Whether you’re trying to acquire new knowledge, develop a skill, or form a habit, repetition plays a crucial role in the journey towards mastery. This is why repetition is called "the Mother of learning." Our brains thrive on repetition.
Some Protestants think full immersion is necessary. Certainly not all. Pretty much only Baptists and Evangelical/non-denominational ones. Sadly, most who are happy with pouring/sprinkling and with infant baptism then don't believe what baptism is and does.
In St. Matthew's gospel it says when he came up from the water. Also, we know that baptism at the time was full immersion because the Greek word "baptizo" means "to immerse". So, baptise literally means to immerse. This is not an argument I would make saying that the Bible doesn't say that Jesus Christ was immersed. But, when we go to the Didache it gives exceptions on how baptisms can be done. "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before". So, from the Didache, we can see that "sprinkling" is a valid method of baptism.
@@hirakisk1973 I agree with you, and what we see in the Didache, that immersion isn't commanded when baptizo is used. Strong's reads as follows concerning "baptizo"; 907 baptízō - properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle"). Implying submersion doesn't mean it's used exclusively to mean submersion. As I have heard in the past, baptizo was also used in reference to cleaning furniture in the first century, and I don't think they carried their tables down to the Jordan. The water supply in those towns was a well. They certainly weren't going to carry enough water from the well to submerge anything larger than a plate. In Mark 7:4 baptizo is used in reference to hand washing before eating. That demonstrates the word had a wider common use than just submersion. When used in God's Word for the Sacrament, it's the idea that we are put entirely into Jesus death and resurrection. I think that is what's important.
Protestantism is not about the Truth but is based on emotion & certainly not logic. Pope John Paul II said that we need the two lungs of Faith & Reason Fides et Ratio!
Friend, you have an interesting take on the issues of non-Catholics. Can you point to a specific example that supports your view? I’m interested to learn more about this concept. God Bless!
Not all Protestantism, but too much of it is all about emotions. A praise band fails if it can't get the audience to raise their hands and hop up and down like the musicians leading the concert. Rock bands get better results most all of the time. But you can't impugn all of Protestantism.
Dear friend, your observation is astute. It is often overlooked that some individuals prioritize their devotion to religious rituals over exuberant worship through music. Ultimately, the focus should be on Christ and His sacrifice, and the manner in which one chooses to honor this truth is personal preference. I find no issue with either! After all, true honor is not found in the volume (high or low) of worship, but in the accurate teaching of the gospel. It seems to me that the individual who raised this issue may be fixating on insignificant details. God Bless and good to hear from you 😂!
Dear friend, I would greatly appreciate your insight on the following scenario. Imagine a church with an exceptional worship band that attracts a large audience with their music. Now, suppose a man of God addresses this gathered crowd, delivering a powerful and pure message of the gospel of Christ, leading many to hear the message clearly for the first time in their lives. Would you consider this scenario negative simply because the music may have been too loud for your individual taste? I am curious to hear your thoughts on this matter.
@@Harbinger290 I recall conversing with you in the past. It wasn't constructive. I will offer this one response and that is all. God uses His Word to save and sadly when it's rejected it condemns.
Jesus didn't mention a book, neither did the Apostles. Did books exist at that time? Scrolls did, because Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue. But Jesus did say teach to observe all that He commanded, and He sent the Spirit to the Apostles and the Spirit brought to the Apostles' minds all that Jesus had taught and did. So Jesus did give us His Word from the beginning, though not collected into a canon of scripture until the church of the day was used by God to do so. Did God the Spirit speak beyond what Jesus said was needed for salvation at the end of Matthew 28? Or was what Jesus taught and did sufficient at the moment. It was sufficient starting with Acts 2, and it's still sufficient. It was Jesus' instructions on how to create disciples/Christians that was creating/growing the Church. Actually, the Holy Spirit, since it was His indwelling to lead and inspire and empower the Apostles. They were using His Words, which were later gathered together into a book. You make it sound like it wasn't officially God's Word and it was without power until the church gathered all the inspired writings/teachings into one volume, as if the church by doing so, instilled at that moment the power. But God was using His Word to make and strengthen Christians from the beginning regardless of it not yet being collected into a single volume.
@@HAL9000-su1mz John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written." I'm sure. 1 John 5:13 "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." So the things John recorded for us, of the innumerable things that could have been written down, is sufficient for us to know we are saved and will be in eternity with Christ.
@ralf547 Okay but you're first line is, well the word dumbass comes to mind!! Seriously, "did books exist at the time?" 🤪🤷♂️😬 You know darn well The "books" were in scroll form! This why your comments sometimes baffle me . Sorry but I had to say that. But in seriously responding to you. You literally prove my main point in the video, how you have let your mind be "programmed ". The source of the revelation of God on this earth is the Supernatural reality of the presence of Christ's Church on the earth. Again, which came first: The Church or the ( complete) Bible? Jesus established His Church and promised hell would not prevail against it. You seriously believe that this "church " is merely believers gathering, studying scrolls and figuring it out? Yet various circulating letters, sent around to these gatherings, was the basis of founding pivotal doctrine? No Jesus established a living Church, yes made up of flawed men, but graced to maintain, to sustain, and remain intact for 2000 years. Most of us( folks like me) , from Prot ministry, who crossed over, whether converts or reverts, will tell you how pivotal reading early Church fathers was in our decisions. Because we were immediately shocked at just how obviously "Catholic " their writings are. But you choose to believe the Catholics, like Luther , who rebelled 1500 years after the church was established. Was there corruption, of course! Was there need of reform, obviously. And there was, and is, constant need for genuine reformation, but the kind that emerged from holy men, raised up by God within the structure. Not with a bunch independent, self reliant men, relying on their private interpretation of the scriptures, given them by the Church they trashed. And no, we don't believe that the gathering of the books of the Bible "gave" those books their inspiration, or their power. We believe that Christ gave His living Church the power to decide which writings were indeed inspired. You need an infallible editor to determine which books were infallible. Or else you are left with the very intelligent, R. C. Sproul's very stupid comment, that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books! 🤪😳. Sorry but that is an absurdity. I know I said I was going to stop responding to your comments, but as Al Pacino said in Godfather III, "every time I think I am out, you pull me back in!" Have a nice day. 😀
God gave men authority to forgive sins. But He didn't give them the power to forgive unrepentant sinners. God uses means to accomplish His will. Bread and wine and men(preaching/teaching) and water, . . . and even a talking donkey. But a priest's absolution is not going to usher that sinner into heaven if the priest pronounced absolution of a mortal sin the confessor only appeared to be repentant of. Or does that Catholic church have authority that is greater than Jesus' words, God's Word?
@@HAL9000-su1mz I agree. To doubt that hearing from the Apostles, what they spoke when alive and what it recorded for us, the Bible, God's Word, is to risk eternity in Hell.
I believe in Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone First Corinthians 15 1-4 i after reading Mathew 24 and deep diving believe Christ returned in 70ad
@@KillerofGods it means you believe Christ was crucified died was buried and rose again on the third day and paid for all your sins believe in what Christ did and not in your own works
Oh wow! I don't recall the last time I had any contact with a Preterist. I think that's the label, and I'm sure I am misspelling it. How'd you find your way in here?
The Catholic church is schismatic now, too. A group of nuns has just left the Catholic Church over Pope Francis’ decisions and words. My very traditional Catholic friends said to me that they can’t wait till Protestants return to Mother Church. We are in the Invisible Church composed of followers of Jesus. The Catholic church is no more united theologically than Protestantism. Most Catholics I know disagree with almost everything Catholicism teaches except about the Lord Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. This is a fake unity. I would rather be in my church with people who believe the same things I do. From these shared beliefs flow our shared works of service. If I were Catholic, I would absolutely live according to the ex cathedra pronouncements of the popes because this is the only true way to live as a Catholic. Most Catholic Americans have nothing to do with these papal declarations. Essentially, their lives tell the truth: that they are, in fact, Protestants.
9 nuns doesn't mean the church is in Schism. It's 9 nuns. That's it. People fall into heresy all the time once they stray from the safety of the church's teachings
And that's bull. If catholics don't adhere to the catechism, they aren't catholics. Anything that isn't expressly written in the catechism is up to them. If it's in the catechism, they must believe it or be in heresy. You don't know much about us, but you talk as if you do
Dear friend, Your astute analysis of the significant inconsistencies within their organization is truly commendable. It is perplexing how they uphold the notion of the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ," only to be confronted with the reality of his fallibility, suggesting a disconnect from the foundation upon which the church is purportedly built. It seems they exist within a state of denial, disregarding evident discrepancies in teachings and well-documented concerns. One might aptly label this phenomenon as cognitive dissonance. May divine blessings be upon you.
@@Catholiclady3 It's not schism, but can anyone who is willfully in mortal sin still be a Catholic? If you've been taught it's a mortal sin to miss Sunday(Sat evening) mass and you have without a good reason and you haven't been going to confession for months or years, are you still Catholic?
@chrysanthemumfan214 If they don't believe what the Church teaches how are they Catholic? I think you may be confusing what the Church teaches as _Dogma_ and what She does not. There have only been two ex-cathedra declarations.
Its really refreshing seeing a prior-evangelical pastor, who KNOWS all the anti-catholic arguments, present the catholic truth! VERY powerful stuff here! Because you KNOW! You understand where many prots are coming from! You're the "protestant's Catholic!" Earned yourself a sub! God bless and give you peace! 🙏✝️
Hugh I just want to tell you, you've probably heard this many times from us Cradle Catholics, but You sir are Such a wonderful asset to our Catholic church. You can speak the language of the Protestants, in their manner and with scripture, which Demonstrates to them the Truth that the Catholic Church IS THE Church that Jesus Christ established and which is The Church that God says even the gates of Hell shall not prevail against! Glory be to God, and God Bless You in all you do to help Protestants come home to the true Church, paving the way for us all to meet each other (God Willing!) one day in Heaven!
By the way your talk here today gave me a thought about Leviticus, and I feel shed some new light on that for me. When I'd read it in the past, yes it's a slog for us modern folk, so many very specific rules for the Jews to follow. I had thought OK God wanted it to be Very Explicit and Detailed because the Jewish folk had so often fallen into error. BUT Today you sparked another thought which is, God says "Look I've even told you Explicitly over and over about the structure of the worship I want, and all the trappings, etc. and Yet, you (Moderns!) STILL find a way to say that it 'doesn't say that in the bible' in reference to all the tradition and religious practices of My Catholic Church!" -- LOL!
@FranzBazar Thanks for the great insights.,It is a blessing you are a cradle Catholic. Thank God you didn't get trapped in all the complications of Protestantism. Jesus is awesome, and I pray all of us Catholics can realize what a vast Treasure we have in the rich Catholic theology, devotions, Sacraments and Sacramentals. Please for me, as I will pray for you.
Protestant here, just wanted to say God bless all my brothers in Christ, under all denominations of the faith. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to God
I was born and raised in a Christian home. More towards the Arminian teaching. I later moved to a more 5 point Calvinism teaching. Currently I don't fall into either camps, and have spent some time looking into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't ever see myself becoming Catholic, however I still am very interested in learning more and following God to wherever He leads me. If any Catholic wants to chat sometime, I would love to talk, learn, and listen.
I’m happy to take any of your questions. 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!
@geoffjs I don't think my comment came through, but I was offering if you or someone you know would be interested in talking sometime, let me know. Talking is easier for me than typing out all my thoughts. Thanks again for your reply.
@@jaredhornvanSuggest that you read the early fathers & church history to gain better background. From an objective point of view, Jesus est His One True Church & with a 2000 yr history, nothing compares to the Original Church, which reminds me, Jim Papandrea has an excellent channel about the Original Church. Why settle for anything less than the genuine Church?
@geoffjs I am finding it difficult to respond. I have so many thoughts, but I don't want to just spitball them in the comments. I want to speak with humility and admit my ignorance, and I fear I can not do that appropriately in text form. There is a gentleman who lives close to me and is part of my local Archdiocese. I will have to have a meeting with him. I do better in communicating with talking rather than writing.
Jaredhornvan, if you are going to consider all the options, don't just investigate Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Also find an LCMS or WELS or AALC Lutheran church and go speak with that pastor. Try all three, the Orthodox, Catholic, and legitimate Lutheran (not an ELCA Lutheran) and let the Lord lead through study and prayer.
You’re absolutely right. Often we begin to comment on the video before we have even begun to listen. Maybe, we wait until we’re 10 minutes in, but then, that’s it I have heard enough. We have no interest in hearing the other side at all. I have made it more of habit now to actually listen to what the other side has to say before responding. How can I really know if I’m actually opposed to their point of view unless I acknowledge what it is that they actually believe? Otherwise, we just make the same old tired arguments as before. I’ll make a point of watching videos of evangelical sermons, videos by those who make arguments in opposition to the Catholic Church and debates between Protestants and Catholics. I have discovered that one can actually learn something and develop a level of respect for others by actually opening their ears to an individual with a difference of opinion. Besides, how can you say that you’re against what they have to say unless you hear what they have to say?
It’s funny that in his quoting the misquoting of “money is the root of all evil” and correcting it to “the love of money is the root of all evil” he still misquoted the passage. It’s “the love of money is the root of all KINDS of evil”. Love the video but thought this was funny
Your title needs serious work if you’re trying to have an open dialogue with Protestants…. I’m a Christian. Not Catholic and not Orthodox so you’d probably label me a Protestant. I’ve looked hard into Catholicism because I like the structure and many of the traditions but I cannot commit because of some teachings. Mainly, that Mary was sinless. That’s not biblical as only Christ was without sin. I understand the thought behind the teaching and it is sorta logical but I think it’s false. She was clearly blessed and righteous but if “all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God” that would include Mary. It’s a hurdle I cannot get over. The other would be purgatory but that’s much less of an issue for me….I do consider us brothers and sisters in Christ and I look forward to seeing all of you in Heaven. II pray that we can be better Christians to one another. God bless.
Mary may be your biggest obstacle, however, she is also a source of great inspiration & you can overcome it. Devotion to her always leads one closer to Jesus. Luke 1 28 on, esp 46 on. Mary was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception & all generations will call her blessed. To be the mother of God, which, if you deny, you run the risk of denying His divinity, she had to be immaculate. Just as the Ark of the OT was revered & considered holy, so too with Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant. As Elisha & Elijah were taken up to heaven, so to with Mary. If not, where are her relics? Mary is the Queen of heaven (type of Esther) & the woman of Rev 12. Suggest that you read what the early fathers taught about Mary, likewise, any Marian books that you can lay your hands on. I can assure you that greater understanding of Mary will make you into a more complete Christian. Remember that Catholicism philosophy is BOTH/AND rather than EITHER/OR
@@geoffjs saved from original sin is much different than sinless. I may be mistaken in Catholic doctrine but it was my understanding that Catholics believe she’s sinless. As in never sinned….As far as Mary being “taken up”, I don’t have issue with that. It’s not unbiblical as it happened before, as you stated. So God very well may have called her home and I won’t dispute that…. I appreciate your response. Thank you.
@@sampence484I take your point about living a sinless life. Mary was the first Christian & our role model. The fact that she was assumed into heaven implies sinlessness as He wouldn’t allow her body to decay, remember, all things are possible with God.
if “all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God” that would include Jesus too. He's a real human and part of all. It would also include babies and mentally incapacitated people too. Clearly that statement is a generalization and not an absolute.
@@Joker22593 this is the typical response I get rather than an explanation of how Mary was sinless. Although most don’t include Christ as he was also fully God which allowed Him to be sinless. 2 Corinthians 5:21. I think most folks would agree that babies and mentally disabled wouldn’t have sin counted against them, even if it were possible for them to sin. Mary clearly was neither a child or mentally challenged. So the hurdle remains for me.
Jesus did establish one Church. It is preserved by the Holy Spirit. The question is, is it isolated in the Catholic church or like every other denomination, does the Catholic church have errors? Was the Catholic church and not the Lutheran reformers the wayward ones? The Catholic church is true, should prove to be so under scrutiny just as Paul's teachings were by the Bereans? Where can I find the fullness of the Catholic church's faith? If I had it, and examined it, it might convince me that the Catholic church is the one true Church of Christ? Against what would I judge that fullness of the faith in order to know it was entirely true and without error?
Good questions. In summary, I suggest that you read the early fathers & church history. To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant the CC made a major contribution to the development of Western Civilisation as we know with - schools & universities - medicine & hospitals - science & astronomy - law system from Canon Law - economics - double sided accounting - social services - human rights - architecture - arts & music etc which in todays world, is politically incorrect to acknowledge, all covered in an excellent book by Thomas Wood Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture
The way protestantism is presented here confirms to me once again how little people actually know about it, even those who have been its members or pastors.
@shotycellist Well what do you mean by Protestantism? You have over 35,000 different churches, sects and denominations, containing hundreds and hundreds of variations in doctrine and practice. However the Evangelical model ( the one still bringing in crowds and very present in media everywhere essentially holds to what I have described in the video. I would have to make a 6 hour video to even make a dent in the variety of churches and ministries that have sprung from the 16th century revolt from the Catholic Church.
@@catholicskeptic please stop using this number. National Catholic Register has an article perfectly explaining why it's bogus. The metric that gets you to 9,000 (not 35,000) Protestant denominations gives you 242 Catholic denominations and 781 Eastern orthodox. So if you use it, you also accept that the "one true church" is split 242 ways.
@catholicskeptic So much to say to this... As someone in education, what I like to do when contrasting beliefs is find the best representatives from both sides. You pick the easiest targets. I could do the same, but I don't. While there are many Protestant groups, most can be lumped together into a handful of theological traditions: Lutheran, Calvinist, Wesleyan (the holiness mvt). The reason we have so many groups is not due to Sola scriptural but a lack of it. There are clearly stated presuppositions in Calvin and Wesley that place reason alongside scripture as an authority. They inherited this rationalist stream of thought from catholicism. You see this clearly in Calvin's objections to the real presence in the Eucharist as "unreasonable". I could say so much more.
While I understand, I also see that God instructed Moses to build the ark in such a way, or Solomon to build the temple. God didn't tell 'us' to build statues in that same way. The argument is still hollow, though, as Catholics do not 'worship' statues; never have, never will. God bless.
You are using a very broad brush to paint Catholics. Statues and painting are used by the Church also used to remind and teach us what God has done for through the lives of saints. Also as an example There are paintings of station of the cross which reminds Catholics of the passion of Christ. These are use to point us to greater reality of what Christ went through for us. Statues of saints reminds us of our brothers and sister gone before us over 2 millennium who live holy and exemplary lives glorifying God even in martyrdom. We are reminded that we too can live such lives for God and the great reminder that God provided for them and He will also do t same for us. IF you watched the video, you would remember Hugh mentioned "God use the physical to communicate spiritual! The is the beauty of the catholic tradition that we are aware of the great big family of God! Just like when you look at the picture of your loved ones, you are not idolizing them but you are reminded of your love for them and their love for you. I cant argue the fact that some Catholics may worship improperly but can you tell me that does not happen in a Protestant setting. I am sure there are protestants who worship even their pastors!
With that view, he didn't command you to comment on this video. Are you going against God by commenting on this video? Or crossing the street or doing anything. That's a crazy thought train you have there. We can't do anything unless God commands it. Are you holding your breath and waiting for it to be written in the bible before you can breathe? He didn't expressly command it, so you must not be able to do it. Do you see how crazy that sounds?
11:06-11:29 "office didn't matter, authority didn't matter? The Bible teaches these things emphatically. There's such an overwhelming emphasis on this in the Bible, it's so defined". What a misrepresentation of Protestant traditions. We absolutely believe authority matters, and we don't just just let Larry be the pastor because he wants to. Protestants just believe that someone can have authority from God and still be wrong on occasion. When you were a Protestant pastor, you had real authority over your congregation! If someone were to only listen to you when they liked what they heard, they would be in error. The New Testament talks a lot about two offices, Deacon and Bishop (both of which should be married in 1 Timothy 3). No mention of a supreme infallible office though, which is weird if it's that important for us to submit to. And if the evidence for the papacy is so overwhelming, why do I only ever hear about Matthew 16? 13:52 completely agree, we have to look at grammar to discover meaning. You skipped over a huge piece of grammar talking about the keys of the kingdom: "I WILL give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". 'Will' meaning in the future. So when does this happen? I don't think Jesus would've waited long, and it seems likely to me that since Matthew 16 goes (keys, bind and loose), that Matthew 18 would've been the place he gives the keys out when he gives all the apostles the ability to bind and loose. That's speculation since we don't have a chapter and verse for this, but it's not clear at all that Peter is the only one with the keys. 15:23 "Bible alone" does NOT mean we believe that's the only place we can learn or walk with God. It just means it's the only infallible rule we have. You make it seem like Protestants believe we don't listen to teachers because we have the Bible. Side note, 1st century Christians might not have had the entire NT canon we know today, but even by ~68 AD in 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture. We don't need the entire canon (or any canon for that matter) to be certain about the resurrection. The early church was in general agreement about a lot of books being scripture, it just took a while to get the fuzzy edges straightened out.
@mikekukovec4386 I'm sorry, I left out the word "illegitimate authority ". Making up a theology by private interpretation of scripture ( something forbidden by scripture, 2Peter 1:20). You are correct in that the Bible does indeed speak of authority. It was exercised from the beginning of the Church, over 300 years before the complete canon of the New Testament was put together, by the authority of the Church. ( Council of Rome, 382 AD, under the authority of Pope Damasus and the Bishops of The Catholic Church) Interesting that you quote away many verses from that New Testament. How do you even know what books belong in there? You tacitly accept the decision of the Catholic Church in selecting the 27 books of the New Testament. There were of course many 1st century writings circulating around. But God made sure that the authority of His Church, He established, sorted out and chose the right books. That's how I know, how do you know? I ask the question I ask every Protestant Christian, is the Table of Contents in your Bible inspired scripture? Where in the Bible does it tell you which books actually belong in the Bible? Yet you accept the decisions of Catholic Bishops as having chosen the correct ones. On the other hand, you accept the choices of 1500 years after the time of Christ, regarding the Old Testament, in accepting the Protestant removal of 7 books from it, by 16th century rebels. As far as my description of Prots getting together and starting a home church with "Larry" feeling led to be pastor, this is a common occurrence today. Of course I don't know which of the 35,000 different churches, sects and denominations that make up the Protestant community you may belong to. Yes when I was a Pastor I exercised authority, and tried my darndest to exercise it according to the Bible, well my interpretation of the Bible, based on the interpretation of the Protestants who taught me. But which came first: The Church or the Bible? The complete Bible came AFTER the Church; the Church gave us the New Testament portion of the Bible. Yet generation after generation of Christians loved and served Christ, many dying as martyrs for almost 400 years before the New Testament books were firmly established. These were sone of the greatest generations of Christians, how did they walk with God with no Bible to consult? Oh they may have heard an Epistle or a gospel book read to them. There was a 90 % illiteracy rate; and no moveable type printing press and would not be until the 1400s. Yet you imagine that the Christian life is lived by you or I just reading and studying our Bibles, hoping we are interpreting them correctly? The early Christians led the Christian life by following the teachings of the Bishops, who were already considered the successors to the Apostles, and carried that authority. Read the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, a man who sat at the feet of the Apostle John. They are published and available to us, in fact the translation of them I use is a Protestant translation, but it is full of very Catholic Teachings, long before Constantine, the guy I was taught by Protestant profs at Bible college, started all the Catholic stuff. ( an utter lie) Such a notion of private interpretation of scripture didn't come into existence until 500 years ago. This was something I came to realize after years pastoring. All the constant distinctions: Once saved, always saved; Saved and maybe lose it; Baptism matters; No merely symbolic; Gifts of the Spirit ceased; or Gifts of the Spirit continue; the whole New Testament is for us today; or only parts of it(?Paul's writings, Dispensationalists) are for us, orher parts for another group, who apparently have another version of the gospel? We are chosen to salvation from all eternity and others damned; or we choose to get saved by free will? On and On ad infinitum. Sorry I discovered, by His grace, that Jesus established One Church, that's been here 2000 years. Teaching the same truth generation after generation. Has it had failure, corruption, bad members doing horrible bad things, yep! Has it also had great saints. awesome examples, many reformations within, yep! But Christ Promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ( Matthew 16:13-19) Oh and in answer to your reference to Matthew 16, Yes !!! Giving Peter the Keys was indeed future tense; it happened after Christ rose from the dead, and sent forth His Apostles ( Matthew 28:18-20).
@@ralf547 I appreciate that. Protestantism has it's own problems to talk about for sure, but I like to criticize it for what it is, not caricatures like "everyone just believes what they want" or "nobody cares about authority"
@tabandken8562 The Church wasn't established in the O.T. The church is founded after Jesus' life. Exodus is when God spoke to ancient Israelites. That was centuries before Jesus was alive. I believe God spoke to Moses. I asked the question about when God spoke to the Church and told the church to construct statues. I'm actually in favour of statues in the church, but this person made a comparison between statues in the tabernacle that Moses built and statues in churches. He cited Exodus but in the "books of Moses" it's God who tells them to construct statues of angels. Where is there a record of God telling Christians to build a statue in church? The circumstances are different. That's all I am saying. Not that it's either good or bad.
@fantasia55 I agree that there isn't any indication that God has spoken to any church telling them if they should use guitars or shouldn't use guitars or smoke machines in churches.
My Catholic mind was deprogrammed by exposure to the written word of God, the Bible. I've read the entire Bible twice, but of course some NT books I've read hundreds of times. It's laughable when Catholics try to tell me that if I just knew more about Catholicism I'd become one. Heh. Been there, done that, got the scapular. Not going back. Nearly every Roman Catholic tells me a long list of things I _must do_ to be saved: I _must_ come back to the RCC, I _must_ receive the RC Eucharist regularly, I _must_ obey the commandments, I _must do good works, etc. And the RCC itself says I _must_ believe in Transubstantiation, I _must_ believe in the Immaculate Conception dogma, I _must_ believe in Mary's bodily Assumption, and on and on. The burdens laid upon the Catholic are heavy. The Bible teaches that we _must_ believe in Jesus' propitiation on the cross for the full redemption of our sins, and we _must_ persevere in that faith to the end. Period. Such a light burden! We should do good works, we should do this and that... but those outward things are the fruits of God's power & love working in and through the spiritually regenerated believer. I don't _have to_ do stuff... I _get to_ do stuff _with my Lord and by His enablement._ Mat 11:28-30 "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. *For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”* No church is completely dependable. They all fall short, because they are comprised of fallible humans who fall short of God's glory. But Jesus is totally dependable and totally worthy of our full faith & trust. Come home to Jesus.
I would say that this is a very western modern mindset. Christianity is an eastern religion and they thought very differently than you or I. I used to be a diehard Protestant who got into a lot of debates defending the Protestant viewpoints on many of these topics. Until, I actually learned what this meant to the ORIGINAL audience. I actually started to look at how the earliest Christians viewed this and taught this. Guess what? Protestantism falls apart when you remove it from the original understanding and context. Using a "western mindset", I could make all kinds of arguments to support my position from the Bible. Jesus Christ said multiple times 1) I didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it--sorry, but this means that it is still in effect (many elements have been transformed but not gone) 2) If you love me, keep my commands. This is such a Protestant thing to equate "works" with "obeying commandments". How to say that works are necessary without saying that works are necessary? Say "works" are just the fruit of what God has done. The idea that "salvation" is a one time event is a modern idea. The NT talks about "salvation" in three ways: We were saved, we are saved and we are being saved. It is a process, just as you pointed out that we must persevere to the end. Guess what? That means works. The disconnect is how St. Paul sometimes talked about "works". It wasn't being faithful to the commands that he was talking about. Look at his audience when he said it. They were Greeks. Think of it this way and how Greek mythology portrayed its heroes--there is nothing that we can do grand enough or great enough or even good enough to bring ourselves to the attention of God that he would grant us salvation based on that. It is not talking about faithfulness. It is not about doing all the things we are commanded to do. By the way, I am not Catholic. But, I have found that the vast majority of Protestant teaching is just a rejection of Roman Catholicism and not what the early Church taught and believed.
@@hirakisk1973 I think about Jesus telling the thief next to him, the woman caught in adultery, and many other cases, that He had just forgiven all their sins. If those individuals had at that moment died, I believe they would have gone straight to heaven. After all, Jesus often said "your faith has healed you." You are correct and Protestantism is wrong in thinking that once saved always saved. But Salvation, if indeed the gift that God says it graciously is, can't be something we then must accomplish. But I agree that the works are our pleasing God, and only a Christians (= saved) can do that. I believe I am agreeing with you in saying that we are constantly warned (Nearly the entire Book of Hebrews) and instructed to live out our faith so as not to lose our salvation after having received it as a gift from God.
@@hirakisk1973 You wrote: "Jesus Christ said multiple times 1) I didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it--sorry, but this means that it is still in effect" I think you might have missed the point of Jesus' fulfillment of the law. He fulfilled the law by keeping all of the law _on our behalf_ and by dying _on our behalf_ to redeem us from the curse of the law. The curse of the law is, he who is under the law must obey ALL of it, for if he disobeys in just one respect he is guilty of breaking all of it. Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Anyone who trusts in his own personal fulfillment of the law as a salvific requirement places himself under the curse of the law, and unfortunately he is not yet under the gift of God's saving grace. Galatians chapters 1 through 3 warns against this; in the specific case of the Christians in Galatia, some were misled into thinking they must obey the law of circumcision, but the specific example flows to the general proposition that viewing legalisms as salvific requirements runs counter to the Gospel of _grace through faith in Christ._ (I suppose one could label this a "Pauline mindset," but certainly not as a "western mindset.") I agree that _some_ people mistakenly believe in "once saved, always saved". Not all protestant or reformed Christians believe this; rather, it is a doctrine held by a small subset of Christians. At the same time, we should recognize that the indwelling Holy Spirit who regenerates the believer also strives to guide and enable that Christian to do good works and to avoid sin. _No Christian does a perfect job of cooperating with the Spirit,_ and so all Christians continue to fall short... some by a little, and some by a lot. Yet we must remember that the Christian is no longer under the curse of the law, and God's propitiation on the cross was sufficient to redeem us from every sin. So a Christian will only lose salvation if he falls from faith: that is, he apostasizes. If a Christian becomes an atheist, he is lost. If he ceases to believe in Christ's redemption or if he decides that he wants no part of God's gift of grace, he has irredeemably fallen from grace. Hebrews 6 says there is no more repentance for a person who has tasted of the Spirit and the gifts if he turns his back on God. A Christian can lose his salvation by throwing it away. Persistent, egregious sinning can lead to this end because in order to engage in habitual, willful sin a Christian must harden his heart to the Holy Spirit's assistance; if the person continues, his heart can become so calloused against God that he eventually falls from faith and is lost for eternity. We believers *were* saved when we believed, we *are being* saved, and we *will be* saved _if we persevere in our trust in Christ's redemption._ As Jesus said (John 15), the branches which are cast into the fire are those which fail to remain attached to the vine, which is Christ; but even the branch that is not bearing fruit will be pruned (not burned) so long as it remains attached to Christ by faith in Him. "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me has eternal life" (John 6:47). Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you _an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God._ Heb 3:13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Heb 3:14 For we have come to share in Christ, _if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end._ BTW I agree that most of what you'll see on the web is focused against Roman Catholicism. I myself was a cradle RC; its errors are what I am intimately familiar with. Most protestant or reformed Christians are far more familiar with the church of Rome and its dogmas than with our less vociferous, less prevalent Orthodox neighbors.
Friend, if you desire to deprogram anyone, it must be done with the pure word of God. As heb 4:12 states His word and His word alone is sharp and powerful. Rom 10:17 reminds us that Faith coming by hearing and hearing by “the word” of God. Let’s make sure we can back up what we say with His word and nothing else! Grace and Peace!
@@Harbinger290 And the pure Word of God was written, preserved, translated, and bound by His Church. We should also abide by the interpretation of the Church then. Not by Harbinger's
@@sbblando8533 Friends, at 4:30, Hugh questioned where did Jesus say follow a book. Jesus is God and He is the word. Therefore, I am willing to accept and pose a challenge in return. Let's look at the example of Moses and Israel. God provided them with a book to follow, known as the "BOOK OF THE LAW", and held them accountable to obey its teachings. Deuteronomy 28:58 (KJV) If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD. Next verse declares judgment on those who don’t follow the written BOOK! Hugh not God suggests that we should trust a specific group of individuals because they claim to possess the truth. However, the true measure of truth is based on God's written word found in a book. This book contains God's words by which we will all be judged. Time constraints may limit reading, so I will leave it here for you to contemplate further. I challenge Hugh or any Catholic friends to explain their interpretation of Romans 3:4 (KJV): "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is WRITTEN, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
@@sbblando8533 True church: There are two meanings of church in the Bible. 1. There is the physical church or gathering of people who come together and profess Christ. Just as there were 12 disciples and 1 was a devil, not everyone who claims Christ belongs to Christ. In Matt 7:21-23, we learn that most people who profess Christ and work in His name do not belong to Him. Christ said there are wheat (saved) and tares (lost) in the church. 2. Then we have the “one true church” or saved church. During the time of Israel, it was known as true Israel. Today, true Israel is the body of Christ. True Israel (church) is joined to the Gentile body of Christ (church) by the Spirit of God. The only people in the true church are those who have Christ's Spirit indwelling them. For instance, many people in the Catholic and Protestant churches are water baptized, like Judas. They may have even prayed to be saved and claimed to believe the gospel, but they have never been saved. They are like the crowd in Matt 7:21-23 who profess Him as Lord and do many marvelous works in His name, but they do not belong to Him. V21 tells us the problem - they never did the Father’s will to be saved. Question: What’s the Father’s will (Matt 7:21)? Do you know if you’ve done His will to be saved or are you just doing good works?
You spoke of how we got our Bible, Catholicism & statues, priests authority to forgive sins, the contentions of many protestants, but never anything about deprogramming Protestant Minds.
Each of those is reason to ponder and research the history of Christianity. You de-program yourself by getting outside of your comfort zone. Christ did not found a bible Church. The only way of correctly knowing what it is, is knowing what it was.
@@ralf547The Holy Spirit is the author. However, "WHO" did He trust with it? Who did God trust to teach, baptize, make disciples, write what was not considered scripture but later was. Who did God trust to declare the27 NT writings - out of over 100 written - are the inspired writings? Who did God trust to re-copy those precious scriptures over and over hundreds, even thousands of times? Who did Gods trust to guard those scriptures from harm, from additions or subtractions? As we know, the bible did not fall in leather-bound King James Version form from heaven. It was a multi-centuries long, arduous task. Who did God trust throughout that process? It took someone with divine authority to write, copy, re-copy, preserve and shepherd the scriptures now for 1991 years.
@@DUZCO10 It does not fit the biblical narrative at all. Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7) Peter was one of the 12 to judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28-30) (Why Peter, chief apostle to the Jews, would he abandon them and take off to Rome?) Peter spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not the languages of Rome, which was Greek and Latin and were the language of the educated and upper class (Acts 4:13). Peter was assigned to feed the sheep of Israel, to the day he died (John 21, Gentiles were not on their radar at the time of this conversation) (Why would he abandon them and take off to Rome, especially during their famine Acts 11:28 when they needed him most?). Peter was a fisherman, who had a boat, which was instrumental for their gathering in their final days (John 21:3). Peter was in Babylon, Egypt, and Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt, (1 Peter 5:13) Peter was writing from or near Jerusalem at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, for the temple was in Jerusalem, not Rome. If Peter was in Rome at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, then this would make him a part of the “scattered”. He was writing to Jewish Christians in those 5 churches, who were actually scattered from Jerusalem (not Rome, due to the Babylonian captivity), who had to leave for their gathering. They would have left to greet Mark for their gathering (1 Peter 5:13) then continued by boat to Peter, who was 100 miles south. Do you see the water channels leading/funnels to Babylon, Egypt? The logistics were already taken care of by God. If “Babylon” was referring to Rome, that would be a logistical nightmare, and they would have been heading towards a slaughterhouse, Nero was murdering Christians there at the time Peter wrote 1 Peter. Peter would then escort them for their gathering, to Petra. Petra has a history of flooding, and we see the earth split southwest of Petra, which indicates revelation 12 has been fulfilled. The 1260 days was from April 11, AD70 to September 22, AD73. Remember, Peter was told the temple would be destroyed, do you really think an apostle to the Jews, would think about going to Rome? The house of Israel were the ones raised up in Matthew 27:52-53, this was a big deal in their history. Their entire history since Abraham. Like Peter said, they were the chosen generation, that is a serious character flaw for him to abandon them all because of a "evil man" written by Eusebius claiming Peter chased Simon to Rome at the beginning of Claudius reign. I have a series of videos where I point out Eusebius lied in his writings. There is also evidence many of the writings of "church fathers" has also been modified, and it points to Eusebius. If you are going to make this about a pope being in Rome, ask yourself, does this fit the biblical narrative? Where do you see the earth split near Rome indicating where their gathering took place (this place also has to have a history of flooding)?
@@soteriology400Nice write up! In my humble opinion the Catholic’s should have chosen Paul as Pope if they understood what you just described. After all, Paul is the apostle, teacher and preacher for today’s gentile church age, not poor old Peter whom they’ve turned into a “Vicar of Christ”. However, I’m not sure these kind of details are allowed into tradition! God bless you!!
@@Catholiclady3 The translators to Greek would have had a conversation with the apostles for clarification. This is why the Greek clears it up for us, that some want to ignore. Also, even if we do not go by this, in John 1:40-42, Jesus did not mention there, upon this rock, He will build His church. This suggests the church is not built on Peter (flesh and blood), but on Christ (Spirit, "Father, into your hands I commit My Spirit"), whom the Father revealed to Peter in Matthew 16:17. It is the Spirit of Christ that overcame hades (2nd half of Matthew 16:18), Revelation 1:18. Peter never overcame Hades. Both Peter and Paul stated Jesus was the chief cornerstone for a reason, the cornerstone is what a building is built off of. The church is built on the Spirit, not flesh and blood. Jesus said flesh and blood profits nothing, it is the spirit that quickens. Peter did not overcome hades, nor is anyone born of Peters spirit. Peter was simply born of God at the time of their conversation in Matthew 16, 1 John 5:1. So were the rest of the apostles, except Judas of course (Matthew 18:18). I don't mean this with any disrespect, but this interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is simply a shallow interpretation, that is only skin deep
