Jeff Durbin on Roman Catholics & Calvinism 

Jeff should, Trent will likely make one of his “rebutted” videos on Jeff eventually, but listening to them go head to head would be great. Jeff is great but misses the mark on a few things that I know Trent would expose.

Are you sure you want that? Trent Horn already beat James White in a debate. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-72TRODe8BdA.html

@@T_frog1 Believing something, doesn't make it so. I watched this debate and found no reason to agree with your assessment. I didn't even find Trent's presentation very polished, why do you think he won?

Trent Horn is Scary

@@T_frog1 Can a Christian lose his Salvation? Judas claimed to be a Christian and he was lost. Once saved always saved? God sees the past present and the future simultaneously and If you are already declared Justified in God's sight and declared by God as truly saved you can never lose your Salvation. Eph 1:13-14 So one is either Saved or Self-Deceived. But Christ is our Hope of Salvation!!!

James White has pretty much covered that topic on his program. He's an elder at Apologia, so they are on the same page pretty much.

Are you looking for anything in particular, or general information?

Sounds Good when Heretics ask about the True faith in Orthodox Christianity

​@eliasf4130 The Christian Faith believes the Elect are saved by God's Grace alone. the Eastern Orthodox Church, another apostate church like the Roman Catholic Church, rejected that.

@@mkbr1992 heheheh Orthodox Church is the church that established by Jesus Christ Himself. And no you're not saved by Grace or faith alone you need Both Grace and works. You're following Heresies Like Apologia. Repent

@Dominic Orlandini What Christian does not ask for his brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for him as he goes through great trials? Catholicism teaches that we are one with every member of the Church throughout history, united by Jesus by his body and blood offered and received in the holy sacrifice that is the mass. "The prayers of the righteous are powerful", and the intercession of the blessed mother of God is most powerful as her relationship with her son is more profound than any one of the holy apostles (she spent 30 years with our lord before he even began to give us signs). In addition, we're told in Revelation that all of the saints in heaven receive our prayers as we offer them up. Mother Mary is the greatest and surest path to her son, Jesus. "When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household." We are all disciples whom Jesus loves; therefore take Mary into your household, and allow her to bring you to her son! I encourage you to look at articles/videos on CatholicAnswers that address the concerns you might have with Jesus' Holy Church established here on earth. Although there are corrupt men and woman running Her (allegorical to Judas, don't you see!), Jesus promised he would remain with her forever - so too then will I. What greater assurance is there!?

@Dominic Orlandini St Michael the Archangel is the Angel who cast Satan and the other angels, who chose against God, out of Heaven and into Hell when God first created the angels, who are all by definition a greater form of creation than humans are. The Angels are in a constant battle with the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. These angels, including St. Michael the Archangel, constantly are in battle, being commanded by God Himself. To deny this, is to deny that Satan and the evil angels (evil spirits) exist. That would go against not only the Church's teaching, but also all of the great reformers' teaching, which I'm sure you wouldn't want to do. I might add here, that Martin Luther King actually believed in the real presence of the Eucharist and in ALL of the sacraments of the Church. He simply went off the deep end and the rest is history. Quoting you, "You blaspheme by calling Mary "mother of God," God has no mother and he created her." Luke 2:51, John 2:3, Mary is referred to as none other than "the mother of Jesus" you: " Just because she bore his human form does not make her his mother, he even denies her that title when the multitude gathered around the house when he healed the man." Here is a quote, I would encourage you to look into this more as calling a woman by the title of "woman" is actually a term of profound respect in Hebrew: "What is important about Mary is that she is the new Eve; she is the one who says yes to God, whereas the first Eve said no. The first Eve was called “woman” (Gen. 2:22) as is Mary, both at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (John 2:4) and at the end (John 19:26). The title is both respectful and theologically important in revealing Mary’s role in salvation history." you: "Are you ignoring the fact that your pope said that "evolution is real and that God is not a wizard." " We believe in both faith and reason. Nothing that God created can contradict or disprove Himself. Why then do you fear Science? It is wonderful. Like all other fields of study: philosophy, theology, education, engineering, etc. They all lead to God. Embrace Faith and Reason - they lead to God. "Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits" and your church pumps out pedophiles and rapists like no other." We are saved by Grace, through faith, evidenced by the fruits of what we do. I don't believe you understand how many incredible people are products of Jesus working through His Holy Church! The Church is Jesus' body on earth; I do not claim that the human part of the Church is perfect through and through, and neither should you. It is the divine element of the Catholic Church (Jesus) that separates Her from all other Christian denominations; this is the reason you should come into communion with Rome and the Church, brother! Come into the body of Christ by entering into an RCIA program near you and learn about the faith! Be baptized and receive the Eucharist! Praying for you!

@Dominic Orlandini Yes - I accept God created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in between in six days. On the question of the 24-hour day, I do not. Though I will remind you Hebrew traditionally uses the the word "day" to refer to an "age of time" (ie. in the Lord's day), but there are many acceptable views here. It would be wise for Christians to not cling to unnecessary interpretations of scripture as you seem to here... St. Thomas Aquinas warned: "First, that the truth of Scripture be held without wavering. Second, that since sacred Scripture can be explained in many ways, one should adhere to no explanation so precipitously that he would [still] presume to assert this understanding of Scripture [even if] it were [later] agreed, because of a certain argument, that this position is wrong-lest Scripture be mocked by unbelievers because of this, and the way of believing be blocked for them.7 After reviewing various positions that take “day” as a twenty-four hour period, Aquinas then observes: "But if by these “days” the succession of time is not indicated but only an order of nature, as Augustine would have it, [still] nothing would prohibit our saying in agreement with any of these opinions [above] that the formation of the substance of the firmament pertains to “the second day.”

Aurelius Augustine H. Praying with you! Great defense of the faith!

@Dominic Orlandini "Your answers are weak, you're just regurgitating Catholic philosophy." Catholic theology and philosophy, yes. Why would I as a Catholic give you protestant viewpoints? "How can you believe God created the earth and everything in between when your infallible god-man pope (There is a pope who said he is equal with God, I can't remember which one) denies that?" This is just not true, brother. If this is the reason you have ill-will towards the Universal Church I would be happy to help you past it! The bishop of Rome is not equal to God, and the Catechism does not even insinuate this... I'm certain there are plenty of Catholics who perhaps led you astray on this point; but the beauty of Catholicism is that all of the important points on what we believe can be easily found and understood. Try reading Catholic Answers articles if you're at all interested in clearing up this confusion! "If evolution is real, you're not made in God's image." God isn't human... He doesn't have arms and legs as you might imagine Him to, and He most certainly isn't bound by time as we are. We are created in His image and likeness by the fact of our Intellect and our Will, two things that God most certainly has... These are the shares of divinity, which we alone as humans posses (not dogs or cats or fish or any other life form). I'd invite you to look into Catholic Answers for more on this too! Or you could search what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter! "Just answer me this please; how is someone saved?" Again, please read what Catholic Answers has to say on this subject. It's obviously a sore topic for many Protestants, but I can tell you for sure, all salvation comes from Jesus Christ, and the fullness of salvation is therefore present in the Holy Church Jesus Himself established in 33 AD... If you're really interested in learning more about this though, go to CatholicAnswers.com and search "how do Catholics say we're saved?" "If someone who is not a believer walks up to you on the street and says he wants eternal salvation, what do you tell him he has to do?" I point in the direction of Jesus Christ's Church and tell him: "all you need to know can be found in and through this divine Church that Jesus established here on earth. He also promised to remain with Her always - and so should you." Receive the sacraments that Jesus Christ Himself gave us and follow the teachings that the Church puts forth; these will surely fill you with the Spirit, lead you to Jesus, and finally to the Father whence death does make itself know. My advice to you: Check out CatholicAnswers.com for the answers to the questions you've been asking! And if you find you would like to come home to the Church, join the RCIA program at the Catholic Church nearest you and prepare to come back into communion with Jesus! God bless you!

It is unbiblical in that the priesthood of the RCC is never mentioned in the Bible. The Elders and the Deacons of the early Church were not called to celibacy. They were to be the husband of one wife. Still are.

Some chose celibut lives just.as others rvcalled to celibecy Unmarried men and women r called to a lifebof celibacy. Unfortunately those who dont know.God dont.live accordingly. Catholic Priests.r called.to.celibacy, sadly few r able.abd leave. Jesus.was a celibate Preacher. Why bad mouth the Catholic Church. Most religions diverse, have had sexual abuse .me sick the way u rub our Church. I was impressed with yr ministry until u criticise first church Jesus found. Dontvu think they r investigating. There is child abuse in all walks of life, even in families Satan is rampant in all organisariins. Dont be so critical against.the Catholic.Church, they.r brought to justuce if need be. They..r not.all bad, i personally know.some very committed.Holy Priests. Paedophiles r.made.that way, even in the.secular world.they r attracted ..children. its nothing to do with not allowing.marriage, its.everywhere, child.molestation.

Good point.

@@englishrose6627you need to learn how to spell

You weren't born a Catholic. You were born a sinner like the rest of us. Did you watch the DVD "The American Gospel" and have an open mind on the Catholic religion. To be Christian you need to have a teachable nature

@@DougWarner25 you know that it states in the Bible not to make an image in heaven and earth, so why do they make pictures of “Jesus” if it’s not him, also why do Catholics pray to Mary? I don’t see where in scriptures at all where it says to pray to Mary

@@DougWarner25 where in scripture, I have not found anywhere where it says “pray to Mary” plus it says not to make an image in one of the commandments, so if you can’t bring up scriptures within the Bible then you stand on a man’s words not the words of God

@@kodiak_9169 Well Mary being a saint and the Theotokos or mother of God, which yes is shown in scripture, we are able and encouraged to ask for her intercession in prayer. Intercession is shown many times in scripture such as, Rom 15:30, Col 4:3, Rev 5:8, Eph 6:18-19.

@@TYY727 but she wasn’t sinless nor died for our sins, in fact she needed a savior

josh portie and where did you get your Hebrew and Greek degree?

josh portie the 1800’s? Care to fill me in on this history of this

I’ve argued this exact point with Catholics and I still hang out with one of them. I do not hate them, I love them and I share the gospel with them because that’s loving. It would be unloving to keep the truth of Christ from them

@@gubernational57 And I hope we Catholics keep sharing the gospel with you ;)

@@SamM-lv8hr well I give Catholics the true gospel of Christ which is turn from your sin and trust in him alone apart from works. Your works, mass, the confession to a priest, purgatory will not save you. All that extra stuff is unbiblical. If you’re a practicing Catholic I will pray for you

@Sam M What is the Catholic gospel?

True

He should change the name of his channel to "Apostasia Studios"

This line of reasoning is absurd. It elevates the organization called the "Catholic Church" above the authority of scripture. If the "Catholic Church" were to, as an organization, abandon the teachings of scripture, would that not be apostasy? For those who are not Catholic, such as myself, the answer is: it has and it is. Scripture is the final authority that Christ's Church must be held to... not the other way around

@@michaelk8637 God is bigger than scripture. God will not be confined to scripture.

@@charlesmartel3995 Read 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Scriptures are from the mouth of God Himself, making your comment illogical.

@@michaelk8637 He was refereing to Old Testament scripture. The New Testament didn't exist at the time and it was not scripture, it was oral. God reveals himself in other ways than scripture. Why are you limiting God to only scripture?

Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel."

Why are you trying to lead someone to christ when GOD and the SON have already done everything they can. Who are you to think you can do better than GOD?

@@crayon4412 is that your actual argument, or was that tongue-in-cheek?

Amen!

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "Gospel according to Alberto EightyEight." You have no authority to interpret scripture so that verse is based only on your blind assumption. You only say that because you can only parrot what the ignorant anti-Catholic bigot Dave Hunt wrote in his book _A Woman Rides the Beast_. #1: Seven Hills Hunt argues that the Whore "is a city built on seven hills," which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains. The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered "hill" by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on "seven mountains," it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8-21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common. The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms. Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as "hill" in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well. Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about-pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries. Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City-the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered-and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

#2: "Babylon"-What’s in a Name? Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city "known as Babylon." This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is "Babylon the Great." The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to "the great city." That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified." "The great city" is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called "Sodom" in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1-3, 46-56). We also know Jerusalem is the "the great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was "where [the] Lord was crucified." Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts-Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon. This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon," but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians. #3: Commits Fornication Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome." Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with "the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered). To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are "unholy." He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

#4: Clothed in Purple and Red Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments. Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors-purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy. Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)-even the pope does so. The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem-a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25-26). Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs. It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel. Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49-52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that thepriests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4-8, 15, 33, 39:1-8, 24, 29). #5: Possesses Great Wealth Hunt states, "[The Whore’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4]." The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers. #6: A Golden Cup Hunt states that the Whore "has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’" This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he states that the "Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world." To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word "chalice" in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated "cup." He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper-a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25); he ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel-again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38-40, 37:23-24; Num. 31:50-51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices. #7: The Mother of Harlots Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: "John’s attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5, [Hunt’s emphasis]). Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy," which has "made sinners of the clergy and harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit." Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline-a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church-and even this rite has not always been mandatory. This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, since Hunt himself says, "The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ." Hunt has again lurched to an absurdly literal interpretation. He should interpret the harlotry of the Whore’s daughters as the same as their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place. This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Instead, Hunt gives the interpretation of the daughters as literal, earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly fornication. If Hunt did not have a fixation on the King James Version, he would notice another point that identifies the daughters’ harlotries with that of their mother: The same Greek word (porna) is used for both mother and daughters. The King James Version translates this word as "whore" whenever it refers to the mother, but as "harlot" when it refers to the daughters. Modern translations render it consistently. John sees the "great harlot" (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is "the mother of harlots" (17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s, which Hunt admits is not literal sex!

Not willing to recognize one's sin is a big problem.

I agree Sweet Sue! I've told many I believe Pride is the basis for most sin.

Where is the logic in your argument? Denominations refer to physical church bodies. Calvinism is a system of theology that exists in multiple types of church bodies.

I guess Presbyterians baptists and some Anglicans are all in one denomination now

Calvinism is a theology not a denomination. But ok…

They wouldn't stand a chance against a true Christian like Scott hahn.

Jeff would be destroyed in 5 minutes or less. A debate between Jeff and Robert Sungenis would be great too.

The Protestant delusion stems from an understanding of scripture that wasn't present in any Christians before the 1500s.

@Johan Strydom Then when people walked away from Christ because they thought He meant it literally, why didnt He correct them.

@Johan Strydom Not wrong. Stop following Martin Luther and follow Jesus Christ.

@Johan Strydom please read ALL of this (St. Paul's words) 1 Cor 11:17-34: "17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions" Paul very clearly insinuates that it is the very Body and Blood of Christ.... More Eucharistic Theology: shamelesspopery.com/eucharistic-theology-in-st-pauls-first-letter-to-the-corinthians/

The cup of wine and the bread that Jesus gave to the disciples was to represent his blood and body. He was not yet crucified. He did not serve them his actual body and blood. When the Catholic church serves communion as his actual blood and body is like recrucifing Christ every time. They still have Christ on the cross with the crucifix. Protestant churches has the Cross without Christ on it to say He came down from the Cross man was Resurrected and is alive. We are now awaiting his return.

Trail Reeves logical fallacy. Try again

Okay you said I could try again.....

Reformed Baptists have existed continuously since the day of Pentecost. They just didn't know they were reformed baptist's at the time. This can be proven by reading and believing the Bible. The Old Testament existed first. Then the church. Then the gospels and the epistles, etc. Please follow Jesus. Jesus said, "Follow Me." God bless you.

go t ell the birds you Reformed Baptist liar.

God bless you.

Tony C Except for the fact that the people who run Apologia Studios can't handle the truth that Catholics present regarding Church history. Either way, you're just being facetious in the face of a serious issue, which you obviously don't understand nor do you want to understand it.

I noticed that too. Whether it was this channel or the user who originally posted, it’s not helpful to anyone to censure discussion

I'm with you brother.

Krang X The funny thing is... I only noticed because when I was going to hit "REPLY" in the thread, it failed, so I copy/pasted by comment, then refreshed the page, it wasn't there. It surely wasn't the user, since the user was clearly in the right of the discussion, and the thread was generally supportive. The comment was made near to the video's release, which means that Apologia Studios was probably damage controlling, because they don't want to engage in any meaningful conversation. Notice how they never debate Catholics, except for James White, who constantly looses (note all of his debates with James Akin, as well as Trent Horn).

Thomas Comerford fair point. Yeah I did exactly the same thing. I posted my reply all the same in the main comments section. See if it stays up?

Not accurate

@@tricord2939 so, when and how was the Canon firstly defined?

@@bluegrassproject Study the book of Ezra, the putting up in the Temple and the dirtying of hands. 2 Peter is a good starting point for the New Testament, what did he witness, who was with him, what he was going to do & why.

@@tricord2939 but who told you that Ezra and 2. Peter are divine scripture in first place? Why not the two epistles of Clement? You can not consider biblical books for defining the canon, as there is no listing of biblical books inside the bible.

@@bluegrassproject Oh for joy, more of the same old worn out fables of Rome.

I'm just typing this comment to confirm what "Krang X" noted above, I also wrote a comment regarding this. Krang X replied to it as I am doing now confirming that he noticed it too. Apologia Studios does not want to be exposed for holding false beliefs, so they had to do damage control in this instance. In case anyone wanted to know the specifics: The original comment was regarding St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters (St. Ignatius was ordained by St. Peter and taught by St. John, both apostles), it was specifically regarding the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist, as well as the priesthood and presidency of the Roman Church, which St. Peter and his successors' presiding over it make it such.

No the Marian doctrine is NOT BIBLICAL. First, Doctrines based on Mary that the Catholic Church holds are Bible PLUS man's words. Read the Hail Mary. The first half is Bible, the second half about Mary being HOLY is pure blasphemy. Nowhere in scripture do we see this written... Man made this doctrine, not God! Mary is blessed and full of grace...Catholics use word games to confer holiness upon her. The term grace actually means God raised her from a lowly UNDESERVED STATE and ALLOWED her to give birth to Jesus. Anything more is again...blasphemy. she DOES NOT CONFER ANYTHING, let alone grace. This doctrine is a major point why protestants disbelieve the Catholic Church holds true doctrine. Just like the other gnostic branches that died off, the Catholic Church CHANGED the scripture to defy Jesus' earthly mother. Second, Sainthood is ALL TRUE believers not people canonized. Nowhere in scripture do we see PRAYING to saints. We are not to attempt to talk to the dead. We ARE instructed to talk to Jesus, because he is GOD. Mary is not to be prayed to, Joseph is not, Peter is not. No one but God. Nowhere in scripture do you find ANY reference from Jesus to practice such ridiculousness. Third, We are to follow HIM, not a church. That is very clear in his teachings. We are to meet together as believers. The TRUE church cinsists of TRUE believers on Jesus name, position and authority. True believers are undefined by the church, they are defined by Christ alone. They are the ones who have fully embraced Christ and His doctrine and submitted by faith to Christ. Since NO ONE knows the heart of man but God, then ONLY Christ knows. We can assume that one who bears the fruit of the Spirits are Christ's, but no one can know. Christ speaks of THE CHURCH that clearly exclude the church leaders and the people of authority. So much misinterpretation has occurred on this issue. Fourth, no one should call any man father....Scripture says it, Catholics disobey it... by the POPE'S permission. Pope's are fallible men...just like ALL church leaders. The VERY BIBLICAL message of ONLY CHRIST is the reason we don't bow down to or follow any man or organization in faith. Sola Scriptura is the result of what we BELIEVE was due diligence done to bring the 66 books of the Bible together. God does not EVER change his mind, as the Catholic church has repeatedly done. OBVIOUSLY the Pope is fallible, the church used to demand all Latin church services to preserve the original textual consistency, but the pope CHANGED this doctrine because it was WRONG to hide the words of Christ in a different language when it was clearly available in people's own language. That is the VERY same thing the Muslims do with their writings. You have to learn Arabic to be a true practicing Muslim. It is easier to control the masses of people when they have to rely on fallible humans to give you the instructions for life through their own view. The REASON we don't apply the same level of importance to teachings of the church is because they are MAN'S interpretation of that SOLA SCRIPTURA. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE! If you do not believe in scripture's authority and reliability, then I suggest you do research until you are sufficiently comfortable with it's reliability and authority. Why follow any of it if you doubt it's authenticity? Last, I am a former Catholic. No one could answer my questions about the discrepancies within the church doctrines. Only scripture answered me. The pope can't be both infallible and fallible simultaneously. Mary is CLEARLY not HOLY when I began to read scripture and stopped listening to the many extra-Biblical Catholic doctrines. I stopped having the nagging feeling that I was following something WRONG when I gave my life to CHRIST INSTEAD of the Catholic Church. For those who have been saved as I have, they understand exactly what this statement means. Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you will not have life within you was FOLLOWED by MORE SCRIPTURE. JESUS words that EXPLAINED IT say that the words he JUST SPOKE are about "SPIRIT"....NOT ABOUT FLESH AND BLOOD! Yet the Catholic church ignore Jesus words to favor their own interpretation. Thus, SOLA SCRIPTURA would gave saved them from such doctrinal mistakes. They forget that the Last Supper was performed PRIOR TO THE SACRIFICE OF FLESH AND BLOOD on the cross. There was no LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD SACRIFICE YET during the SYMBOLIC Last Supper. I learned none of the above through any of my current church teachings. I learned it through my study of SOLA SCRIPTURA. Only the Bible. The truth ALWAYS surfaces when we make our focus rightly upon CHRIST ALONE. He will reveal himself through the Holy Spirit. ...but on if you TRULY put ALL FAITH ON HIM ALONE. Reserve NOTHING that would cause your salvation any other way. I repent of my Catholicism and previous commitment to the Catholic Church instead of CHRIST ALONE. Only He saves, only His word will stand. Nothing added to the scripture is scripture.

TheChosenGamers 2.0 Honestly, I think no one wants to answer EVERY one of your objections because we have lives of our own. So I'll challenge you: Present your single (single meaning "one", not a barrage of attacks) best argument against Catholicism, and I'll answer it for you. I noticed that you identify as a "former Catholic" which basically means that you never really knew much about your faith, were probably somewhat liberal, and you were converted by a conservative Protestant starting with the whole "faith alone" heresy. Trust me, you people are a dime a dozen, many people leave the Catholic Church nowadays because they don't know anything about their faith. Walk into a Catholic parish and ask someone to list the seven sacraments and I guarantee you at least 90% won't be able to.

@@dioscoros You poor man. You have no idea the depths of study I did BEFORE leaving the Catholic church. The Mary doctrine that I pointed out was so clear cut....Straight from Luke. My whole family was Catholic...this was not some whim or some lightly taken decision on my part. Catholocism always leads to liberalism... by its nature. Now, I am no longer either, Thank God. The theif on the cross...was not Catholic, not baptised, no penance could be done, no confirmation, etc. etc. No sacraments. None. None and none. He merely believed in Christ, professed him as Lord and Saviour and was truly sorry...bingo! EXACTLY what the Bible says we need to be saved! You see THE BIBLE it is not lying when it says in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Notice the saved by faith part. Are you actually saying that THE WRITTEN WORD is FALSE DOCTRINE???? I just quoted feom the Bible-which I believe to be 100% true. Works show the results of that salvation, they do not cause or precede it...Tis the words ..NOT FROM YOURSELVES... Remember? Although the Mary doctrine is the most compelling, the most important is the doctrine of FAITH ALONE. You and many protestants are confused over what FAITH means. When Jesus says faith, it is not some simple prayer or magical incantation . It is genuinely DYING to self and being REBORN as he clearly tells Nicodemus in John 3. This faith is an absolute transfer of authority from ones own self to Christ. It is not mere words.it is as gift...not earned lest any man should boast. Catholocism tramples those TRUE BIBLICAL verses underfoot ignoring them for the words of man's teachings. I no longer do so. I was taught through College as a Catholic and received all sacraments except the priesthood and last rites. Please be aware that I KNOWINGLY repent of my beliefs in Catholicism and reject any of its Non-Biblical teachings and place ALL my trust and hope in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Only Son of the Almighty and Most Powerful God. His name is Yaweh. He is MIGHTY to save. He is Holy, Holy, Holy. Before him all my works are as filthy rags. The goodness I do is CHRIST ALONE, not me. I only accept teachings that are based on scripture, only The Word, not based on ideas from another man's head. If you respond with opinions, it will be rejected by me... unless it matches the Word. I await you response to my belief that FAITH is the ONLY way to heaven...not a church or its teachings. I base ALL MY BELIEFS in the Bible. What do you base yours on?

TheChosenGamers 2.0 So are you taking up my challenge by using the "faith alone" heresy/argument? Or a specific Marian doctrine? James 2:24 says that man is justified by good works, not by faith alone. When Romans and Galatians says "apart from works/works of the law" it's talking about the Mosaic law, read Romans 3:29, it's pretty clear. You have no idea what you're talking about. We believe (as you would've known if you knew anything about Catholicism) that initial justification is by faith, whereas ongoing justification is by good works done in Christ (Romans 2:4-8).

The early church did not uphold Catholic doctrine and belief. The book of Acts and the epistles tell you exactly what the true, original church was like. Nothing like Catholicism.

Faye Lewis how so? Because it sure resembled Catholicism a whole lot more than evangelical Christianity that’s for sure.

J J Yes, and thank you for mirroring what I noted in my/Krang X's comment. The more people who see this the better. Basically, the comment was regarding St. Ignatius of Antioch who taught the Eucharist, the hierarchical structure of the Church, the priesthood, and the primacy of the Roman Church... all at the turn of the first century to the second. Faye Lewis is telling an untruth, the Church Fathers were all obviously Catholic, even Tertullian, who died a heretic (and is not a true Church Father because of that) was still holding his Catholic faith besides his New Prophecy heresy.

Church father's we're Not Catholics, some may have been but a large number were not. Infact the Catholics tried many times to wipe out early Christians, as well as burned many of them at the stake! As for the original church it was most certainly not Catholic, you do realize Catholicism came from the Roman empire, it's a off shoot of that era, the early church was totally against the Catholic teaching, an they we're beaten as well as imprisoned for the teaching of Jesus, which did not sit well with the Roman's of the time. Or obviously they wouldn't Have Crucified Christ. People do some research not RU-vid. Go read some actual history.

c l you are simply wrong, I am that Catholic who got censored, I re-posted the comment in the thread of Thomas Comerford, scroll up. They're too ashamed and filled with guilt to delete 3-4 more comment threads. That would be a high note of sin if it wasn't already bad the first time around. Go to the thread of Thomas Comerford, we can discuss there.

maccabees isnt part of the biblical cannon so im not going to address it as it isnt the word of God in my eyes. 1 corinthians 3:11 - 15 doesnt say anything about purgatory. at no point in that quotation does it say anything about a person burning in fire and paying for sins. its talking about the judgement seat of christ, at which Jesus will judge each persons works and will reward them for what they have done. let me teach you what the actual gospel says about salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 "for it is by GRACE you have been saved, through Faith - AND THIS IS NOT OF YOURSELVES. not by works so that no one can boast." - your works have nothing to do with your salvation (other than being a sign that you are indeed saved). when Jesus was on the cross, his last words were "it is finished". do you know what finished means? it means done. over. no more. when he paid for the sins of the world on the cross he paid for all sins, past and future. to suggest that people have to pay for "unforgiven sins" in purgatory is to say that Jesus lied and failed in his mission. next, praying to saints is completely unbiblical. at no point in the bible will you find a command to pray to the dead. firstly, praying to the dead is necromancy. secondly, the dead cant hear or see you. a dead person is not omnipresent. how on earth are they supposed to hear your prayers? mary was just a woman. she may have been the "most blessed" but she was still just a woman. she has no authority over any other person, and she has no special powers either. she had nothing to do with the redemption of mankind. again you wont find that anywhere in scripture, it is herecy to suggest she had anything to do with salvation. 1 Peter 2:9 - "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light" EVERY single christian is part of a royal priesthood. no one person in the body of christ has any extra authority or power over another. Matthew 23:9 - "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." - right here Jesus makes it very clear that God the father is the only one who has authority over the church. he outright says that you must never attribute extra authority or power to ANYONE. yet the catholic church has done the exact opposite. they have set up a hierarchy of power and authority in direct contradiction to what Jesus commanded. you say you have been through the bible and never found a verse opposing Catholicism? i dont believe you. you have shown that you have no understanding of what the gospel is, redemption through the sacrifice of Christ and not by works, and you have shown that you adhere to a man made religious hierarchy of power. i would suggest that you properly study the word of God because you have fallen very far from the tree.

@@jackplumbridge2704 you wrote a bunch of stuff. I'll focus on one area at a time. Since you started with a big tirade against purgatory: Can you please define purgatory and explain what it is and what its purpose is, in your own words, not copied and pasted from somewhere else? Thanks

purgatory is a place where Christians go to pay for unforgiven sins. its essentially a purification process where a christian is being made completely clean, and after it they can then enter heaven. completely heretical, not found anywhere in scripture.

@@jackplumbridge2704 Maccabees was there in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures) which the Apostles and other New Testament writers referred to while writing the Gospels and the epistles (which were mainly written in Greek). The canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century with the Old Testament having deuterocanonical books. These books, because they were written in Greek and not in Hebrew (for the most part), were counted by the Pharisees as uncanonical, that is, not divinely inspired. Recently some portions of them have been found in Hebrew, thus disproving the criterion of the Pharisees. Luther removed this from the Bible, as they were not compatible with his view point (he even wanted to remove NT books like the epistle of James and Hebrews - even calling James an 'epistel of straw'). And if someone still want to defend that that they are not the 'Word of God', then I am forced to ask, how do you conclude that any scripture is indeed 'inspired'? 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, clearly states that one has to be careful regarding what he is building on the foundation (Christ) and how does he do that - through his work (1 Cor 3:13). Gold, silver and precious stones being the good works and straw, wood etc being the opposite. What does the Scripture say regarding judgement? That this house made of works will be tested with fire. It clearly says in verse 15 that if anyone's work is burned up, he will surely suffer loses, but he himself would be saved, but only through fire. Let me further explain it. Only a pure soul can be in the presence of the Lord (Heaven) - Revelation 21:27. If there is any sin (wood, straw etc), he won't be able to enter the presence of the Lord, unless he has been made clean through fire. Hence it is speaking of a place, which is not heaven, where people having the basic foundation in Christ will be purified through fire so as to make them eligible to enter the Lord's presence. This place is called Purgatory. Ephesians 2:8-9, says that we are not saved by works but by the grace of God and that is exactly what Catholics believe. Without the grace of God no one can be saved. But you are missing the point here. Didn't you yourself say that, "Jesus will judge each person's works and will reward them for what they have done". So is not work important? As a Catholic, I believe it is and my belief is supported by the Scripture (Mathew 25:31-46, Romans 2:6, James 2:24 etc). Regarding the forgiveness of sin, one ought to understand that there are two things that are important - the guilt of sin and temporal punishment. I will explain this with the help of Scripture. David sinned against God by sleeping with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), and later on realising his mistake he repents (2 Samuel 12:13) and God forgives him (the guilt of sin has been removed) but still punishes him by taking the life of his child - 2 Samuel 12:14 - which is the temporal punishment. So even if the sin has been forgiven, temporal punishment remains, which has to be paid. Not just this, there might be some venial sins (at the time of death) for which one may not have repented and hence did not receive forgiveness from God. God, in his mercy, has created Purgatory for such souls, who have Christ as their foundation, so that they may not have to suffer in hell. Regarding "prayers to the dead" - I would like to remind you that, these people are dead for us and not for God. They are still alive in God, as our God is the God of the living (Luke 20:38), and anyone who believes in the Son of Man has eternal life (John 11:25-26, John 5:24). Therefore they are alive in Christ, and if alive, can hear our prayer as we are connected to each other through Christ (because we all are part of a single body whose head is Christ and also because Christ it the true Vine and we are it's branches). Saying that Mary had nothing to do with redemption, is like us saying that Eve had nothing to do with the fall of Man. Mary is not 'just a woman', she is the Woman promised in Genesis, she is the one who was called 'Kecharitomene' by Gabriel (which means 'Graced one'), she is the new Arc of the Covenant, she is the Queen of Heaven (in Jewish custom, it was the mother of the King who was the Queen of the kingdom). Every single person who has been Baptized belongs to the 'royal priesthood'. But saying that there is no hierarchy is un-scriptural. 1 Corinthians 12:28, clearly shows that there is a hierarchical structure. Again we find in 2 Timothy 2:20, that some vessels are used for higher purposes and some for ordinary. So there is a distinction even within this house hold of 'royal priesthood'. Again in the NT we find bishops being appointed to lead a church (1 Timothy 3), who had authority over the people in the Church (Hebrews 13:17). They (the elders) had the authority to make decisions regarding faith (Acts 15:6). Does Mathew 23:9 mean that you are not supposed to call you biological father or you step father as 'father'? Ofcourse there is only one eternal Father. Even Paul calls himself father to the Church in Corinthians by saying: "Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." - 1 Corinthians 4:15. When a Catholic calls a priest as 'father', he means - 'you are a father to me through the gospel'. Let me stop by asking this question again - How do you conclude that the Bible is the 'Word of God' or in other words 'inspired Scripture'?

In AD 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the area of Qumran in Israel. Various scrolls date anywhere from the 5th century BC to the 1st century AD. Historians believe that Jewish scribes maintained the site to preserve God’s Word and to protect the writings during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent nearly every book of the Old Testament, and comparisons with more recent manuscripts show them to be virtually identical-the main deviations are the spellings of some individuals’ names and various numbers quoted in Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a testimony to the accuracy and preservation of the Old Testament and give confidence that the Old Testament we have today is the same Old Testament used by Jesus. In fact, Luke records a statement made by Jesus regarding the assemblage of the Old Testament: “For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation’” (Luke 11:49-51, emphasis added). Jesus confirmed the 39 books of the Old Testament in these verses. Abel’s death is found in Genesis and Zechariah’s in 2 Chronicles-the first and last books of the Hebrew Bible. But history shows that the actual New Testament in modern Bibles was recognized much earlier and that it is an exact reflection of what the “autographs” contained. First, Scripture itself shows that the writings of the New Testament were considered inspired and equal to the Old Testament. For example, Paul writes, “For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’” (1 Timothy 5:18, emphasis added). The latter quotation is from Luke 10:7, which shows Paul considered Luke’s Gospel to be “Scripture.” Another example includes a statement made by Peter: “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added). It is clear that Peter regarded Paul’s letters as equally inspired as the Old Testament canon. Second, quotations from the early church fathers allow the reconstruction of almost the entire New Testament as it is found today. For example, Clement (c. AD 95) quotes from eleven New Testament books, Ignatius (c. AD 107) quotes from nearly every New Testament book, and Polycarp (a disciple of John, c. AD 110) quotes from seventeen New Testament books. Using the early church fathers’ quotes, the entire New Testament can be pieced together, with the exception of 20-27 verses, most of them from 3 John. Such evidence witnesses to the fact that the New Testament was recognized far earlier than the Council of Carthage in AD 397 and that the New Testament we have today is the same as what was written 2,000 years ago. Third, there is no literary rival in the ancient world to the number of manuscript copies and the early dating of the New Testament. There are 5,300 Greek, 10,000 Latin, and 9,000 miscellaneous copies of the New Testament extant today, and more continue to be unearthed via archaeology. The combination of early dating and the enormous number of New Testament copies causes historical experts such as Sir Frederic Kenyon (former director and principal librarian of the British Museum) to say, “The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” www.gotquestions.org/original-Bible.html

Name a crime that's not a sin from today's society.

Heads up, original poster said he did it. Also, the post is still there and being debated, it was posted in multiple places. It doesn't prove anything, as it has presumptive literature in it. To debate from the ground up the apostate or legitimacy of the Catholic Church would take far more than a RU-vid comment.

That's a good point. The mitred hat that the pope wears is the same as Dagon the fish god. Constantine knew how to play both sides as this article points out. Peter was not the first pope. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and never greeted Peter in the last chapter of Romans. Some have said that the 'Peter' in Rome was Simon the sorcerer. "What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church?" Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. Following are a few examples: Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship. The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice. Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well. The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors-Pontifex Maximus. Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition. Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word. Second Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

Excellent research; thank you! I have the same site saved, but forgot to simply use it. References all other religions also.

You don't find all the articles or information on a particular subject unless you just happen to word the question right. God bless.

Paul's indictment of certain believers who kept going to secular courts instead of dealing with conflicts in the church. Beginning of the 6th chapter of 1 Corinthians. It's a horrible interpretation, but there it is.

Wow, really? How do they get such an idea from that? Don't people have even basic reading comprehension skills? God help us!

1. Fake news 2. Calvinism predates Calvin and we Christians do not venerate men.

@@PurePuritan Calvinism was condemned as heresy in the 17th century under the name of “Jansenism.” It is a sinister system of schism which claims to be “biblical” but is not. Calvinists refuse to worship as Christ commanded and be under legitimate authority. Matthew 16: 18-19, 26: 26-29, John 6: 53-55. They have erected their own idol- a false legal fiction of justification which cannot save anyone. Sadly, both Luther and Calvin perished outside of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. 😔

@@petertherock7340 Clement "I" Let us therefore consider, brethren, out of what matter we are made; who and what we were when we came into the world, as out of the grave and darkness itself; who, having made and formed us, brought us into his world having first prepared his good things for us, before we were born,” (Epist. ad Corinth. 1:p. 88.). “This blessedness comes upon those that are chosen of God by Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Epist. ad Corinth. 1:p. 114). “All therefore are glorified and magnified, not by themselves or their own works of righteous actions, which they have wrought out, but by his will,” (Clement, Ep. 1, ad. Corinth. p. 72.). ‘not by ourselves, nor by our wisdom, or understanding, or piety, or the works which we have done in holiness of heart,’ but by faith by which God Almighty hath justified all from the beginning, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,” (Ibid). “He that is chaste in the flesh, let him not be proud or insolent: knowing that it is another who furnishes him with the gift of contingence,” (Ep. ad Corinth. 1, p. 78.). “Making it manifest, that through the blood of the Lord there should be redemption for all those that believe and hope in God,” (Ep. ad Corinth. p. 30). “Therefore He (that is, God), being desirous that all his beloved ones should partake of repentance, confirmed it by his almighty will,” (Epist. ad Corinth. 1:p. 20.). “God hath chosen the Lord Jesus Christ, and us by him,” (Episi. ad Corinth. p. 130, 114.). “When he wills, and as he wills, he does all things; none of those things which are decreed by him, shall pass away,” (Epist. ad Corinth. 1:p. 64.) “Without love nothing is well-pleasing to God; in love the Lord assumed us to himself; because of the love which Christ our Lord hath towards us, he hath given his blood for us, his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls,” (Ep. ad Corinth. p. 112.). (Per.) “Whereas it is the will of God, that all whom he loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent, he has established it by his almighty will.’ But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is his almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of his?” (Ep. 1, ad Cor. p. 20). Shall I continue with more? Your own church fathers disagree with your supposed historic church.

@@PurePuritan Every single quote you just made supports and confirms the teaching of the Catholic Church. You should study the Church Fathers more carefully. “The Teaching of the Church Fathers” by John R. Willis, SJ. It would also benefit you to actually study the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In any case, Calvinism remains condemned and a heretical schism. 🙏

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L14UNjaZJm8.html

Cats mad

FiringallCylinders I actually heard that from Steven Anderson. He's wrong on some things (especially his anti-Catholicism) but he's right about how Calvinism is false

@@T_frog1 It's not though. Paul is quite clear on the matter. I don't see how anyone can read Romans and come to a different conclusion.

FiringallCylinders Here's a non-Catholic sermon against Calvinism: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yaCE9zAvKXE.html

I can't find the link on the website.

Same cant see on website

@Kevin Johnson What is the meaning of "foreknew" in Romans 8:29? Does it mean that God looked ahead into the future to see who would accept Him and who wouldn't, then predestined the Elect based on this foreknowledge? The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. In order to come to an understanding of any biblical text we must firstly divorce ourselves from all pre-suppositions that we subconsciously bring to and impose upon the text, then examine the text in context of chapter, book, author and then the major themes of scripture. We will now apply this methodology to the text and see where it leads us. The Greek word "Proginosko", a verb, a "doing" word, is commonly translated as "foreknew" in Romans 8:29. The context of its usage by the author is related to Election; of God being the "doing" subject, and the object of His "doing" action is given in verse 28 as "those who are called according to His purpose". The same verb is used by the same author in Romans 11:2 with God as the subject and the object being "His people whom he foreknew". Romans 11:2-7 tells us that: * Romans 11:4-5 makes it clear God's action of foreknowledge involves God choosing a remnant by His merciful grace ("a remnant chosen by grace"), it does not say that the remnant were "chosen by their response to His grace"! * Romans 11:6 tells us that "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works" which prohibits God's choice being based on any work of man. Verse 6 strongly prohibits the idea that God looked ahead into the future, saw those who would make a decision for Christ, then predestined them based on their future decision to believe. Instead verses 5 & 6 tells us that God's action of foreknowledge is a choosing action that is performed by God with no regard to the actions of the objects which He chooses. * Romans 11:7 goes on to tell us the remnant are the Elect and that God hardened the rest He did not choose. The above teachings from Romans 11:2-7 are beautifully consistent with Paul's writing on Election two chapters prior in Romans 9: * Romans 9:11-13; God chooses to love Jacob and hate Essau, to raise the younger over the elder, and the text tells us this choice is that "God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls." * Romans 9:16; rules out election due to man exercising "free will": "So then it depends not on human will or exertion but on God who has mercy." * Romans 9:18; tells us that God "has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." Examining other authors in the New Testament, the noun variant "Prognosis" is used with God as the "doing" subject in 1 Peter 1:2 and the object of His action is given in verse 1 as the "elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia", with their election given in verse 2 as being "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ...". In Romans 8:29, 11:2-6 and 1 Peter 1:2, the subject is God, the object of God's foreknowledge is the Elect, and there is a complete absence of any reference to foreknowledge being attributed to a decision of faith or the exercise of "free will" on the part of man, which is explicitly denied in Romans 9:16. Rather the context of all of these passages is that God is the one acting, and Romans 11:4-6 as well as Romans 9:11-18 explicity tell us God's mechanism of action is a choosing mechanism through His merciful grace, with no regard to any work or will of man, who is the object of His action. Continuing further into 1 Peter we find another reference in the New Testament to "Proginosko" where God is the "doing" subject, and this time Christ is the object - "He[Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world..". If the interpretation of God foreknowing is that God looks ahead in time, sees what others will do then predestinates based on that, then this would mean that God looked into the future, saw that Christ is going to end up on a cross, thought to Himself 'Wow I have to do something with that!' This interpretation of foreknowledge is nonsensical; to say that God foreknew Christ before the foundation of the world is to say that God ordained it to occur. Further evidence for this understanding of foreknowledge is found in Acts 2:23, where the noun variant "Prognosis" is used once again with God as the "doing" subject and Christ as the object - "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God..". This verse tells us that the action of God's foreknowledge was according to His "definite plan"; that is God didn't just look ahead in time and see what would happen, but God decreed what would occur. This is entirely consistent with other teachings of scripture such as Isaiah 46:10-11 - "declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it." So we have determined that when God foreknows something, God ordains that thing to occur. If that was the only meaning of foreknowledge however, what would be the purpose of writing in Romans 8:29 "those whom he foreknew he also predestined" - what is the difference between foreknowledge and predestination? To understand this we need to examine what it means for God to "know" someone: * Amos 3:2 You [Israel] only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities If when God knows Israel that only refers to information or knowledge, did God not have knowledge about all of the other inhabitants of the Earth? Clearly God "knowing" Israel speaks of a deeply personal, intimate relationship between God and Israel as His chosen people. * Exodus 33:17 - And the LORD said to Moses, 'This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.' Did God know Moses by name but didn't know the name of all the other people? Did God not possess that information? Clearly God knowing Moses by name refers of His personal affection for Moses whom God had chosen and raised up to play an important role in God's divine plan. * Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Is this verse saying that God looked ahead into the future, saw that Jeremiah was going to be a prophet or at the very least a "good" person, and raised him up based on that? No! This verse explicitly tells us that God established an intimate relationship with Jeremiah before he was ever born, and made a sovereign decision to set him apart and raise him up as a prophet. * Matt 11:27 - All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. No one knows the Son except the Father? Really? Everyone knows about Christ, demons, fallen angels and Satan have excellent theology and certainly know who Jesus is - clearly the Father "knowing" the Son refers to an intimate love relationship between them. * 1 Corinthians 8:3 - But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. This verse makes it as clear as it can be; if God "knows" a person, God has an intimate love relationship with that person. * Galatians 4:9 - But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? To know God is to be known by God, and conveys a personal relationship between God and His Elect. To summarise, the scripture teaches that: * When God knows a person (such as one of His Elect), this means that God has established a deeply personal, intimate love relationship with that person (Amos 3:2, Exodus 33:17, Jeremiah 1:5, Matt 11:27, 1 Corinthians 8:3, Galatians 4:9). * When God foreknows a person (or persons such as His Elect) this means that God has made a sovereign choice of Election (Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2-6, 1 Peter 1:1-2), not dependent on any work or will of man (Romans 11:2-6, Romans 9:11-16), which establishes a personal, intimate love relationship between that person and God. What is the difference between Foreknowledge and Predestination in the context of the Elect? Foreknowledge speaks of God's sovereign choice of Election and the intimate love relationship between God and His Elect, while predestination speaks of the result of that choice.

V Stefan thank you for that great exegesis!

V Stefan God’s will is that God’s will is not always done. We have the ability to choose to do good or evil before and after salvation. God bless u

Kevin Johnson It’s a paradox. I believe that God is so powerful that he can allow us free will and at the same time determine the outcome he desires. I think of it like this, that God can know or even rest EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE AND RESULTING OUTCOME IN EVERY INSTANCE OF EVERYBODIES LIFE and choose the sequence he desires. We see time differently than God does , who is to say that we did t do something different before (de ja vu) . Quantum physics. WE JUST CANT COMPREHEND GOW AWESOME GOD IS. I just believe BOTH. Just as with the trinity. I BELIEVE GOD IS ONE. JESUS IS THE SAME PERSON AS GOD AND A SEPARTE PERSON

Kevin Johnson scripture is FULL of such paradoxes HENCE THE DIVISION amongst brethren. Could this even be God’s doing to test our unity and character? Many believe one attribute of God and think it negates the other(which it would by our understanding). This is why we argue . Both sides are likely right. We need to see the Soverighty of God but also see the free will of man. Calvinists pretty much take away man’s free will because of how they see God can accomplish his purpose and can’t understand how He could do this without choosing what man will do(as in crucifying Jesus). What God wants to happen does not always happen and that is how He designed it but yet His plan of redemption will not be thwarted.

I'm sorry if that was misleading... Jeff is right that God is judging justly according to man's sinful nature, but the question following - who is Sovereign in bringing man to the bondage of sinful nature? God didn't initially create man in bondage... Satan neither can be sovereign over that since God is his creator also... In conclusion I'll have to say this - since evil/sin is defined as coming short of God's standard/disobedience, and God created Satan perfect, (gave him a seal of perfection), God must've later taken back some of the attributes He gave Satan in creating him. (Like fear of God/humility). Therefore God wouldn't be unjust in taking away what he gives to someone, therefore making Satan capable and culpable in rebellion against God almighty and leading astray the rest of creation. In that way God doesn't have to create sin, neither can He. Sin in nothing, he just takes good away. At the same time, Satan is responsible for rebellion and we are responsible for our own sins, since God doesn't answer to the creation why he made them like that.. is that too far?

You believe. Right or wrong about this you believe in Christ. Your not condemned

@@daniel_john3167 "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder!" James 2:19 ESV

It's not about who can win debates, it's about what is true.

God bless you!

nah they'll poo poo it because it isn't protestant, and more resembles authentic Catholicism.

@@4309chris yes. Enjoy your pride

Dang

This is the kind of stuff mormon bashers are all about and spend all of their time pursuing! Get over your self and live your best life regardless of the actions of others. You need to learn to forgive, respect people's decisions to follow christ in their own way, and shut the hell up! I'm not Mormon, but I sure hate it when people like you try to burn their name to the ground when they are indeed some of the most well rounded and respected people in the world. You have no idea the great influence members of that church have around the world because of the beliefs they were raised in. Learn to give credit where credit is due and stop obsessing over them.

I guess you're okay that Mormons are under the wrath of God?

Israel Page I know that in general, they are nice people, Israel. I was LDS for many years. They are nice people who believe in horrific distortions of God’s truth, taught them by an evil man named Joseph Smith. What I wrote in my previous post is accurate according to LDS doctrine. The Mormon church does not agree with your comment on letting everyone believe whatever they want without any efforts pushing for conversion. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be sending everyone who’s 18 on missions. They carry the sole message that theirs is the only true, restored church, with all of God’s truth, power and authority and everything else is an abomination before God. Well, those are big claims. And they should be tested for veracity. It is not bashing. Such claims, when compared to God’s revelations already given in the Bible, do not pass the test. Many LDS who sincerely believe, don’t know theirs is a false gospel. Therefore, the need for the outreach from Christians like Apologia. Blessings to you!

John Bot According to Ephesians 2, everyone who is not covered by the blood of Jesus Christ is under the wrath of God. In our nature, we are dead in our trespasses and sin, children of wrath, who need a Savior. Therefore, the reason for the Gospel to be taken to and shared with all.

Which symbol? If it's a reference to the 3 sided triangle above his head, you should know it's a widely known symbol that represents the trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one Deity. Used throughout the early Church. There are new age teachings it represents 666, but this myth is just that, a myth. Its becomes pretty evident it's a myth when they try explaining why they think it represents 666 (they say it's because you can find 3 6's in the shape). Seeing as how the early pagan didn't have our standard English 6 in the first place, we can fairly easily expose this for what it is. Conspiracy theory running amok and distracting those seeking God. I hope this helps (: God bless!

Jesus' actual name does translate closer to Joshua, not Jesus.

I know I'm a year late ,but I've never hear of that. I always recommend the legacy standard Bible, the nasb/new American stand Bible, or the esv/English standard version

ESV is pretty good.

Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin. It is just a term used to define a set of biblical doctrines that one holds to. -TULIP Jeff always says if we were to ask John Calvin about TULIP, he would take us to a garden.

@@mrslisaloves Calvinists hide the truth of what they really believe. Jeff knows the moral implications of being a Calvinist. he knows what the TULIP theology means, specially the U, unconditional election. the question is: does Jeff believe this? does he believe that he is part of the elects whom God unconditionally predestined for salvation during eternity's past? salvation to a Calvinist means to be born already "saved." there is another side of the U of TULIP. the non elects whom God predestined for hell during eternity's past ALSO by an IRREVERSIBLE and sovereign decree. the non elect will go to hell not for their sins nor for their rejection of the Gospel but by an unconditional selection God made for them before they were born and against their will. if Jeff is a Calvinist then he believes this blasphemy. nothing can alter the destination of either the elects or the non elects. this is why he uses profanity without the slightest concern. of course, he was born predestined for heaven and nothing can derail his destination. in the same way, nothing can reverse the death sentence of the non elects. an elect can't lose his salvation and a non elect can't reverse his condemnation by repenting and believing in the Savior because Jeff's god will deny the ability to get saved he gave the elects. remember in Calvin's universe there is no free will. Jeff's god wants the non elects to go to hell. he predestined them there! this is when the L of TULIP comes in, limited atonement. Jesus did not die for the non elects. I wonder why Peter exhorted Christians to grow in virtue to avoid a moral fall that could derail their future entrance in the kingdom of God? why did Peter said to confirm your call and election if they are irreversible???? "For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." 2 Pet. 1:5-11

@@mrslisaloves why elect Paul did not want to become a reprobate if this is impossible?? ADOKIMOS is the Greek word Paul chose for 1 Cor. 9:27 "but I beat my body and bring it into submission, lest by any means, after being a herald to others, I myself should become a reprobate." this word appears 8 times in the NT. (Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5, v. 6 v. 7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:16; Heb. 6:8) from these passages we get the meaning of this word. Rom. 1:28; 2 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:16 is describing never saved sinners. 2 Cor. 13:5, 6, 7; 1 Cor. 9:27 is describing believers who could become reprobates and Heb. 6:8 (the conclusion of Heb. 6:4-7) believers who became reprobates by committing final apostasy. the KJV translators were Calvinists just like Jeff. they translated this Greek word reprobate in all the passages EXCEPT 1 Cor. 9:27 (castaway) and Heb. 6:8 (rejected) WHY? because these 2 vs. speak of SAVED elects. the translators did this to protect this perversion of the grace of God which these 2 passages (1 Cor. 9:27 and Heb. 6:8) destroy. ADOKIMOS means to be without Christ. Paul used the same word in 2 Cor. 13:5: "Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Know you not yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you, except you are reprobates?" without Christ means to be unsaved, destitute of salvation, whether saved at one time or never saved. Paul did not want to become lost again=ADOKIMOS, this is why he submitted the sinful impulses of his flesh. he knew his election could be lost through sin and he could become a non elect reprobate. NOTE this destroys Calvin's predestined irreversible election and non election.

Bman what did they say that was incorrect?

please explain what they got wrong

@@samsilva8000 made multiple comments above about all the incorrect points

And prideful bigots like you keep me far away from it