A Protestant Bible Scholar Meets a Catholic One (w/ Dr. John Bergsma and Dr. Michael Dauphinais) 

Beautiful testimony.

That must be what my late grandmother experienced, albeit in her case she was in love with Jesus in the Eucharist from childhood. She was born to parents who were Latter Day Saints, and was supposed to be going to their children's Sunday School... which was across the street from the only Catholic church in the town at the time. For some reason she snuck off and went to Mass instead of her Sunday School. As she grew, her faith grew stronger, and she wouldn't accept courtship from any young man who wasn't Catholic. She was in love with Jesus in the Eucharist until her dying breath. I was just a baby when she died, but these stories were shared with me.

@kimfleury I love what you said about your grandmother! It’s so amazing when young people are given the grace to be wiser than many adults. I had a friend who became Catholic at age 14. Her mother was a follower of Christian Science. My friend knew even at that young age that her mother’s religion was false. At some point she burned her mom’s Christian Science books, and they screamed. The books screamed.

Why, he has been set free if he is in a Protestant Church.

​@@billsmith147free of what?

@@josemadrigal2293 Free of the nonsense of Traditions of the Church. i.e. holy water, candles, statutes, praying to the Blessed Mother for intervention, when her son is the mediator between the Father and a human (1Timothy 2:5-6).

@@billsmith147 nonsense? So you don't agree with the church? You must be some kind of authority. Can you explain?

@@billsmith147- St. Paul tells us clearly. "Brethren, stand fast; and hold the “traditions” which you have learned, whether by word, or by our Epistle." 2Thess 2:14. "Hold the form of sound words whicn you have heard of me in faith." 2Tim1:13. "The things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." 2Tim 2:2. All Christians from the very beginning believed that Christian revelation was contained not only in Scripture, but also in tradition. Acts 2:42, tells us that "they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," that is, in the oral teaching of the Apostles which they taught to one another, and handed on to their children. Those who repudiate tradition have lost the complete doctrine of Christ. Christ came to fullfil not abolish the law and the prophets. Hence, Judaism didn’t fail. Catholicism is Post Messianic Judaism and Judaism is Pre Messianic Catholicism.

I think so, too!

Polycarp was a student of John...the lineage is Jesus/John/Polycarp/Irenaeus! Saint Ignatius was the child Jesus held in his arms in the Gospels. I'm pretty sure Ignatius wasn't a student of John.

@@t.d6379 "When Trajan, not long since, succeeded to the empire of the Romans, *Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle,* a man in all respects of an apostolic character, governed the Church of the Antiochians with great care....he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been *disciples of St. John* the Apostle." -The Martyrdom of Ignatius I wasn't just making it up.

@@tonyl3762 he was a student of Peter too,

@@t.d6379 Yeah, I'm sure he was. I have the citations from Eusebius about the succession of bishops at Antioch and from Theodoret about Peter ordaining him. But Peter didn't write John 6, which was the original point.

Jesus --> John --> Polycarp --> Irenaeus Not sure if Ignatius was a student of John? But he was the child that Jesus held in his arms in the Gospels.

@@t.d6379 Ignatius was a student of John or Peter. Peter ordained him as Bishop of Antioch.

@@MrJoebrooklyn1969 oh of course!!! I knew that totally blanked that. Thanks

Totally agree. Ignatius preceded Polycarp to martyrdom by nearly 40 years. Ignatius would have been an elder to Polycarp.

@TheCoachsCoach933 maybe the same age.

Thank you! I thought so!

Yes, the Priests receive both the wine and the bread but per our Pastor, the laity are receiving bothers the body and blood in receiving either the bread or wine so partaking both is not necessary.

My nana,we differ to protestant, Jesus Christ transform water to wine. Catholic drink wine like water.

There are NO Catholic Bible scholars whatsoever otherwise they wouldn’t remain Catholic.

Bart is not a true scholar, but a reckless ideologue trying to manipuilated people into distrusting Christianity - sadly consumed by anti-Christian bigotry

It was. Dr. Bergsma was a Protestant.

Yes. This is the story of Dr. John Bergsma, a Protestant pastor and scholar, who met Dr. Dauphinais, a Catholic scholar, and through their friendship, fierce debates, and conversations Dr. Bergsma became Catholic.

Most cordial guy I know, but knows what he knows!

John did, that is why he mentions her being crowned in heaven in Rev. 12. But you may say that that “woman” is Israel or the Church? Well it is the book of Apocalypse, which reveals many meanings. So it is not an “either/or” but always a “both/and”.

The Eastern Church teaches that the Apostles were with Mary in her last days in this life, and that they at first believed that she had died a physical death. They entombed her immediately as was the custom, and when they returned to mourn her in the customary way, they found the tomb empty. They learned (I forget how) that she did not resurrect as her Divine Son had done, but that He had called her from the tomb and took her bodily to heaven. She didn't ascend as He had done. He assumed her (drew her up) bodily. Not just her soul, but body and soul. The Eastern Church also has a tradition that Jesus came to her before her days were numbered, to prepare her, and He gave her the choice of whether to be taken before "falling asleep" (dying), or to give up her spirit and then be returned to the body and taken into heaven. The tradition says that she chose to conform her will to that of her Son and of God the Father, and that included conforming her life to the life of her Son. So she asked that her soul be separated from her body and that she be called from the grave. This has been taught by the Christians in Jerusalem since early Christianity. They preserved the memory of the places and events, they didn't just make stuff up.

Can't read souls. Can only pray that God the Father will open the eyes and the hearts of sinners to His eternal Truth.

Acts 17: 22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. That Koran says that the Christian Bible is true. As Paul shows you don't win over hearts by abusing them but by loving them.

@@bridgefin You don’t know the Koran! Are you referring to what they call Jews ? The people of the book?

You love them by telling them the Truth, especially if you are supposed to be the vicar of Christ on earth, his sole representative. When did Jesus Christ ever embrace and/or kiss anything pagan as an example of loving them?

You do know and believe that the Koran is inspired by the spiritual deceiver of this world, don’t you? He is known as Satan and the serpent as well as the dragon in the real Scriptures that the pope should been kissing as well as reading and studying.

@@thomasrzepka2590 I am no scholar on the Koran but I have seen evidence from the Koran that it confirms and upholds the Bible.

Yep. Sure. But is this quote topical in some way?

@@cw-on-yt Notice: Confession is all that's needed.

@@jamessheffield4173: The broader context of the passage seems to suggest otherwise, and cause most scholars (Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox) to conclude that the statement is a synecdoche. But there are other reasons to think so, aren't there? I mean, let's say that Person X, on January 17, 2007, says aloud to his cat, or to some random guys in a bar, that God raised Jesus from the dead...and let's say he's not just blowing smoke, but he firmly believes it's true. Person X is a believer-confessor. Now, let's say that the very same Person X also firmly hates his neighbor (on account of some way the neighbor mistreated him) ...and that Person X refuses to forgive the neighbor. Let's say that Person X but retains that firm intention of unforgiveness until his death. So: Person X is a believer-confessor, but one who refuses to forgive someone else their sins. What then? What is his status, vis-a-vis salvation? Romans 10:9 seems to say he's saved; Matthew 6:15 and Mark 11:26 say he dies with his own sins not forgiven by God The Father, and thus goes to hell. Which is it? Does the Bible contradict the Bible? Naturally not! Or at least, I don't think the Bible contradicts itself. (Theological liberals probably do, but I'm going to assume you are not one of those.) So if there's no contradiction in Scripture; yet these verses (when interpreted according to their face-value meaning, and applied to Person X) say contradictory things, what is our only other option? I think we must conclude that at least one of the verses is being accidentally mis-interpreted; that its face-value meaning is NOT the correct meaning; that there's some broader context we need to consider to understand it properly. Now...let me apologize. Perhaps I have accidentally misconstrued what YOU believe is the proper interpretation of Romans 10:9. (All I have to go on is your earlier post, which was quite brief, and certainly not nuanced in any way.) I don't wish to be "putting words in your mouth," so, if I misunderstood what you were saying, please let me know. But if I have NOT misconstrued what you believe to be the meaning of Romans 10:9 ...if you really deny that it's a synecdoche and profess that it simply means "one time, believe/confess, and you've got your fire insurance forever..." then I really think you've got to wrestle a bit with the other parts of Scripture that would seem to contradict that interpretation. After all, the verses I gave above are very far from the only potential contradiction I could list! Given enough time I'll bet I could give you at least eight different ways in which a person who "believed in his heart and confessed with his mouth" could, on account of OTHER Biblical criteria, be declared condemned to hell. But, writing quickly and off-the-top-of-my head...Matthew 7:21-23 seems apropos. Or consider Matthew 25: Is there nothing more to "using your talents" than believing in Jesus' resurrection and saying so out loud at least once? (What "talent" is that an exercise of?) What if a person is hungry, and the guy who believed/confessed refused to feed him; or naked and the guy who believed/confessed refused to clothe him? Does Matthew 25:41-43 say that such a believer-confessor is saved? Notice those are all dominical teachings. I haven't even gotten to Paul or James yet! But a moment's thought shows that they're going to give me ample ammunition, too. James is going to wave demons in your face and rhetorically pee on the idea of faith without works; and Paul's going to give us list-after-list of things which, if you continue doing them, mean that you "will not inherit the kingdom." Can you be saved if you do not inherit the kingdom? Don't get me wrong: I reject the idea that anyone can earn Heaven; I reject works-righteousness; I reject any notion that salvation can be attained except by the grace of God ALONE. And I'm not trying to debate you or be a troll, or anything. Please don't misunderstand my tone, here. I'm writing quickly so I don't know if I'm picking exactly the right words. My sole point is that I think in all the communions -- Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox -- there'll be folks who state a verse and say, "There it is, black-and-white, that's all there is to say on the matter..." but if you ask for further clarification, it turns out they're already aware of some nuance, and it just didn't occur to them to state the nuances up-front. My guess is that you, who're already aware of some of the other verses I mentioned, do not in fact hold that any human who believes in God exactly the same way that demons do -- they certainly know the one God, after all, even if it's as an enemy! -- and who says out loud, on some occasion, "God raised Jesus from the dead," is absolutely unable to avoid Heaven. My guess is that you can appreciate the nuances that differentiate saving faith from dead faith. I don't know what your denominational affiliation is (Reformed? Baptist? Methodist? Some non-denom which, on examination, falls somewhere between one of those?) ...but I guess the respected teachers of that tradition have articulated a nuanced position to cover how all the verses fit together. With respect, CW

@@cw-on-yt Romans 10:10 “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

@@jamessheffield4173: Um, yes. But, with respect: Please note that that's NOT a reply to what I said. I mean, it isn't as if I'm unaware of Romans 10. I can't say I have the entire book of Romans memorized YET, but I've been reading, sometimes quoting, and periodically teaching from it, for much of the last forty years. I don't THINK that you're likely to whip out a verse from that book, or any of Paul's other ones, that I completely don't recognize! 😉 (I don't cite Philemon much. Maybe you should try a reaaaaallly obscure verse from that one?) Now I suppose we could have a game of Bible Verse Ping-Pong, here, where we take turns citing some random passage at one another, and wait for the other to reply! ...but that sounds like a rather dull exercise. I engaged with what you said; treating your post as if you MEANT something by it. And, I was trying to be polite, helpful, and responsive to what you said. I ask you to please return the favor.

And it does!! Luke 1:28 “Kaire, (

You sound pretty confident of that premise, Rose. No Christian believes that anything they hold to be true must be explicit in Scripture such as the belief that God can only communicate truths by Scripture. The fact that Protestant Christians hold Sola Scriptura to be true by deducing exclusive authority from inspiration, just proves my point. Let me part with this: If Jesus spoke in parables, there’s nothing preventing his disciples to be creative via symbols; and those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

TRUE. I started listening this and both were described as devout. That matters to me. When I was studying I was concerned with the regular person. The Scripture that spoke to me was he spoke a word that will rouse them. We need to hear the Word. Thanks for the reminder

The church has many great Biblical scholars like Dr. Bergsma. Look into Dr. Pitre and Dr. Hanh. I went from Protestant to Catholic because of them

@@giosio3974 you're right the Church does produce Bible Scholars, what about the regular smoes in the pews, Load of them what is their training? Nothing is the answer. Few VS. MANY is your logic?

@@billsmith147 there are many Catholics who know their faith well even if you don’t know them

Protestants are snobs when it comes to the Bible, yet they have no historical knowledge that for the first 300 years it was only the Church! No Bible until the Catholic Church decided the biblical cannon. Go to Mass for a full year, you will see the entire Bible.

Protestantism is blasphemous heresy. Anyone who follows it will go into the everlasting fire.