calvin said, just a "question of curiosity." I'm not sure why Mary and Joseph's marital life is such a huge issue or fear. And in addition, perpetual virginity requires some strange work-arounds to explain how Mary delivered Jesus without compromising her virginity, as the first century Jews would have believed. It's as if a normal upbringing in a normal family would just be too human for Christ's humanity. But it's not really worth the disputation. What concerns us more are the Marian devotions and excesses, people praying for her protection and "consecrating their lives to her" and so forth. This is far more troubling.
@@jmferris542 Thanks for the concession as to the reformers and their views. Ultimately I'm interested in explaining certain of these dogmas. The next dogma is her immaculate conception. You mentioned earlier that typology was used too much regarding Mary is that correct??
Or atheists argue like Protestants! …. Look I’m sick of all these RC videos bashing Protestants… the RC’s have plenty of stuff to sort out in their own house.Jesus is Lord
yet, here you are. : )
In 1 John 5:1, it starts off with “whosoever”, not Peter. So Peter is not the only one who confesses Jesus is the Christ.
Since my comment keeps getting deleted, I am responding here.
Matthew 16 says nothing about pope, infallibility, nor succession, that is doing eisegesis to the text.
The point is not to show the truth was revealed to Peter first, as we see in John 1:40-42 Andrew told Peter Jesus was the Christ, but this was based on flesh and blood. In Matthew 16, this time, the Father revealed to Peter Jesus was the Christ. This is based on the spirit, not flesh and blood. 1 John 5:1 hints to us what happened to Peter. The rest of the apostles also experienced this, except for Judas. As we see in Matthew 16:20, Jesus told them not to tell anyone. So those who experienced the inner change, also had the keys amongst the apostles as we see later on, in Matthew 18:18. The term binding and loosing only applied to the house of Israel, not Gentiles. Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, never used the phrase "binding and loosing". He used the phrase "grafted in". You can't bind and loosen what is not already there. This discontinued with the house of Israel, binding and loosing, when the sign in the sky occurred on May 2, AD66. They house became desolate just a few years after the temple was destroyed, on September 22, AD73 during their last Yom Teruah, fulfilling Matthew 23:36, 38, 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
You are right, you keep bumping into me, and you never seem to know what you are talking about Matthew.
Hello again sir! Seem to run into you quite a bit on the interwebs lol.
I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to show. The point of Matthew 16 is that this truth was revealed to Peter before any of the other disciples, and that Jesus gives him the keys and the power to loose and bind, which flows from Peter to the rest of the Church. It was first revealed to Peter, then through him and the Apostles to us. So the fact that all of us now have this truth revealed to us does nothing to disprove the Papacy. :D
The algorithm thinks you are are posting nonsense. AI wins.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Understanding is not a piece of knowledge.
@@matthewoburke7202 peter was given keys to the kingdom of heaven. What is the kingdom of heaven?
Are you implying the moderator of the content creator in this video is deleting your comments?