Convictional Unity (with Matt Whitman of Ten Minute Bible Hour) 

If we got all three of us together, we would break the interwebs :-)

@@ConversationswithaCalvinist let’s do it

That would be amazing

I'm in​@@redeemedzoomer6053

I'm game.

I’ll look into that. Thank you!

@@ConversationswithaCalvinist I havnt got to listen to this whole interview yet, but he does a podcast with Matt. He is a scientist believer that has spoken to NASA and even spoken at Skepticon. Keep up the great work and stay friendly!!!

And I agree. RC would not be an elder at my Baptist church, as much as I loved him. And he would understand.

Ok cool, I can do that :-)

A major reason to not have "believing children" baptized is to absolutely ensure the child isn't just saying what the parents want, on top of the belief that baptism doesn't save. Many parents wait until their kids are teenagers and have "their own faith" before baltism. This is relatively uncommon, most are okay with 7-10, but it does make sense if you don't believe that baptism saves.

Thank you for supporting the show!

I’ve invited Ray, but unfortunately his schedule would not allow for it.

You will have to forgive us Catholics/Orthodox, we have been doing this whole "Eucharist" idea for a few years now, so it may be challenging to get us to stop doing it since it's been a few thousand years of it. But good luck!

​​@dman7668 Except when the average congregant was only taking it once a year in one kind. Right? Obviously you know the practice in the Middle Ages much better than say, Jon Hus?

@shawngillogly6873 No, but I do think the early Church Father's understand more about Christian beliefs then Hus did!!!! 😅😅😅😅😅🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭

I don't say this lightly, but Ray Comfort is simply dishonest in the way that he addresses Catholicism. He continues to use the bad argument that "Catholics removed the 2nd commandment" even though he's been corrected on it many times. Catholics did NOT remove the second commandment, either from the Bible or from the Catechism (it's in both), yet Ray continues to spread the lie that they did. I wouldn't even have a problem if Ray just argued that Catholic practice violates the 2nd commandment. I would disagree with him obviously, but that's at least a good faith critique, as opposed to spreading blatantly false information.

Nice catch. I wondered if that might go unappreciated.

@@MattWhitmanTMBH I couldn’t tell at first if you meant to do that or if it just slipped out.

So, I feel like a lot of Roman Catholics may feel that way, but the church actually anathematized Protestant beliefs, so that kind of leaves us at an odd position until they do something about that.

​@@SM12397 Confessional protestant documents condemn Catholic beliefs as well. This shouldn't prevent us from dialoguing with one another. It just means we each think the others beliefs are wrong and heretical.

​@@SM12397No, the anathema is not in place for you, there are some great resources on line explaining this. You are not under any Catholic anathema. It was only for Catholics who rejected Catholic beliefs. Not non Catholics who reject Catholic beliefs.

​@@td6425Except protestants condemn the church, which says nothing about the individuals. Pretty much every protestant believes that many catholics are saved, despite catholic teachings, but there are far more catholics who believe all non-catholics aren't saved. That's part of the reason catholics lead violent uprisings and oppressions against protestants. It wasn't baptists burning catholics at the stake.

We believe most of the same things even if you disagree with some aspects of the Catholic Church. It's not hard to accept Catholics as Christians, because we are.

I understand, but if one doesn’t hold to sola scriptura. Then we can’t really have a honest conversation because the premise of any and every debate is in question. For illustration (a completely made up illustration) If a person believes in Christs deity because The books of Jasper affirmed what the Bible said. We would agree on Christs deity, but that “unity” would be completely irrelevant because the source is different. I’m sorry but if someone can add onething they can add anything. Therefore the root is rotten so the tree is as well. Similar to having unity with Muslims because we are all monotheistic. That unity exists and is totally irrelevant because of the root.

@wildbillyd1 I think it's important to realize Catholics are not Muslims and case and point Billy we don't think of Protestants as Muslims either. We are going to have disagreements and disagreements are happening even among protestantism, which is why they were never ever able to come together as one Church unlike the Catholic religion. We still should keep taking. Because these divisions are not going away by not openly discussing them. So let's just keep talking and listening to one another.

FWIW I don’t think of Muslims and Catholics in the same boat, that’s not what I was trying to communicate. That said, I don’t think of them in same boat as true believing protestants either, not that I believe all Catholics are damed. The point I was trying to make is that anywhere I were to find some unity with a non sola scriptura person I would always be wondering why they believe that. Even if they explained it from scripture it wouldn’t really matter because I know (believe is probably a better word) their view of scripture is that it is insufficient, that’s why they have to add to it. I’m not even necessarily saying that’s the correct line of thinking, I’m just being honest. And I honestly can’t imagine having a conversation resulting in Christian unity with someone who doesn’t believe the Bible is the complete, inerrant, infallible, word of God. If someone rejects one of those I view them as the mission field, which is a brick wall to unity. At that point I’m seeking their conversion, unity isn’t even in the conversation. Some of this may come from dealing with my wife’s Mormon family. Also I’ve had conversations with people and have been very close to being in agreement with them only to find out they had different definitions for the same words I was using. Once I figured out what they meant I couldn’t have disagreed more. I’ve seen Baptist and Pentecostals talk about “believing in the Holy Spirit” the Baptist was having a conversation about the trinity, the Pentecostal was have talking about miracles and such, they had unity while in complete disagreement and didn’t even know it. As a result I spend a LOT of time defining terms in conversation, it gets very annoying to myself and them but I find it very necessary. And if a person has any authority equal to scripture I now have to question where that definition even came from. It’s exhausting just to think about lol. Anyway, now that I’ve written a book I need to go to bed. May our differences be resolved in the presence of the Lord some day where full agreement and complete unity will be accomplished. God Bless.

The irony here is that Sola Scriptura does not create a common baseline. Far from it.