This channel exists to show how Jesus Christ is the desire of every nation. We will discuss apologetics, theology, and philosophy with the aim of showing you the beauty of the God revealed in and through Jesus Christ.
God isn't evil because a god doesn't exist. But when I speak about the evil of forced birth christians I am speaking about what the majority believes not what all christians believe. Just the very fact that not all christians are even close to being on the same page shows the obvious lie of christ. Which leads to the following truths of this post in which no christian can refute! If hell is real then abortion is the most humane thing that could ever happen to any potential human being ever! The risk of eternal torment if true will always outweigh bringing any finite life into this world. So how insane is a religion that makes human extinction the best option to human suffering? So the question for forced birth extremists is which is it? Do you honestly believe hell is real or is the bible lying? Are you ignorant to what eternal conscious torment is? Are you in denial that exponentially more people will suffer for eternity than claim a life in your heaven belief? Or do you just disregard and hate conscious life and don't care about those who will suffer for eternity? There will never be a hate as great as those that believe in hell yet want to force more births so that more will end up in eternal torment. Most forced birth christians agree that an aborted fetus would go to heaven...which would guarantee that they would be saved from eternal conscious suffering in hell! In fact, the majority of the world should have wished to have been aborted if Mark 9:42-48 is true. And this flawed thinking by the so called pro-life movement and Christians is what makes them so dangerous and showcases their evil hypocrisy. They think they are moral but are far from it! They place the worth of a non-conscious being over the well being of every human on the planet. You see this in their support of Trump's authoritarianism, supporting those that do nothing about climate change or gun violence, supporting those that do nothing about America's unsustainable health care costs, supporting those that give tax breaks to billionaires at the expense of the poor and middle class and forcing raped 10 year old little girls to give birth. The pure hatred for all conscious life is the foundation of christians as shown by their real world actions, words and beliefs.
@anglicanAesthetics can you give me any advice on the anglican church in the south west of Ireland? I am coming convinced of anglicanism but we have some churches but I am not sure. There is a few pentecostal churches but I would rather stay at home then go there on Sunday.
Jan Hus was more Orthodox than he was Protestant. I had always heard he was Protestant, actually reading about the Hussites shows that false. They did not believe anything the protestants believed
Doesn't work with an all-powerful god. Anything that God can achieve by permitting suffering, He can as well achieve without permitting suffering, for He is all-powerful. Nothing requires anything for an all-powerful god. If you told God "this thing can be achieved, but it requires suffering", God could just say "no it doesn't", and as a result it wouldn't.
@Jorge-np3tq I address this very point in the video. Just as God cannot create five sided squares, since omnipotence does not involve the ability to do the logically incoherent, so if x requires suffering to come about, then it cannot not require suffering as that would entail a logical contradiction Now suppose an atheist says "well omnipotence ought to mean the ability to do the logically contradictory", but then the theist can just say "well in that case, God can eliminate evil without eliminating evil, and so he has done so"--which would obviously be an absurd statement.
@@anglicanaesthetics Many things could be done about suffering that do not require logical contradictions at all. The necessity of suffering is not a rule of logic. You could create a perfectly logical world with no suffering. Joy requires no suffering. But I'll bite. So not omnipotent then, bound but the rules of logic that He created but cannot change. An if He didn't create them, who did, a superior god? Even if He's as bound as us by the rules of logic, either He created them that way, so he's still responsible for the necessity of suffering, or something greater than Him created them. Also, it's not absurd. It's completely valid until you say "and so he has done so". Non sequitur, being able to do something does not imply doing it, or you would be a murderer. By saying He has done so, you are now making a positive statement and taking a burden of proof. Okay, prove it. It may very well be true, but you haven't proven it. You have only said that a truly omnipotent god could do it, and it's true, but that only proves that it's possible, not that it has actually happened. Go ahead and prove that's what happened. If it can't be proven, your god can't be proven and back to square one.
@Jorge-np3tq The argument is that the relevant good in question requires the permission of evil, like a square requires four sides--as there is no such thing as a five sided square Now, you neglect a third option: God's being is the foundation of the laws of logic. God did not create those just as he never created himself; rather, just as his being always was, the laws of logic were always grounded in God's being. So God operates by them not because they are "things" out there to which he is bound, but because they describe his being. Now if we said God wasn't bound by the laws of logic, and if you say "God should be able to eliminate evil without eliminating it", then for all you know the theist can say "alright, God can eliminate evil without eliminating it, so if evil hasn't been eliminated, it's possible that God already has eliminated it, and so ongoing evil doesnt show God hasnt eliminated evil."--which is a nonsense statement.
@@anglicanaesthetics Again, there is no logical reason why any specific good would require evil to be permitted. You can circumvent the evil part without breaking any logical rules. Your second point is only wordplay. Yes, restrictions being a part of your being are still restrictions. A force greater than yourself doesn't stop being above you just because it's a consequence of you being you. Needing to breathe is a part of being human, that I need to breathe is a part of me as a human. Yet it's still a limitation imposed by forces outside my control. I can't say "my biological limitations are not a force above me, because they're part of my being". They are both. By the way, if God didn't create Himself, then He didn't choose to be instead of not being, and is not all-powerful, for He was without being asked if He wanted to be, and so, being instead of not ever having been was forced upon Him. Finally, no, that's a perfectly valid statement. For an all-powerful god, evil being in the world doesn't prove said god hasn't eliminated evil. But it's not negations you prove, it's positive claims. That's the burden of proof, which you keep avoiding. I can't prove God hasn't eliminated evil, but I can't prove my granny didn't kill Kennedy either. Do we put my granny in jail then? So it's the one saying God has eliminated evil without eliminating it, which again, is perfectly possible for an all-powerful god, the one that must prove it is so.
@Jorge-np3tq In fact, we can think of a good that requires the permission of evil: the defeat of evil. It is logically impossible for the good of defeating evil to come about without evil to defeat. Except these restrictions *arent* externally imposed, because there isn't any logically prior reality external to God. Restrictions are a part of my being because there is reality external to me that determined how I am. But God is what we call "metaphysically necessary." To illustrate this, think about the statement "1+1=2". Nothing made it to be the case that 1+1=2. Rather, it just is. Similarly, God is the sort of entity that is metaphysically necessary--like 1+1 necessarily equals 2, God necessarily has the attributes he does. Consequently, just as it is logically impossible for 1+1 to equal 3, it is logically impossible for God to have been given being--since part of what it means to be God is to be the foundation of all reality. Now, what of the example I gave? You're raising the problem of evil. In other words, *youre* asserting that there's a contradiction between the premises "God exists" and "evil exists." So if you demand that "omnipotence" must include the ability to do the logically contradictory, then you have to show that it couldn't possibly be the case that God hasn't eliminated evil without eliminating evil. So if you're running an internal critique, it's not incumbent on the theist to justify one of the premises you're claiming is inconsistent with another. For instance, if I claimed "evolution is inconsistent with the existence of consciousness", it's not then incumbent on you to prove evolution or the existence of consciousness--it's incumbent on me to show why these two things do not cohere.
Its funny how Sean says Catholics put their magisterium tradition over Jesus words in scripture because of the 2 hosts, but he fails to realize that women in Anglican churches do not veil anymore even though that is clearly mentioned in scripture.
@a.ihistory5879 Buddy...neither does Rome require it. Inter Insigniores says this: "It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Corinthians 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value (no. 4)." That's exactly our rationale too.
@@anglicanaestheticsClassic Tu quoque fallacy . Don't claim Rome does things outside of scripture when Anglicans also do things outside of scripture. The scriptures say that women should veil, so they need to practice what they preach and hold the Bible at a higher standard than tradition
I heard in one of her videos that she almost considered leaving catholicism because of their high view of Mary. Why was it a problem? not because of the very clear instances of idolatry...but because she doesn't think women should be honored like that since they're apparently so "bad". Seriously??? THAT is why you wanted to not be Catholic? Your low view of women? Not your desire for proper worship to be given to God??? The priorities of some people 😒
Jesus was but a man. You are committing all kinds of blasphemies against God by making Jesus a man to be a god or even a lord. There is but one God and one lord. He is the God of Jesus. It is he who sent Jesus with a message to the house of Israel. This video just is about splitting hairs and boring. 3:58 This which We recite to you is a revelation and a wise reminder 3:59 Jesus in the sight of God is like Adam. He created him from dust; then said to him, Be! and he was 3:60 This is the truth from your Lord, so do not be among the doubters 3:61 And if anyone should argue with you about this [truth] after the knowledge you have received, say to them, Come! Let us gather our sons and your sons, our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray earnestly and invoke the curse of God upon the liars 3:62 This is the true account. There is no deity save Him. God is Mighty and Wise 3:63 And if they turn away, God knows well the evil-doers 3:64 Say, People of the Book[christians], let us come to a word common to us that we shall worship none but God and that we shall associate no partner with Him and that none of us shall take others, besides God, for lords. And if they turn away, say, Bear witness that we have submitted to God. Q 3:64
Totally on board, but the phrase, Reformed, or Re-formed, are technically misleading historically, theologically as Calvinism. I know everyone knows this except for the people who don’t, and who should. Catholicism, though even more misunderstood as referring to the RC, has merit due to the early one-to-one correlation with the actual reality and our retrieval. We are catholic and make no distinctions like those who are not Calvinists, and must draw distinctions with the use of Reformed. Language matters, and we are “branding” ourselves with a poor use of language, unless one is an Anglican with Calvinist or Reformed theology beyond the bounds of the 39 articles. The use of “Orthodox” Anglican carries the same lack of clarity. Of course, I think Lewis’ mere Christianity bodes well but his discussion relates to a wider body of institutions beyond Anglicans, describing classical Christianity. Classical Anglicanism is betrayed by the shifting nature of early Anglicanism, from Henry to Edward to Mary to Elizabeth and so forth. Retrieval becomes an exercise of theological preference, from low church to high church to broad church and so forth. All are Anglican, and thus the ACNA’s challenge to stabilize and present a theologically unified institution.
I would like to offer a critique of your position. You're saying that God relies on counterfactuals about a person's actions to elicit responses, and that a person's being and their consequent counterfactuals somehow necessitate or include the sum total of conditions that caused their conception. Does this not mean that the Fall is a necessary condition for the existence of Sean Luke, and that Sean Luke cannot be created in an initial state of holiness? And does this not mean that the Fall is a necessary condition for the existence of the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth? To me, this seems to be problematic. (Though I can't explain why, so this isn't exactly an argument. The argument will come later.) If God relies on such counterfactuals for regeneration and hardening, what if a person (who doesn't necessarily have to be instantiated in reality) were to have no condition under which they would accept God? Persons born post-Fall could not, because of the Fall, already be in an uncorrupt state. Why would there be a necessity for all persons born post-Fall to have a condition under which they would accept the grace of God? If it is not necessary, then there are those whom God cannot create and elect. This is highly problematic because it means that God's election is dependent on the creature; he cannot create and elect whomsoever he pleases. Even if you say that it is necessary for all persons to have a condition under which they would accept God, you still run into a similar problem. Suppose Person A has only one condition under which they would accept God. This condition involves a situation in which Person B dies while spurning God. God cannot then elect both Person A and Person B. This means that there are persons whose creation and election are mutually exclusive, which is problematic for the same reason I explained before. Psalm 135:6 ESV “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth.”
exactly the Calvinist system is the only logically, philosophically and biblically consistent/coherent position every other system fails in at least one of the 3
@@jalapeno.tabasco The traditional Anglican view may be Calvinist, which influenced the 39 Articles, but they were created to be a broad document that allows for a wider difference of opinion than other Protestant confessions, namely to allow many Lutheran views. Whether Arminianism and Molinism are allowed under the 39 Articles is debatable; there is no clear statement contrary to their views in them. They were created before Luis de Molina and Jacobus Arminius, so it's difficult to tell what the authorial intent was on allowing non-Pelagian views outside of traditional expressions of election.
Although this doesn't affect your point, neuroscientists actually have attempted to stimulate the will and cause someone to perform an action, and they failed to do so. The paper they published said that such a thing was impossible.
@@joefrescoln I'd be open to it, but Tim has blocked me from socials on account of our diverging political opinions (I think?)--he sees me as a "useful idiot", to use his terms, to Marxists (which....I dunno strikes me as odd. But I would have enjoyed a dialogue)
29:11, while God’s will doesn’t determine what the creature would do (on your theory), aren't you saying His natural knowledge does? That is, it seems there is an equivocation regarding counterfactuals of "creaturely freedom" between this account (non-libertarian freedom) and the Molinistic account - perhaps intentionally?
Good question! It's not so much that God's natural knowledge determines counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, for the same reason that God's natural knowledge that "x is possible" doesn't determine that "x is possible". Rather, God's natural knowledge is his knowledge of every possible way his divine nature might be instantiated in creaturely reality, and every way in which he might exercise the divine nature. Counter-Factuals of Creaturely Freedom (CCFs), then, just describe a subset of those possibilities: what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. So while there's an explanation for why those CCFs are what they are (in the same way that there's an explanation for why God's possible action in circumstance Y would be wise), it's not a causal explanation (in the same way that God's essential wisdom isn't the efficient cause of his acting wisely, but his acting wisely just is the enactment of his essential wisdom). So I don't think there is an equivocation here.
@@rhedrich3 Yes, so freedom means that when we consider some creature's choice X, it wasn't the case that factors other than X were sufficient to cause X to be what it is. In other words, if some being knew everything about the conditions of creaturely reality up to the point right before Timmy chooses to X, that being would not be able to deduce that Timmy would choose X; the causal factors external to Timmy's-doing-X do not cause Timmy to do X.
@anglicanaesthetics then who or what supplies the sufficient condition? Timmy's just doing X? That occurs in time, no? So it can't be that God's natural knowledge is predicated on X itself, right? After all, natural knowledge is necessary knowledge. But that's curious - it's necessary that Timmy do X although "free" as you describe? Am I understanding you correctly? Thanks for engaging, by the way.
How far you think you are from Jacob Arminius view on grace? Because it seens, when talking about pharao, that you believe that saving grace is offered to everyone and freely rejected/accepted.
I do affirm that saving grace is offered to everyone and freely accepted or rejected, so there's similarity with Arminius up to this point. However, where I'd differ is in affirming that God also elects to give efficacious saving grace to only the elect and that not on the basis of how he foreknows a creature would respond. In other words, God elects Timmy to salvation, and consequently gives him the grace which would effect his free embrace of salvation; it's not the case that God foreknows that Timmy would respond to thus and such grace, and consequently elects Timmy.
@@anglicanaesthetics So your position would be closer to Davenant's, right? I'm arminian, but I find this reformed position much more acceptable than your average tulip. Yet, for some reason, correct me if I'm wrong, I have a felling that I couldn't properly go on a missionary mission and say that Christ died and is willing the salvation of however I'm talking to, when holding any reformed position. I truly believed that when the gospel is preached, it has the influence of HS and the Spirit prepare men to receive. This is a much more beautiful gospel approach than any form of calvinism.
@@Bruno-ov9ew It would be closer to Davenant, yes. But for that reason, you can say that Christ died for the reprobate (Davenant rejected limited atonement and wrote against John Owen on this point), and say that he wills the salvation even of the damned--which is concretely expressed in God giving grace sufficient for repentance for all, even if efficacious only for the elect.
@@anglicanaesthetics Than I ask: If God is willing the salvation of all, why not offer efficacious saving grace to all? I can not find good reformed answers to 1Tm 2:4.
This was just stellar brother, thank you! I would like to see more of this type of material, the overlap between the Reformed and the Thomists is fascinating. Would love to see you engage with Ken WIlson's work "The Foundations of Augustinian-Calvinism", have you heard of it?
Will see if he reacts to that but for me, Wilson's wacky take of Augustine's view of regeneration misrepresents the scholars he used for his reference along with the Church Fathers he cites troubles me.
Eze. 33:14-16 says (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine): Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin AND DOES WHAT IS JUST (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) AND RIGHT (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) AND RIGHT (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666); HE SHALL SURELY LIVE. To do what is right and just AFTER a person turns from his sin (or repent) is known as as temporal punishment in Catholic teaching. The reason of doing what is just and right or temporal punishment is to fulfil justice. In contrast according to the Reformers, which you faithfully follow, to fulfill justice Christ voluntarily offer Himself to take the punishment the believers deserve for their sins on the cross - consequently the sins of believers must be imputed on Him as if He were the one who commit those sins and His righteousness imputed on believers as if they were righteous That explains why you have problem with Catholic teaching on temporal punishment, indulgences and purgatory - those add what Christ already accomplished on the cross.. Scripture flatly denies (double) imputation in Eze. 18:20: "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." By punishing/condemning Christ for the sins He did not commit, the Reformers (AND YOU) makes God do abomination as stated in Pro. 17:15 (ESV): “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” While the Reformers relates Christ crucifixion with being punished/condemned for sins of believers imputed on Him, the Catholic Church relates what He did on the cross with what Adam did, known as the Fall as stated in Rom. 5:18 (ESV): “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [δικαίωμα] leads to justification [δικαίωσις] and life for all men.” What Christ did on the cross outweighs or atones what Adam did, through which sins comes into the world and through sins come death (Rom. 5:12).
I haven't seen the first video, but being acquainted with Barthian theology (and in agreement with him), I share with Colin E. Gunton in the opinion of his unfortunate choice of the word "mode", as it's distracting from the core of his postulates. The Trinity became my favourite doctrine, and the imago Dei according to Gunton (Barth, Zizoulas) became a big part of my dissertation and I celebrate every time and instance in which we protestants teach it and bring it out as part of the practical life of the community of faith. Thank you for the video Sean.
I'm not at all well read enough on this topic to say one way or another, but I just don't understand the comparison between baptism and the Eucharist near the end. Baptism itself is a renewal of a person (John 3:5) and incorporation into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), and his death (Rom. 6:3-4), and is essentially becoming a new man. The Eucharist as I understand was not instituted for this renewal, but rather in the nourishing and perfection of that new man (John 6:51), so I don't think that's a fair parallel to make. It's very likely that I'm missing something here, so I'm sure you'll let me know! I should definitely read all of St. Thomas sections on the Eucharist, mortal/venial sins, and eternal/temporal punishments related to sins again, as it seems that all of those would be relevant for this topic. Have a great day Sean!
I think you too readily conflate the expositions of individual Catholic theologians with defined dogma and settled doctrine. Yet, as even you acknowledge, the Council of Trent discouraged unwarranted speculations on the nature of purgatory. For a Catholic, the statement of Pope Benedict XVI on the nature of purgatory in his encyclial "Spe Salvi" as the final purifying-transformative encounter with God in Christ after death would carry more weight than the opinions of Martin Jugie. Also, at the reunion councils of 2 Lyons and Florence, in deference to the Greeks, the Latins did not insist on the "fire" of purgatory as essential to the doctrine itself or regard it as Church-dividing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly says that the "pains" of purgatory are utterly different from those of hell since damnation is the deliberate exclusion of God's transforming love, while purgatory is the final postmortem efficacy of God's love that is present in the soul of one who loves God and is justified by the grace of Christ. The writings of St Catherine of Genoa and of St John Henry Newman in his "Dream of Gerontius" have had wide influence among Catholics. Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn are not trimming corners: they're just sticking to what is actually Catholic doctrine. I'm perfectly free to think that the explanation of purgatory in the encyclical of Benedict XVI and in the writings of St Catherine and Newman are preferable to those of St Thomas More and even St Thomas Aquinas. After all, a prominent Anglican like C.S. Lewis expressed belief in purgatory in "Letters to Malcolm", defending the efficacy of prayers for the dead, even while distancing himself from some opinions that many Catholics also would not share. Also, it is a commonplace of Catholic theology that theological language is analogical due to the finitude of human words in expressing divine truth. To speak of "punishment" as necessarily substantially different from "consequences" or "divine discipline" or "medicinal remedies" for effects of already-forgiven sin is unwarranted. All of these expressions can be understood in a too-anthropomorphic sense; all can be understood in a legitimate analogical sense. Authoritative Protestant confessions acknowledge that God may bring temporal "judgments" on his people as a discipline. That is certainly correct though it would be an anthropomorphic error to see God's "judgments" as if they were like the arbitrary and fallible decisions of human judges in a penal court. This entire question is part of a larger one of the analogical nature of any words that we use regarding the relationship between God and man--and also about belief in a personal God. As C.S. Lewis said in "Mere Christianity", personal language is the highest language that we have; yet it falls short of God in his infinite glory. And all Catholic theologians would agree. The Westminster Confession (the work of Puritan divines in 1646, valued also by many evangelical Anglicans) has this to say: "Through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalence of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, [true believers justified by Christ may] fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves" (from John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine in the Bible to the Present (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1973), p. 212).
Good critique overall. However, I'd like to point out that there absolutely is a difference between medicinal chastisement and retributive wrath. As Sean Luke pointed out, Trent itself makes this distinction. Sean is correct that Roman pop-apologists often conflate the idea of post-mortem cleansing in general with the Romish conception of purgatory: if one does not address purgatory within the context of temporal debt and the system of merit, they are not actually defending purgatory, but rather demonstrating a classic example of the motte-bailey fallacy.
I used to make the exact same argument as you. However, the Council of Trent's statements contain the highest dogmatic authority on the matter. Pope Benedict's encyclical has many beautiful elements and reflects C.S. Lewis' model (which is much more in harmony with Orthodox thought as well as St. Mark of Ephesus' Greek view at Florence). Council of Trent states that temporal guilt remains upon the soul even after confession for already forgiven sins, "“"If any shall say, that after the grace of justification has been received, the offence is so remitted to the penitent sinner, and the guilt of eternal punishment so effaced, that there remains no GUILT of temporal punishment to be suffered, either in this world, or in the world to come in purgatory, before admission can be obtained to the kingdom of heaven; 'let him be accursed (anathematized)’." Council of Trent also says that penance/satisfaction is about paying for past sins and appeasing God's vengence/retribution toward them: "The Council of Trent also connects this remaining guilt to God’s vengeance when it states: “But let them have in view, that the satisfaction, which they impose, be not only for the preservation of a new life and a medicine of infirmity,(s) but also for the avenging and punishing of past sins.” The Catechism of Trent (the Church’s official catechism for 500 years) is very clear about God’s vengeance remaining toward forgiven Christians. It states, “Finally, the punishment which the sinner endures disarms the vengeance of God and averts the punishments decreed against us.” Ultimately, Orthodox nor Protestants desire to sign off on the infallible statements of Trent. This 'place of expiation' of temporal guilt and debt anchored in God's vengeance was the standard view for Latin theologians for 800+ years from Aquinas & Bonaventure to Cardinal Bellarmine to Fr. Lagrange. Pope Benedict XVI attempted to renovate purgatory and indulgences to be more in line with the thinking of the Orthodox. We are happy about these changes towards the truth, but Trent is there forever whether Roman Catholics like it or not.
@@barrelagedfaith You have pointed out that many theologians spoke in terms of purgatory in terms of punishment for guilt. My reply was that those have never been defined as the only possible ways to speak of the reality of postmortem purification and transformation. "Infallible" means "not false", but not necessarily exhaustive or incapable of further explanation or interpretation. Certainly, I don't reject these terms; but I don't see these various ways of speaking of purgatory as contradictory. Something may be termed analogically a "punishment" owed to God's justice and also be a healing remedy, both in this life and in the life to come. Perhaps these are really aspects of one and the same thing: they can be distinguished mentally but not separated in fact (rather like justification and sanctification, as even most of the Reformed will acknowledge). Though actually the scholastic theologians coined the term "satispassion" precisely to distinguish it from active satisfaction: it is a passive purgation beyond this life, somewhat analogous to the passive purgation of which St John of the Cross speaks though beyond the gate of death. That is the way of considering purgatory that makes most sense to me. The making of that distinction between active penance in this life and the unique experience of purgation beyond death suggests that even those theologians recognized that the penitential or punitive or medicinal terms were really analogies for what is beyond human words. As an illustration, the famous 19th-century devotional writer, Fr Frederick Faber, wrote in his work "All for Jesus" about two ways of speaking of purgatory among Catholic writers. The first tendency speaks more in terms of God's vindictive justice, the second more of transformation. Faber saw no direct contradiction. This is what Fr Faber wrote: "“The second view of purgatory does not deny any one of the features of the preceding [punitive] view, but it almost puts them out of sight by the other considerations which it brings more prominently forward. It goes into purgatorv with its eyes fascinated and its spirit sweetly tranquillised by the face of Jesus, its first sight of the Sacred Humanity at the Particular Judgment which it has undergone. That vision abides with it still, and beautifies the uneven terrors of its prison as if with perpetual silvery showers of moon light which seem to fall from our Saviour’s loving eyes. In the sea of fire it holds fast by that image. The moment that in His sight it perceives its own unfitness for heaven: it wings its voluntary flight to purgatory, like a dove to her proper nest in the shadows of the forest. There need no Angels to convey it thither. It is its own free worship of the purity of God.” That second view presented by Faber is, in fact, very close to what C.S. Lewis suggested. In any case, Trent never intended to shut down the various opinions held and discussed freely in the theological schools (for example, on grace and predestination). The explanation given by Pope Benedict points in the direction that I have suggested. He doesn't deny anything that Trent said but emphasizes other aspects. At a minimum, a Catholic is certainly free to agree with the Pope's language and to use it, unless it is in formal contradiction to earlier defined doctrine. But it's not.
@@PaterIgnotus Right, Benedict XVI led a major renovation of purgatory. The problem is that of weaponized ambiguity. Everyone loves Benedict's view today, but everyone could easily return to the retributive model tomorrow (and still exists as dogma per Trent). Also, the retributive model still exists and is not completely locked up with the sanctification model. For example, consider how to receive a plenary indulgence which removes the 'debt of temporal punishment' owed to God. The person must go to confession, receive the Eucharist, do xyz, and be completely detached from any love of sin" before receiving the plenary indulgence. One must ask, if you have reached that level of sanctification, why would you even need a plenary indulgence? (Because you still have the 'guilt of temporal debt' owed to God is the easiest explanation in Latin theology on this topic). Had Ratzinger introduced Rahner's explanation on indulgences and overhauled the devotional practices, his view would make more sense. But he did not. Instead, Rahner's proposal was generally rejected by Pope Paul VI. So Ratzinger's renovation of purgatory and indulgences is incomplete (and may have to stay that way) due to the dogmatic history of Latin theology.
You can sit here and pretend that you have gotten to the bottom of things on this issue, but you are kidding yourself if you think that is the case. There are counter objections on both sides that would take an extraordinary amount of time and effort to get through alone, not to mention you have to understand them well enough without error. Trust me, I've done the same thing you have done. If we are relying purely on how well we can dive into the issues and read to get us to Heaven, we are not playing a winning game and are frankly making a turn towards gnosticism. "Look at me, I have found the correct answers wow! Now me and my church of 30 people who all think the same way will just be so perfect!" That is not to say that this sort of stuff does not have a role in religion. I think serious academic discussion is an integral part of things and I know that there are some very smart and thoughtful Anglicans (like yourself) who are real academics worthy of the name. But the truth has to be discernable somehow in this later part of history by us simpler folk and really what it boils down to is this: which Church has fulfilled the prophecies of Christ Church found in the sacred scriptures? What singular Church has made it's presence known throughout the world? What singular Church has had all of the nations flow into it like it says in Isaiah? What Church has taken Christ's command to "Baptize all nations" the most seriously? What Church has carried on the Apostolic spirit the most throughout history? What Church has offered a rebuke to the Nations? Finally, ask this question: if the Anti-Christ were to come today, would my Church be able to handle it or would it crumble to pieces? This is not even considering all of the miracles that have been sent by God to confirm the truth of our faith as well as the saints. If you think the Anglican Church (or any Church for that matter) has fulfilled these prophecies more so than the Catholic Church has then you are kidding yourself. There is no way around it: throughout the history of the world after Christ, the Catholic Church has been the main character without a doubt. No one sees the Anglican Church as a threat in any way, even the Anglo-Catholic or High Church community. Of course they aren't. In fact, no one really even knows about them, especially the more conservatives. Moreover, you guys don't even really have a positive existence. Your existence as a communion is "We are not Catholic!" Slinter groups are notorious for abusing that kind of rhetoric because, frankly, they are the little men on the block. The Catholic Church has been confident in itself whereas Orthodoxy and Protestantism have just tried to establish themselves. It looks so bad and the lack of visibility is a real concern. It's not merely, "Oh Catholic Church big so true." Rather, it is a tell-tale sign that the work of the Apostles is still ongoing throughout history until the Gospel be preached throughout all nations. Point being is that as much as you may find the Anglican theological tradition more persuasive, betting your soul on the idea that you can comprehend these arguments thoroughly enough is a dangerous game to play. God wills that everyone come to knowledge of the truth and be saved. To this end, he made it obvious where to go by giving us the signs of the true Church, as maddening as that may be for someone of your intellectual caliber.
Well said Matt. The Catholic Church is the only means to salvation for all of us. Her sacraments offer the means to be able to receive God's grace. We however must be sincere in our spiritual state to receive those graces. We must not be in a state of mortal sin. Mortal sin prevents us from being able to receive God's salvic grace in this life. Are our lives in perfect conformance with the 10 Commandments? At all times? The sacrament of confession is the only means to enable us to leave our sins and to try to start again fresh. God so loves us that He gave us this sacrament to try to help us in our weakness.
Your argument seems to be: 1. You’re smart 2. Only smart people could understand these arguments 3. The only historic Christendom tradition that can make a claim back to the ancient church validly, and easily accessibly, is the Catholic Church. The sign of a smart person is being able to explain at multiple levels. Sean’s able to do this. Catholicism’s teaching requires someone like him to actually intricately deconstruct it- because in its design, it circularly absorbs critiques and elaborates its magisterium polemically. The smartness you’re critiquing has come about because years of smart Christians have made critiques like this. Why not deal with Sean’s arguments, rather than claiming a simple person could understand the present complications of the Magisterium? Ironically, Sean’s arguing with you a simple Christian should have a simpler system.
Let me start with this: my goal in writing what I wrote was not to get into a detailed theological/philosophical argument like you aren’t trying to propose. I’m not qualified to give such a retort. If you want something like that, go read St. Robert Bellarmine’s book on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Better yet, speak to a Dominican who can explain these things far better than I can. What I’m saying here is that there is an issue of methodology that is a common problem for contemporary apologists, namely, trying to play this game where we take a single, niche issue like the one being discussed in the video and say to ourselves, “I researched this one really vast, expansive field of study and I feel confident that I have covered everything and understood all of it as best as I can.” I’m not saying smart people cannot understand this stuff or even get to the bottom of things. But there is a presumption that is made on the part of such a person that they really are smart enough to comprehend such detailed issues in spite of the reality of sin which blinds our intellect. I’m saying that is not a winning game. There are more obvious indicators that Christ left us as I have mentioned above that frankly I don’t think can be legitimately argued against by any other denomination because they have objectively, up to this point in time anyway, failed to meet them, and are thereby not credible claimants to begin the true Church. There is no Church on earth that has presented the fullness of unity, catholicity and apostolicity as the Catholic Church has. From this we can conclude to its holiness. Not only this but the OT prophecies of the character of the Church fit far more in line with the Catholic Church than anyone else, let’s face it. On top of this, it is the only Church that can legitimately fulfill Christs command in Matthew 18:15-17 because it is the only one with any legitimate authority. All that I’m saying here is that before you get into the weeds and minutia, make sure that you ask yourself the more fundamental questions such as, “Does my Church meet, based on the testimony of the scriptures, the necessary pre-conditions for it to be the one, true Church?”
While I’m at it, let also consider this one other key point: have you ever seen a Black Lords Supper before? Personally, I haven’t. I could be wrong, maybe it happens a lot more than I realize. Throughout my life, I have only heard of Black Masses being performed. So even those who worship Satan, who do his bidding on earth, as far as I can tell, seem to be hyper fixated on the Eucharist. I could of course go into the miracles and things like that as well which have been verified but I understand that also carries with it little apologetic value. Also just to clarify I’m not trying to be uncharitable if I’m coming across that way. I genuinely do care about these things and the salvation of souls. Please forgive me if my tone suggests otherwise.
@@mattphelan1252 brother, we agree on the fundamental question, and the nature of Satanic warfare against the true worship of God. We disagree on how to answer the question by the testimony of the Scriptures and history. One reason Sean’s such a good apologist is that intricacy and patience that actually seems to so manifestly understand the sources that the likes of Eric Ybarra can actually interview him multiple times and you can walk away from those interactions edified and aware that Protestantism isn’t a mere historical novelty, but truly, as Schaff said, a medieval reform and recovery movement.
