Origen on Praying to Saints: FINAL Response to Joe Heschmeyer 

Indeed they shouldn't. But why are most scared of it?

the only reason they are is because they are ignorant of it. I don't like the term protestant because it was coined by the devil through his wicked fake church when true people of God stood up against their lies and religious communism and were killed for it. Those are called Christians. Not Protestants. The Protestants were the so-called catholics who went against (protested) the true church and killed those who disagreed. Very "Christian" of them. In truth, those called Protestants (who are truly Christian) are actually the true Catholics or those representing the universal church. The catholics are imposters.

@@BrianGondo I think the average protestant Christian hasn't delved deep into history, whereas the average convert to EO or RC has done some research. This puts anxiety in the minds of protestant Christians. We're lucky to have Gavin's channel because he's done all the research!

@@timboslice980 "When did the catholic church take over the original Christian church?" Have you heard of the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church? Therein will lie the answer to your question.

@@timboslice980 Protestants don't believe the church died, ever. The thoughtful ones would even say members of God's church still reside inside RCC's. However, As noted by others...there was a schism pretty early on. What they reject is that RCC's can lay claim to being the only church with an infallible authority. When you have claims of infallibility and dogmas that weren't even held by early church fathers (therefore seemingly anathematizing them) and complete u-turns in positions... (death penalty, veneration of icons)... as well as obvious incorrect teachings in the CCC (841 as an example) you are left being forced to say that the Roman Catholic Church has departed from Biblical truth in some areas at the very least. Then you end up at Sola Scriptura, which leads you to the protestant view of justification and the jettisoning of extra dogmas, purgatory, holy Marys, etc. I think it was a very pinnacle moment in the Sola Scripture debate where Trent Horn conceded that the RCC has a "fallible list of infallible teachings." If the list isn't known and is fallible, how can you discern what is infallible? What happens when two "infallible" councils contradict each other? Or when the Pope is progressive universalist?

@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool Even though I don't agree w/ these types of prayers either, your current practice of carpet bombing threads w/ them, out of context isn't very helpful. You have to know when to hold em and know when to fold em brother.

@@saintejeannedarc9460Dang it, you got the song stuck in my head!

@@catkat740 Hah, I had to look back to figure out which song.

​​@@BryceCarmony Can you show me where Gavin says infants will burn in hell?? And also show me where he said Origen is the ultimate authority of the church faith. You're bitter, my friend. Seek help in Jesus Christ!

@@BryceCarmony You still aren't answering me?? You're attacking strawman right now. Show me where Gavin makes the statement that babies will burn in hell.

@@BryceCarmony You're quite the ignorant one here. You made assertions without backing them up. That's a shame on your part. If I say you don't have a brain, I'll be stupid to make that assertion, unless I bring evidences for that claim. You, my friend is ignorant!! Stop saying such nonsense if you have no evidence for your nonsensical claim. What do you mean "Roman Protestant??" Are you sure you're okay though?? And you shouldn't lie. You're a Roman Catholic. Defend your doctrine instead of lying like a Muslim. Shame!

I agree - Joe really bothers me with his straw-man arguments; I have struggled with believing he is arguing in bad faith so Gavin's correction to be charitable was needed in my case. One of the reasons I respect him and love listening to his arguments - he practices what he defends. It really is the biggest promotion of his ideals.

@@skwabo Joe just loves to attack strawman and argues based off of assumptions.

I hope he keeps going at least a bit w/ this subject. The Catholics will win at all costs, and not one of them has conceded in the least little bit. The Cordial Catholic did 2 response videos to Gavin's from a year ago. He was saying recently in his comments that he's working on new ones to still pursue this. They have to have every single church father agreeing w/ them on all points, at all times and that's just the way it is w/ them. They own Christianity and everything apostolic and church fathers belongs only to them.

I think it is necessary until people just start repeating themselves and nothing new is really added

@@OnTheThirdDay It does seem to have come to a rest. I didn't want to make it about winning and losing. There is no winning in these matter, just putting the truth out, as best we can do. The one last thing that didn't really get covered, that I wish had been, was to address the "argument from silence" points Joel kept making. There really is no silence in the bible about prayer, since the word is full of prayer and examples of it. Prayer is always to directly to God. Never to other people to pass it on to God.

​@@saintejeannedarc9460 so that means we can't ask those to pray for us? I mean this is a point that Protestants can't get around, with intercessory prayer it's all or nothing

@@SP-td9xj I know you know it's biblical to pray for others. What is never, ever once modeled, either by Jesus or the apostles is asking dead saints to pray for you. Yet you insist on it. I'm not sure what "all or nothing" means to you? It's an odd thing to throw in. But what Catholics believe is not biblical. And if you don't want to use the bible as a model, then it wasn't a tradition we have any precedent for that Jesus or any of his followers after ever prayed to dead people. That's a purely Catholic invention, added hundreds of years later.

Agreed.

It’s going to take more than 500 years to come to some form of consensus.

Yes. It needs to get to the point where they just keep repeatin the same things over again. Otherwise, they likely have things to say that I don't know about that I will never hear. For instance, one of my favorite apologists, Anthony Rogers made a long video about Sola Scriptura in the fathers. Perry Robinson made a long 5 hour response but refused to do a debate because he says he doesn't do debates. However Anthony never made a video response either, saying that Perry ran away, which is kinda frustrating because I want to hear his response about each of the many quotations that Anthony referenced. (This also would not clearly be good for a debate. However a discussion after each side has made an exhaustive case for their side and rebuttals taking as much time as they want like a written debate could be good.)

@@NP-vk8de this isn't about bringing people to consensus, it's about giving the whole disposing of a matter so others can make a right judgment. It was predicted by Christ and all his apostles that there would always be division and persecution of the truth. It's our job to ensure the truth never gets buried in the lies and to always redirect the path to straight and narrow for all those people who are truly seeking the right way.

@@lucianbane2170 couldn’t agree more with you, however we must love all who claim to believe in Christ. Diversity, and different flavours should be excepted as long as they adhere to the four fundamental truths of Christianity. Kyrie Eleison!

Bless their hearts...

Unfortunately that's true. In any online debate on RU-vid, the most arrogant are the catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I had so much admiration for Eastern orthodoxy at one point but it's all gone because of the followers of that particular flavor of Christianity. In all honesty, I was thinking about converting at some point to either catholicism or eastern orthodoxy but their followers made me reconsider.

@@MrSeedi76 I never really wished to convert, but was open to whatever the Lord wanted for me, when I did a deep dive to learn Catholic doctrine a few years ago. Not only are some of their doctrines impossible for me to biblically justify, but the Catholic attitudes, like you say can be worse yet. When I see attitudes here, from protestants w/ all the Catholic commenters (which are usually decent on this channel) they follow Gavin's peaceful lead. When I go on the Catholic apologist's channels, even though I'm not confrontational, it gets rough.

​​​@@saintejeannedarc9460when I first came to Christ at the age of 24, I was thinking about conversion. I went to a local monastery of the Carmelites and asked the monk who worked in the bookstore what he thought. He said one should not lightly abandon the denomination one grew up in. He was very kind and so are all the catholics I know personally. Online debates are always tricky. I myself am often not quite the Christian I should be when debating online. It's like they say - about politics and religion, one should only talk with friends. Still it saddens me that there is so much division. But I as a protestant can still accept that all other denominations are true Christians while the catholics and Eastern Orthodox can't because it's their doctrine that everyone outside of their church can't be saved.

You are not being unfair at all >Shameless Popery >Truth Unites Which sounds more chauvinistic?

@@antoniotodaro4093 Good point, the sign on the door can speak volumes.

Great point

Why do you ask others to pray for you when you can make your appeal straight to God?

Why do you phone your friends when you want them to pray for you? Why don’t you just send them telepathic messages?

@@onwave that’s a silly argument and evading the question. Would you ask St. Augustine the same question?

It’s not evading; it’s revealing your question as flawed to begin with because you’re trying to equate two things that are not equivalent. If you are comparing apples and oranges and I say apples aren’t oranges, would you say, “You’re evading!”? Asking a friend on earth to pray for you when they’re over in another town is delusional… unless you have some means of communicating with them, whether that be by letter, phone, or some other means. You can MAYBE ask the Holy Spirit to deliver your message to someone in heaven, but there is no promise or command that this is profitable or possible. It’s possible saints are aware of things the Spirit relays to them, but saints are not omniscient and they haven’t invited you to talk to them, have they? They’re in paradise and not focused on sad earthly matters. The sadness of earth is not in joyful peaceful paradise. The early Christians didn’t waste time on such things because it obviously would wreak of paganism and those that adopted the practice coming from a pagan background did it in ignorance. I remember a new Christian praying to her grandma once. Cute but sad. Go ahead and waste your time doing something that has no sure promise. It’s vain at best and a form of false humility at worst. Ultimately, you can’t impose the practice on others’ consciences without a command from God. That’s where it stands.

I posted a response a bit less than a day ago to explain the mass and where and when prayers to the saints occur during the mass. See "My friends, please consider the following when assessing the Catholic practice of prayers to the saints:" I'd appreciate your feedback. I think the post makes it clear that the saints we pray to are co-worshipers of God with us. They are our brothers and sisters in prayer. Anyway, hope this helps.

@@danielcarriere1958 I think that confirms why I didn't go Catholic.

@@HearGodsWordyeah because protestantism is a "Jesus and me" personal relationship. Orthodox christianity is a "Jesus and us" communal relationship.

@@Ternz_TV nope, that's absolutely a fallacy.

@@HearGodsWord is it? you just asked why there is a need to ask someone to pray for you instead if directly praying to God. That looks like "me and Jesus only " mentality.

Please be careful with some of Gavin's false teachings. He is a defender of Sola scriptura which is not scriptural. Sola scriptura cannot prove that the 26 books of the new testament Bible are scripture. Hence, its principle is flawed. When the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is denied, we cannot have the new testament books treated as scripture. He denies purgatory. Purgatory is final cleansing or sanctification of a person. So if purgatory concept is false, when do final sanctification of a believer takes place? Is it at born again event? Or at the moment of death or at burial or after death? If final sanctification takes place after death then the concept of purgatory is correct. Gavin's arguments are mostly reasonable but some of them are downright wrong because his main objective is to undermine the Catholic Church.

God bless you and all the brethren in Poland, from a fellow Christian and sister in Canada. May grace, mercy and all blessings follow your branch of this ministry, as this is a lovely example of the communion of the saints on this earth.

@@justthink8952 1) Melito (170 C.E.), in agreement with the original Jewish reckoning, gave the number of Old Testament books as 22. 2) Origen (210 C.E.) also gave the same numbering: “It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.” 3) Hilary of Poitiers (360 C.E.): “The Law of the Old Testament is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” 4) Athanasius (365 C.E.): “There are then of the Old Testament twenty-two books in number ... this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews.” 5) The Council of Laodicea (343-391 C.E.): Twenty-two books. 6) Cyril of Jerusalem (386 C.E.): “Read the divine scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament.” 7) Gregory of Nazianzus (390 C.E.): “I have exhibited twenty-two books, corresponding with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrews.” 8) Epiphanius (400 C.E.): Twenty-two books. 9) Rufinus (410 C.E.): Twenty-two books. 10) Jerome (410 C.E.): “That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified ... as there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say ... so we reckon twenty-two books by which ... a righteous man is instructed.” 11) Synopsis of Sacred Scripture (c. 500 C.E.): “The canonical books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, equal in number to the Hebrew letters; for they have so many original letters.” 12) Isidore of Seville (600 C.E.) said the Old Testament was settled by Ezra the priest into twenty-two books “that the books in the Law might correspond in number with the letters.” 13) Leontius (610 C.E.): “Of the Old Testament there are twenty-two books.” 14) John of Damascus (730 C.E.): “Observe further that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet.” 15) Nicephorus (9th century C.E.): “There are two and twenty books of the Old Testament.” 16) Jesudad, Bishop of Hadad, Syria (852 C.E.) recognized a canon of twenty-two books. 17) Hrabanus said the Old Testament was formed by Ezra into twenty-two books “that there might be as many books in the Law as there are letters.” 18) Moses of Chorene the Armenian historian (c. 1000 C.E. or perhaps as early as the 6th century) “speaks of twenty-two books of the Old Testament. This was clearly the Jewish Canon.” 19) Peter of Cluny (1150 C.E.): Twenty-two books. 20) John of Salisbury (1180 C.E.): Twenty-two books. 21) Hugh of St. Victor (12th century): “As there are twenty-two alphabetic letters, by means of which we write in Hebrew, and speak what we have to say, so twenty-two books are reckoned, by means of which ... the yet tender infancy of our man is instructed, while it yet hath need of milk.” 22) Richard of St. Victor (13th century): Twenty-two books.

@@timrosen1618 Thank you very much for the valuable information you provided.

@@justthink8952 Sola Scriptura truly is a dividing belief between all Protestantism and Catholicism. Gavin denies purgatory, since Protestants historically deny temporary punishment after death, as it lead to beliefs considered problematic, like the treasury of merits and indulgences. Protestants absolutely DO believe in final sanctification or glorification, and are generally free to speculate on how that might happen, whether it is instantaneous or needs time. What we deny is only the punitive aspect. Gavin does believe in final sanctification as well, just watch his video on this topic. He even cites C.S. Lewis on a Protestant understanding of a temporary after-death "purgatory".

@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool 😕

Oh hey Eric! I didn't see you comment on this until today. I just responded to lucianbane2170 above that he read your book on the Papacy. And I pointed him to Steve Ray's book and Joel's book. Glad to see that you are still active in the forums. I watched all of your videos when I was converting, and they were very helpful. I originally saw some of your posts on "Called to Communion" when you were a Protestant and I have read your careful studies as you went through the discernment process. Your video on transubstantiation was the first time I really understood how well 1st Corinthians supports the Catholic view. I so much appreciate your work.

But even if we agree re: Origen … the simple fact is that the church overwhelmingly held to the prayers to saints within a few decades of Origen’s death (leaving out sources prior and during Oregin’s life)…and where is the great debate and controversy? Where are the councils on this in the fourth century, when we start seeing clear, overt, undeniable references to prayers to the saints? Where are the knock down drag out exchanges of letters from the “biblical” churches to the “heretical” churches denouncing the heretics for praying to saints? There is no council or controversy. If there was, Gavin would be sure to reference it. How can something so clearly unbiblical not get its own council? Or even a regional synod? Quite the opposite. The more the church grows, the more references we find to prayers to the saints.

Catholics won't let Origen just say what he said. I've watched at least 3 of their apologists on this matter, and the loopholes they take are stunning.

​@@timboslice980did you even watch the video? 😂

@@timboslice980 saints praying for us ≠ praying to saints

@@timboslice980read my comment again, all the proof you said to me confirms saints praying for us, but how did you make the jump to us praying to them? this is gavin's argument, they are not the same thing

Might a wandering YT rando ask how the discerning is going?

Please continue to Pray , study, look for the truth so many Catholic resources out there.

Your going to have to ditch that profile picture to be a baptist.

Which 45,000 registered non-profit Protestant sect will you be joining and what makes that one better than the others?

How does a Protestant choose a denomination if all interpret the Bible on what each one believes is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

8:50 how does a verse about angels rejoicing in heaven have to do with human saints in heaven?

Sorry, wrong spot

@@huntsman528 It totally doesn't, but they grasp at straws and take big logic leaps. If you're talking about the Revelation scriptures that show the angels offering the prayers of the saints like incense, Catholics only think of saints as those departed saints that they canonized. We take a strictly biblical approach, seeing how Paul or other bible writers would address the saints in the congregation. The saints are us, the prayers offered in heaven are our prayers.

Trent Horn comes off smarmy and condescending.

@@CommandoShepardso does Heschmeyer and so many other Roman Catholic apologists.

" find that Catholic apologist debaters avoid answering to direct challenges to Catholic dogma " Interesting. Joe welcomed a 1:1 discussion on the topic with Gavin which Gavin turned down.

@Truthhasspoken I’m pretty sure that Gavin has said why he has, like any interaction with Will Albrecht. However, Gavin didn’t turn down Trent Horn. I think there’s a reason for that distinction.

Well to be fair Frances the Catholic Church was indeed founded by Jesus Christ, that really isn't what most disagreements are about. We know the Church established in Rome was the work of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, so it's not a controversy.

@@dman7668 Jesus Christ founded Christianity - the Christian Church. He did not found Roman Catholicism. That's their great lie, that Christ would've only approved of their church - which is of course preposterous.

He turned down Albrecht. Lol. Duh. He didn't turn down Horn. Also. Duh.

It's quite the slight of hand. It works great on Catholics though. If they notice it, they don't let on that there should be a difference. Joe will show his 2 deuterocannon scriptures, and in neither of them does it show praying to saints. One is a dream where a righteous departed Jew says he is praying for the people, the other is about angels, and it loosely related to a scripture in Revelations. All the Catholics shout in triumph, great Joe you proved the bible promotes praying to saints. We're rightly baffled, they're doing a victory dance. We try to point this out, well, we're not the pope and we can't interpret the bible. That's convenient. A church that gives itself all authority, teaches dodgy doctrine, but you can't answer to it, because what do we have, just a bible and we're not allowed to read or interpret it. Very convenient indeed.

How do protestants pray "with" the Saints in heaven? That's Origins words "with." So, Gavin keeps switching terms, Gavin uses the word "for", Saints pray for us, which they do. That does not solve the problem of praying "with" the Saints. How do protestants do that?

​@@cheriecompton144 it's the tiniest jump from "we are the body of Christ, both the living on earth and those living with God in heaven, we are in community worshipping together (origens own words) and we know the saints in heaven are praying, and we know the saints are aware of whats happening on earth, and we know fellow Christians are instructed to pray for us, therefore asking saints to pray for us is just obvious" I feel like they're (Protestants) either ignoring it or missing it entirely, at worst it's an extremely obvious doctrinal development

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

@@HillbillyBlack wut

@@thegearhouse5337 confused? It’s from the Bible. No wonder you’re doubting everything. You don’t even know the word of God man. If you’re doubting anything within the protestant faith, I suspect the protestant aspect is not the problem, but rather your heart, and where it sits with God.

You know, even if that were the case. We really cannot get around the fact that Jesus established the Catholic Church, and never gave permission for Protestants to make up their own individualistic denominations. It wouldn't change that the early Church admittedly accepted things protestantism rejects i.e apostolic succession. For any ground one by the reformers one has to ask what should the Catholic Church do? Disband and split up into thousands of protestant Churches?

Malheureusement, je ne suis pas d’accord avec sa présentation , si….consensuelle, qu’elle enfume toute la chaîne! Mais ce beau discours ne sert à rien, rien ne changera dans la pratique ! Basta.

To me, this is why sola scriptura is wrong. We can forever disagree about the interpretations of scripture, but Christs church can teach us.

@@IG88AAA The true Church comprises all the redeemed who have put their faith in Christ and the Lord promised the Spirit to lead His church and not some self imposed super pastor. This was a development not directly sanctioned by the Lord!

@@mmbtalk "not directly sanctioned by the Lord!" is only something you can say based on your reading and comprehending of Matthew 16:18. We can point to that verse and say we interpret a direct sanction for Peter to be a super pastor. You don't see it. And we can endlessly debate. Which is what sola scriptura creates... an endless debate.

​@@IG88AAAYou do realize how circular the reasoning is here, right? The Catholic argument is that the scriptures attest that Peter is the rock on which Christ will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And they interpret this scripture (among others) to mean that the Catholic church alone has the authority to interpret scripture unerringly. So it goes like this, we need the authority of the Catholic church in order to know what interpretation of scripture is right, and we know this because the Catholic church has interpreted scripture to say that.

There is only one truth of God, not two or more.

Well those are fascinating observations from someone outside of Christianity, who would seem to not have a dog in the fight. Can I ask if you are another religion and why it is that you find Christian debating so interesting?

Sure, I considered myself an Atheist for most of my life although I would say Agnostic now. But it is complicated! Do I believe in God? A God that created the universe and all life? I think it is the only thing that makes sense. So how can I claim to be agnostic? Well, I don't know if I'm using the term correctly but I'm Agnostic about which religion is correct. I got interested in Atheist vs Christian debates many years ago and though the Atheists won. Then I started seeing their bleak outlook on the world and how they didn't have a standard for morality and even claimed to be Nihilistic - and I cannot go there. The idea that nothing matters is insane. After that I got into more debates between different religions. I also spent a long time studying the crimes of Satanic cults and naturally it is mostly Christians who talk about this, although you can find Feminists and others talking about the terrible abuse it is mostly Christians.

In fact, I mostly see Atheists and others *defending* the abusers and calling the children liars! This was shocking to me as I thought the claims were strong or at least uncertain (depending on the case) So that was another reason for why Atheism seemed more and more of a dead end.

@@colinthomson5358 "But it is complicated! Do I believe in God? A God that created the universe and all life? I think it is the only thing that makes sense. So how can I claim to be agnostic? Well, I don't know if I'm using the term correctly but I'm Agnostic about which religion is correct." Sounds like you are at least a Deist with possible considerations between that and Classical Theism. Interesting! "The idea that nothing matters is insane." You are bang on the money there, friend. "After that I got into more debates between different religions." Any specific debates you find particularly compelling?

Accurately Defining Terms ru-vid.comC49zcECyKKs?feature=share Clearing up Atheism v. Theism, Matt Dillahunty ru-vid.comiT5Qml-nfjM?feature=share 1. Gnostic Theist (Strong Theism) 2. Agnostic Theist (Weak Theism) 3. Gnostic Atheist (Strong Atheism, Hard Atheism, Anti-Theism) 4. Agnostic Atheist (Weak Atheism)

Many Protestants don't seem to understand the core issue of why Catholics accept praying to saints! Unlike Protestants Catholics are guided by the magisterium. The Catholic Church can speak in one voice on such an important issue through its Bishops. We can’t say the same about the many Protestant denominations. It therefore, makes sense for Protestants to reject praying to saints because there is no single authority to govern this practice and many can be misled. What you are saying makes sense as a Protestant, but Catholics don’t need to worry about polytheistic idolatry on such a matter that the Universal Church agrees on. Secondly, the Holy Spirit is at work and it is guiding the Church. For instance, for a person to be declared a Saint in the Catholic Church, 2 miracles have to be attributed to their intercession. Those miracles are thoroughly investigated by scientists to make sure that their cause can only be supernatural. This is the Tradition of the Church. And we can have faith in it. To the Catholics, you are standing on a very firm ground. Have no fear.

Hey Joe - I'd be interested in getting your perspective on the Sunday/Daily mass text commentary I posted a few comments up.

John 14:13-14 [13] Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. John 15:7-9 [7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. [9] As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. John 16:23-24 [23] In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. [24] Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

@@peterw1177 All of that, but neither Jesus or the apostles taught to pray to any other than God; John 14:13-14 [13] Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. John 15:7-9 [7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. [9] As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. John 16:23-24 [23] In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. [24] Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

@@timrosen1618 Jesus also made this promise to His Church, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26) Jesus told Peter the following, “TEND MY SHEEP.” (John 21:16) Jesus did not abandon His Church on its own whim, he put in place specific people to govern it and He promised them God’s guidance through the Holy Spirit. We can choose to listen to the authority that Jesus left us or not. That is up to you.

Yes they sure could. They simply have to own all the church fathers. I think it's partly out of desperation to hold onto the Catholic lense they filter every single things through. More than anything, I think it's the immense pride that comes from Catholicism (and Orthodoxy). They are so proud of their claim that they own and follow apostolic succession, that Jesus handed the keys to Peter, and that every single Catholic doctrine ever really came from Jesus. We know much of this is not true, but it's a huge point of pride that they believe it all to be true. I also think they hold onto Origen so tightly, because he's such an early church father. Mostly all they have is that ridiculous "argument from silence" bit of rhetoric that Joe, an actual lawyer, loves to much. But if they have Origen too, then they can shoe horn their beloved prayers to saints, angels and esp. Holier than the maker Himself, Mary, and date it much earlier than it really cropped up as an obvious accretion. Give them a few more decades and they'll find a way to make Jesus be praying to saints. I've already seen them take the most obscure saying of Paul's and try and turn it into a biblical example of praying to a dead saint. It's galling, but they are doing it.

@@saintejeannedarc9460Origen is a condemned heretic by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. They certainly do not have to hold onto him.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 "Yes they sure could. They simply have to own all the church fathers." Until, of course, a Church father has said something they absolutely cannot except or get around, at which point someone will quip "But Origen (controversial figure of your choice) is a heretic (ad hominem appellation of your choice), so it doesn't count!" It's a double standard to provide unfalsifiable assertions of support. "Give them a few more decades and they'll find a way to make Jesus be praying to saints." As much as I want to disbelieve this, I'm afraid we might see it happen. Per your commentary as a whole, I can see pride being a factor, but do you think anxiety might be more apt, at least some of the time? Because of Catholicism's claims of infallibility in doctrine, even one being perceived as untrue could unravel a believer's entire confidence. Protestantism doesn't have that same issue (unsure about the Orthodox). Frankly, I don't like imputing either pride or fear as a motive to others, but it is hard not to see something like this at work when witnessing logic used like JH's here. It seems like such a bending of the truth that a contortionist gymnast with an ancestor who was actually a pretzel would wince at how twisted it is.

@@ottovonbaden6353 "But Origen (controversial figure of your choice) is a heretic" I am seeing this one already, in recent comments, but it's only one. I guess he finally became convinced that Origen doesn't support own of their most sacred traditions, so he discounted him. I've only seen one lone Catholic concede that Gavin is right on this matter. These video debates have been going on over a year, I think Gavin said 2, so in all the responses on various channels, that's pretty disconcerting. So I'm about ready to throw this one more humble and logical person a party. I suppose it is partly out of anxiety, which I kind of touched on when I said it's out of desperation. Mostly I see pride though. It's constantly in comments about anything. When do you see protestants say how proud they are to be, insert denomination, but they more often say Christian. Catholics and Orthodox are not shy to say how proud they are to be CAtholic. I see it constantly and it's odd. We're humbled to be saved, they find it elevating to be a part of their tradition. It's just something I've noticed for a long time. There's also a Catholic guy (I think that's his username too), that is insisting that Catholics always prayed to saints because the Jews always did it. When I point out there should be strong biblical evidence for this, he points to tradition and some extra biblical texts I should go read. As far as I know, some Jewish sects had a practice of praying for the dead. It wasn't necessarily the norm, and it didn't make its way into the bible in any positive way. There is one reference Paul made for baptizing for the dead, but it didn't seem to be flattering or encouraged, just a passing acknowledgement that it was happening w/ some sect.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 "We're humbled to be saved, they find it elevating to be a part of their tradition. It's just something I've noticed for a long time." To be fair, I've found it easy to take pride in my traditions before as well. The best antidote to that I've found is historical study and self examination. But I do see the difference you're talking about between most Protestant traditions and either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Even the official teachings consider us second class Christians. "There's also a Catholic guy (I think that's his username too), that is insisting that Catholics always prayed to saints because the Jews always did it. When I point out there should be strong biblical evidence for this, he points to tradition and some extra biblical texts I should go read." Yeah, I'd expect at least a couple lines in Leviticus or Exodus at a minimum if this was prescribed behavior.

scripture is so yesterday. Who needs direct teachings from God himself and his apostles when we can get it from second hand sources filtered through mindsets not entirely cleansed of pagan ideals?

​@@lucianbane2170With that mindset we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, there were pagan ideals plastered across the mind of the early church.

@@caseycardenas1668 Origen thought souls were eternal for example. Justin Martyr thought incense was wrong (albeit in reverse... it was an extreme reaction to paganism). Tertullian mentions early church people bringing in idol carvings.

@@wilsonw.t.6878 indeed, not even that these were "pagan" per se, there were simply many ideas found among great minds in the early church that were/are not in line with the orthodox christian faith.

Amen

I would also like to see this. I am curious how you think Joe misses the mark on biblical worship.

Exactly. It's a problem Protestantism doesn't want to acknowledge.

@@bad_covfefe citation needed

@@bad_covfefeneither do the papist or EO.

You mean the tradition that gave us the Bible? You're saying it's an error to read the parent tradition back into the text it authored?

@@tristentesla1304 the Canon of Scripture was established in the second century. Comparing that to traditions not even hinted at in the Bible to the Bible is nonsense.

Jesus is the only mediator for our Salvation but scripture is clear that He isn’t our only intercessor, as we are called to intercede for each other in prayer. As Catholics we believe that includes the entire Body of Christ, both in Heaven and on earth.

As many times until it gets through people's heads I guess or until He comes. Whichever comes first

@@lellachu1682 We, who are here pray for each other. We are not meant to ask the dead to pray for us. Mary and the Saints are dead, and Angels do not hear prayer either. We only pray to God in Jesus' Name. No matter how you try to rationalize or make excuse - this is the only way to pray.

@@lellachu1682Incorrect, neither Jesus or the apostles taught to pray to any other than God.

@@timrosen1618 Catholics believe in Purgatory, so praying to, and for, the dead makes sense to them. Sadly, all of that is pure fiction and antithetical to the saving truth of the Gospel.

Yeah, but it's never idolatry when Catholics and Orthodox do it. They call it veneration or hyper veneration, and that changes it completely.

With that logic, every time you kiss someone you love, you are committing the sin of idolatry.

@@PursuitofTruth22 That's silly. If I got in front of you, bowing reverentially, or kneeling in worship and then kissed your feet, that would be worship. Simply kissing a relative or spouse is just showing affection, and you know it.

My husband’s culture bows as a sign of respect. Is he worshipping his friends and family? Of course not, it is a sign of reverence, especially towards his elders.

"A good definition of idolatry is kneeling, bowing, and kissing" Yes, when one does so to Ba'al, a pagan god. Context is everything.

Why? Do you read your Bible or follow early church followers? You can't to even consider being a Catholic.

what do you mean by this comment?@@jwatson181

That's awesome! Welcome (this coming Easter)😊😊. I'm sure it has been quite a journey for you, with many ups and downs. I'll pray for your continued walk as you enter into the fullness of the Church and her sacraments!

So sad to see someone abandon the faith

“Why aren’t we all united?” I mean… if you’ve been watching these vs videos, you should know why. There are important differences concerning Scripture, the papacy, ecumenical councils, sacraments, etc.

Sounds like you might need to. It does not make me question the foundation of our faith at all. We are always going to have differences of interpretations, this was happening right from the beginning.

⁠​⁠​⁠@@saintejeannedarc9460 Of course it makes a difference. Every Christian denomination claims that the Holy Spirit lives inside them, literally God inside people, to repeat this is meant to be literally God living inside people. Why are we so narrow minded to think we’ve got the right denomination? God is literally inside people guiding them. That’s what the Holy Spirit is meant to do. Lots of verses I can quote to support that claim. One of the foundations of Christianity is the Holy Spirit. If we can’t agree on doctrines then where is the Holy Spirit? Many will say that the doctrines are not of foundational importance but actually many are. The little things make a big difference.

@@zekdomExactly my point. So many differences yet we are all meant to be guided through the presence of the Holy Spirit yet we can’t agree on a lot of doctrines no matter how unimportant they seem.

@@DavidJ329 To clarify, I share a similar feeling. How can all of these denominations claim to have the Holy Spirit, yet differ so much when it comes to the sacraments and church government? It’s been most disorienting. You’re not alone in feeling this way, but leaving social media for a bit is always a good idea.

@ThoskaBrah it does conflate with the gospel, there are so many issues with, one is the assumption that they can hear and thus making them omnipresent attributing to them only what belongs to God, second is that praying to saints implies that Christ is insufficient as a heavenly mediator between God and his people, the Bible says we are free to come directly to God at any time because of what Christ did. People defend the practice by saying that it is similar to asking your friend to pray for you, no it’s not. We do not pray to our friends to pray for us, we do not make novenas to our friends to pray for us, the Bible actually encourages believers on earth to pray for one another, but when it comes to believers in heaven, there is nothing in the Bible to support that, not even the passage in revelations about the elders presenting prayers to God.

@@somemedic8482 I think you mean omniscient instead of omnipresent. Regarding that point specifically, God, by His grace, grants us immortality in the age to come which does not make us God any more than Him granting angels and saints in glory the ability to hear those on earth would.

@@Josue-pi4ce is that written in scripture? Even if it is, the fact still stands that the atonement of Christ is sufficient to intercede between God in heaven and man on earth, one of the commonest errors in biblical interpretation is assuming that description equals prescription. The fact that the saints might be able to hear us(which I don’t think is the case unless it is written in scripture) doesn’t mean that God instructs us to pray to them.

​@@somemedic8482 as best I know from little research into this subject, the reasoning comes from an understanding of the function of God's Divine Council. It is taught in Scripture that angels preside over the nations, and the saints in glory are also brought into the Divine Council to reign with Christ. However, if one is operating from the presupposition that everything must be explicitly commanded in Scripture and all other practices are inherently sinful, then it would be difficult to find agreement on the justification.

@@Josue-pi4ce everything doesn’t have to be explicitly commanded in scripture in order to be permissible. That said praying to saints and assuming Mary has a role of co-médiatrix, is too risky a practice to be considered benign , and it carried huge theological consequences. The Catholic Church even teaches that people who deny the assumption of Mary, will experience the wrath of God. These are very serious issues.

Hah, yeah, if he has to come up against Joe w/ his lawyerly rhetoric, you don't want to be caught w/ a green shirt one year and a blue shirt the next. Or watch out, Origen will be praying to saints, even though he never taught it and you'll be made to look the contradictory fool to the Catholic fanboys. Yep, had to say that at least once, because it was Joe's lowest blow someone has to point it out, his Catholic fans are just dancing over it too, even though they should be wincing.

Your comment is going to go over most, but it's true. It's the Lord who opens eyes and guides through the Spirit into truth, we can do only a small bit in planting a seed, and that seed won't even grow if God doesn't will it. Just one incorrect dogma of the Roman churches 255 proves the Magisterium is fallible, which then proves I can only trust the Bible as infallible. So for me the false doctrine of transubstantiation, made the whole house of cards fall.

Can you explain better what you mean by the Father revealed his Son to you and the falsehoods fell away? Most Catholics do know the son and do follow Jesus. I would agree that they follow a lot of false doctrine too, and have intense blinders on. I'd really like to ask as well, how you got out of the belief in praying to saints and to Mary, because Catholics have such an intense attachement to the practice, esp. w/ Mary. I find the Mary idolatry to be the biggest problem w/ praying to saints. If it weren't for how far across the line many (not all) CAtholics get dragged across lines they never should have crossed, then I might think the practice was harmless.

​@robertcampbell1343 The Bible is infallible but not the institution that canonized it? Riiight. 😮

@@dman7668 haha it's the famous Roman Catholic troll back again with more terrible arguments. That is the only response you'll receive from me.

@@dman7668 "The Bible is infallible but not the institution that canonized it? Riiight." Were the Jews who faithfully transcribed the scriptures, the Torah, the Law considered infallible because they copied and compiled the OT scriptures? Did Jesus treat the Pharisees, the experts in the Law, or the San Hedrin like they were infallible? No, he rebuked and correct them, and told them they were full of the traditions of men. Moses brought the Ten Commandments down the mount and presented them to the people, they were etched in stone straight from the hand of God. When Moses erred on a small point and tapped the rock twice instead of once, he was exiled to not ever enter the promised land that he led his people through the wilderness for 40 years to find. So if Moses, the deliverer of the law, was also not infallible and subject to correction by God, I'd say you have your answer there. God doesn't make any one or any institution, even if originally ordained by God to be infallible. We see so many biblical examples of men and institutions of God still being fallible. Yet the Catholic church still persists in claiming all authority, infallibility, and claims to be the only keeper of the keys to heaven for all believers. Which is so far beyond anything we've ever seen in the bible, from antiquity.

Did you change your mic or sound editing?

Glad to see another appreciate the littler details that make a big difference. Its fun to see the improvement of all the apologetics channels!

How is Joes view of Origin correct ? Gavin has showed with sharp proof that origin did not believed in praying to saints. I’m interested to hear why you come to that conclusion. Respectfully, are you agreeing with Joe bc he’s catholic and you are as well or because you genuinely believe hes correct ? From a non biased perspective, Ortlund made the case that origin didn’t.

@@ProtestantKing7lol chill bro

@@Justin-yn5py I don’t need to chill. I just asked why they came to that conclusion. You do realize this is a apologetics channel right? Maybe you’re not in the right place

Protestant and nuance does not seem to go hand in hand it seems. Joe has defined the position and defended it well. Not sure what you mean.

@@michaelscofield1970 Why the ad-hominem attack on protestants? Is that meant to be winsome and compelling? Can you articulate from your perspective what about Joe's argument is so persuasive or conclusive as to lead one to accepting it?

Yes, there are instances in the NT where the living interact and communicate with the departed saints. Matthew 17:3 " And behold Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him." Matthew 27:52-53"..tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many." Luke 9:30-31 "And behold, two men were conversing with him Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem."

No, there's no instance in the New Testament of anyone ever praying to a dead saint. The transfiguration with Moses and Elijah was to show the disciples Jesus' true glory. Both Elijah and Moses were pillars in the Jewish comminity and taken to heaven by God. Remember as well the timing of the transfiguration. This was done right after Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. The Matthew passage with the dead rising up is not supposed to be literally interpreted, in my opinion. We have no other writings stating something like this happened, which would have been very noticeable by pretty much everyone. However, even if read literally, the passage would not advocate for us to try to contact the dead saints. Trying to communicate with the spiritual world is strongly condemned by God and is at the heart of idolatry.

@@clayw70 The question is “Is there any instance in the New Testament of a living Christian clearly praying to, or communicating with, a departed saint?” The texts I provided clearly show departed saints (Moses and Elijah) communicating with Jesus. The Apostles also witnessed this event and it is them who reported it. In fact, Luke goes further to say that the three were talking about Jesus’s exodus. This is big because Moses and Elijah are discussing about events happening during Jesus’s time even though they had departed long time ago. THIS REJECTS THE ARGUMENT THAT SAINTS ARE NOT AWARE OF CURRENT AFFAIRS. Regarding Matthew 27:52-53, he is very specific in his description that it leaves no doubt that the event took place. Basically, Matthew is saying that the bodily resurrection of Saints followed the resurrection of Jesus. Catholics also look to this text when they are talking about the Assumption of Mary. If other Saints experienced the resurrection, why not the Mother of God? After all the fifth commandment says, “Honor your father and your mother..” and we know that Jesus fulfilled the law in word and deed. However, this is for another day. In short, Matthew is reporting events that took place.

​@peterw1177 The problem with your assessment is that Elijah was taken to heaven by God. He never died. Moses, according to 2nd Temple Jewish literature, was as well, recorded in Jude: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” Jude 1:9 ESV For Jesus' exodus. That's not about the exodus. Hence, the phrase, "Jesus' exodus." Think of the details in the New Testament. All the babies were killed, going into the wilderness, performing signs and wonders, creating a new people group under God, the bronze serpent, etc. There's so much more as well. All of that also was in the exodus. It's not coincidental. Also, Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus. The disciples didn't pray to them or seek them out. For the Matthew verse, it comes down to if you take it literally or not. I don't think you can because that would have occurred before Jesus' tomb was found empty. I would think that if all the tombs literally opened previously and the dead literally rose to talk to people, then Jesus' empty tomb shouldn't have been a surprise for anyone. Can a person communicate with the spiritual realm, yes. It's recorded in the Old Testament with Saul. He is condemned for doing so. It showed how far he drifted from God by doing something that is an abomination.

@@clayw70 Deuteronomy 34 talks about the death of Moses. Let’s look at the details starting from Deut. 34:5 “So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the Lord, DIED AS THE LORD HAD SAID; and he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; to this day no one knows the place of his burial. ……..The Israelites wept for Moses in the plains of Moab for thirty days, till they had completed the period of grief and mourning for Moses.” We both can agree that Moses died based on Deuteronomy 34. “Moses the servant of the Lord, died as the Lord had said.” Moses experienced death and Elijah did not. We therefore cannot argue that they appeared at the scene of the Transfiguration because they never died. I did not say that the disciples prayed to Moses or Elijah. The question above is about places in the NT where departed saints communicate with the living. In this case, the Apostles saw Jesus communicating with Moses and Elijah about Jesus’s exodus. This is scriptural evidence that Saints are aware of current affairs. If I may digress, it is interesting that you are talking about the assumption of Elijah and Moses. You seem to agree that it is within God’s power to take people to heaven body and soul. Then why do you struggle with the Assumption of Mary? Do you think Jesus who fulfilled the law in word and deed wouldn’t honor His mother this way? Also, the story of Moses’s assumption to heaven was passed down through Jewish Tradition. We also find Mary’s Assumption stories in the tradition of the Church. Back to the main subject, Matthew 27:52-53, says that the bodies of the saints were raised after the resurrection of Jesus. “..tombs, were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs AFTER HIS RESSURECTION, they entered the holy city and appeared to many."

There is a reason that philosophy and logic have been practically eradicated from modern education, and it is so that people will despair of being able to come to the truth.

Mate, I'm sorry to hear that. I really appreciate your humility and willingness to examine your own beliefs. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you and keep living a life of daily prayer. That will keep you full of joy and hope. God wants to transform our hearts, so let's let him!

Thank you Brother , ive always had the same line of thought as you. That is why Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:5 that we should examine ourselves as whether we are in the faith . Jesus also warned us to take heed if we think we stand , lest we fall. We have to constantly do that on a daily basis with an honest mind on our knees before God . I do not believe these guys are honest.

As an (ex) Catholic myself, you have to understand this basic issue: Everything stands or falls _together._ If you start asking one question, you end up questioning the whole thing (including the entire authority structure of what it teaches). For example: if you admit that prayer to the saints is not good religion, then you can no longer be a part of Catholicism. If one thing falls, it all falls (or will fall). Because at a certain point, you can no longer stand being surrounded by the practice of bad religion. The minute you see that chink in the armor, it's possible the whole armor becomes invisible, and you see through the game. Imagine, Mass after Mass, prayers to angels and Mary to conclude worship?- the minute you're disabused, what does this practice _look like?_ Delusion. Robotic fantasy. Habit. What is the result of all this? _An intense psychological need to ensure that nothing taught in the Catholic Church is wrong._ Endless rationalization. So, one becomes _"genius"_ in "solving the equation" for the result one _needs_ (psychologically, practically) to get. This happens outside Catholicism all the time too, of course, but in my observation at least it is particularly intense there. It is why so much that is obvious from outside can be overlooked from inside. The ones who are inside don't dare look-for they are too committed to its continuing to see it clearly. I should note, that many Catholics simply carry on because the benefits outweigh the negatives, and hey, they like being Catholic despite the flaws, etc. So then, with things that are bad religion, they speak up about it sometimes and "love the Church" into change, or they just keep quiet about it. But overall, the dynamic I describe above is prevalent, and I think explains some of the phenomena mentioned in the OP.

This is as great a comment as it is humble. I wish more Christians engaged in these debates would appreciate what you're saying, and start from there. If you've never read it before, I would recommend Auguste Sabatier's work on The Religions of Authority & The Religion of the Spirit. Sabatier more or less goes 'all the way' in addressing the untenable nature of both Protestant and Roman Catholic claims to authority, and suggests that we Christians courageously explore, as you put it, the sincere inner testimony of the Spirit. But he recognizes at the same time that there's a lot of work to do in articulating just what he means. I've been thinking about it a lot in recent years. God bless.

Spot on

Any recommendations in particular?

It sounds like you were once Catholic. Were you Catholic a long time? I'm wondering how you shed the deeply ingrained love and seeming compulsion for prayer to saints, and esp. their Marian "hyper veneration? You were once and insider, so I don't know like you did, but it seems to me that they are really attached to the idea of the full communion of saints, as they see it, so they pray to them too. Well, the claim from many now is that it's simply asking for prayer like they would to another person. Only as Gavin pointed out, that isn't really happening too much of the time. They are praying, and in too many cases, esp. w/ Mary, it's open and flagrant worship. Only no matter how over the top, or obvious that worship is clearly is, they never see anything wrong w/ it. It looks to me like a spell is cast, or deep delusion.

​@@saintejeannedarc9460I agree with you conclusion. It is a spell and a spell cannot be broken without fully understanding that what you are engaged in is sinful and breaking the commandments of God. It's interesting the necromancy is never discussed or why God forbids it. It just assumed that talking to "dead saints" is different from talking "dead sinners" assuming that God condemns only the latter and not the former.

Saintjeannedarc Just curious what you have seen that shows Catholics sometimes worship Mary.

What is amazing to me is that those beliefs that you call pagan and idolatrous were all believed by Augustine the greatest Christian theologian who ever lived. I would encourage you to actually look at the evidence to see if there is evidence that these concepts are pagan because it is the same church fathers that developed them who developed the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Besides the doctrine of the "Assumption of Mary" Athanasias, Chrysostom, and Augustine believed in the Marian dogmas. And while Gavin is complaining that "Arrow up" is not in Origen in 240 AD he admitted in his interview with Beckett that they were prevalent by the time of Chrysostom and Augustine which is by 375 AD which is the same time the church was defining the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation. So why believe that the church fathers got the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation correct and then got the doctrine of "praying to the saints" as terribly wrong. Most Protestants argue that the saints don't hear us and don't pray for us and yet even Gavin shows that they do. That concedes half of the argument right there. And what seems completely incoherent in this video is what is missing in these Early Fathers altogether. Here is Gavin arguing that “asking for the saints intercession” is a terrible novel accretion because it is not prevalent until the time of Augustine. But notice what is completely missing in these early fathers and missing in the Church for 1500 years. THE MOST BASIC CORE TENET OF PROTESTANTISM IS MISSING. Luther’s version of “Justification by Faith alone” is nowhere to be found in these early Fathers. There is no group of Christians anywhere, no sect, no denomination no small group anywhere that hold Luther’s view of salvation coming from being justified by an imputation of Christ’s righteousness over the believer like a covering. None of these early Fathers believed that. Nobody believed that for 1500 years. Protestant Scholar Philip Schaff in his extensive 8 Volume History of the Christian Church writes: Anyone who expects to find in any of the church fathers, including Augustine himself, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone … will be greatly disappointed. And the church history scholar Alister MacGrath states that the Luther’s view of salvation was a complete “theological novum.” Novum means “novelty.” Protestant Scholar Norman Giesler confronts the question of whether Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity could be saved because Luther himself said that if someone does not agree with his (Luther’s) doctrine of a forensic justification then he cannot be saved. But Giesler writes how ridiculous that claim would be. Giesler writes: “One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period!” How is it not absurd to reject “praying to the saints” because it is only prevalent from 375 to 1500; but then believe in Luther’s new view of justification by imputation of Christ’s righteousness when it is completely absent from the Church Fathers even according to Protestant Scholars? I would encourage you to come home to Catholic Church and actually study whether or not those things are "pagan." Don't believe Protestants who grew up in Anti Catholic religions; read the Fathers for yourself. I am just dumbfounded at Geisler’s admission that the Christian Church for 1500 years had the doctrine of salvation wrong. How is it not utterly absurd to think that Christ promised to build a church that the gates hades would not prevail against; but then let it get the central doctrine of salvation wrong for 1500 years?! The only Christian Church that existed for the first 1,000 years of Christianity was the Catholic Church; what would it say about God that the only church that existed for 1,000 years was full of pagan beliefs with no alternatives for people to choose. And then when God finally sends some type of "reform" it is 50 different men who set up 50 different churches who all have contradicting beliefs. I would encourage you to listen to Dr. David Anders who has a show on EWTN every day called "Called to Communion." He was a Protestant Professor who converted Catholicism when he realized how incoherent it was to believe that Christ would establish and church and let it be in error for 1500 years. Or you could read the story of any or all of these people who were Protestant pastors and college professors who converted to Catholicism when the actually studied church history. Kenneth Howell former Protestant Professor -- David Mills former Protestant professor -- Kenny Buchard former mega church pastor -- Marcus Grodi Former Protestant Pastor -- Francis Beckwith College Professor and president of the Evangelical Theological Society -- Scott Hahn former college professor and Presbyterian pastor - - Kenneth Howell former Protestant Professor -- David Mills former Protestant professor, Kenny Buchard former mega church pastor -- Marcus Grodi Former Protestant Pastor -- Francis Beckwith, College Professor and president of the Evangelical Theological Society -- Scott Hahn former college professor and Presbyterian pastor -- Dr. David Anders former Protestant Reformation history professor --- Dr. Douglas Beaumont former Protestant Professor -- John Bergsma PhD in Biblical Studies, former Protestant Pastor and College Professor - - Tim Staples former Pentecostal Pastor --Keith Nester Protestant Mega Church Pastor - - Chris Osgood former Protestant Pastor, Jeff Cavins Former Protestant mega church pastor -- Mark Galli former Protestant Pastor --Paul Thigpen former Pentecostal preacher - - Steve Wood, Former Evangelical Pastor - - Noah Lett a Lutheran Pastor - - Jeffery Hendricks a Methodist minister - - Jason Reed a Protestant Professor - - Ian Murphey Baptist Minister - - Sean Page former mega church pastor --James Papandra Fuller Seminary Professor Read Scott Hahn’s book “Rome Sweet Home.” Read David Currie’s book “Born again Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic.” Read Douglas Beaumont’s book “Evangelical Exodus” which explains the phenomenon of how Protestants grow up and get advanced degrees without ever learning the early church was the Catholic Church. In fact you can read Joe Heschemeyer’s book “The Early Church was the Catholic Church.” God bless you in your journey

@@stevenwall1964 First off, thank you for the blessing. I always appreciate that grace imparted so much, and my God richly bless you and yours too. I'm just going to home in on this part, of your post and I'm taking paganism off the table and not making an argument for it. Though I am not at all comfortable w/ prayers to saints and Marian hyperveneration, it is possible that even though it's an erroneous doctrine, not at all prevalent anywhere in the bible, or the early church, up until at least past Origen's time, since he clearly taught against it as well, that it comes down to, "unto the pure, all things are pure". I'm not sure if you know what I mean by the snippet of scripture, but it's not at all a bad thing. If you are doing what you are taught, that is an entrenched teaching in your tradition, and you do it w/ a pure heart and conscience, then it not the sin it would be for me, who could not do that w/ a clean conscience, because I see very strong injunctions in the bible against it. I won't try to convince you of them, but just know that I'm as convinced as you are. So this part here: " There is no group of Christians anywhere, no sect, no denomination no small group anywhere that hold Luther’s view of salvation coming from being justified by an imputation of Christ’s righteousness over the believer like a covering. None of these early Fathers believed that. Nobody believed that for 1500 years." There actually is and it's outlined in the bible. Jesus said it himself enough times in many places, but here's but a few. John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. Luke 7:50 And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” Acts 4:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. I just wonder how that was happening, and happening so fast, by a simple profession of faith, backed by actual faith. None of those later Catholic doctrines you speak of existed then. There was no catechism classes. When Jesus preached, there wasn't even a system of bishops and deacons then, that is biblical, but it developed later. So to say there's no precedence and Luther's simple faith justification is so novel, it wasn't, it was only revivified. It's not really about Luther, I'm just going w/ what you brought up.

Amen the Chief Witness to all men

Every single prayer in the Bible was made to God ALONE. No. It doesn’t say “GOD ALONE” but based off of the inspired word of God, we can observe that every single prayer was made to God alone. It doesn’t say “FAITH ALONE” but we observe that the Father of the Faith was FIRST declared righteous by having FAITH ALONE. The church fathers writings are simply suggestions. Uninspired word of man VS. the Inspired word of Almighty God.

And there are many mediators between Jesus Christ and man, including his Blessed Mother, and the Saints.

@@PatrickInCayman Read the words that I wrote carefully. That's God's word.

You should read the four verses before that, which command intercessions to be made for all people, and tell us that it is pleasing to God. Intercession is a form of mediation, and does not, according to Timothy's context, infringe on Jesus's unique salvific mediation for us before the Father.

@@bigfootapologetics We intercede for each other here on earth by praying to the Father with Jesus Christ as our only mediator. We are not to make contact with people that have passed on. The Lord Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Praying 'to' others and all communication with the dead is a terrible sin and is idolatry, and idolators will not inherit the kingdom of God. God warns that we will be cut off from His people if we communicate with the dead.

@@jimdrummer816 That doesn't really follow. If it's not a violation of Jesus's unique role as a mediator to ask someone else on Earth to pray for you, it's not a violation of Jesus's unique role as a mediator to ask someone who is alive in heaven to pray for you. Idolatry is worshiping another as God. People who ask the saints to pray to God for them aren't committing idolatry by definition - they're asking another Christian to turn to God, not identifying that Christian AS God. We don't see a direct command against "communicating" (if you can call asking saints to pray for you "communicating") with the saints living in heaven in the Bible. Deut. 18:10-11 condemns, specifically, divination, mediums, sorcerers, wizards, and necromancy. Each and every one of these practices is using a demonic spirit (and not God) to obtain knowledge, magical power, or to communicate with the dead. Our biblical example is Saul, who, when God didn't answer his prayers, went to a witch to use demonic spirits to raise Samuel. But asking a saint to pray TO God THROUGH God isn't any of those things, especially when we already know from scripture that those saints are praying for us, and that intercession pleases God. as Mr. Ortlund acknowledges in this video. And think about the implications: if it were a sin to communicate with the righteous spirits through God, then Jesus would've sinned when He spoke to Moses at the Transfiguration. Mary would've sinned by speaking to the angel Gabriel.

Even though there is so much Catholic denial and defensiveness about it, Mary must matter more, or their wouldn't be over 50 prayers directed to her on each and every rosary prayed.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Catholics have fallen into a systemic SIN around Mary, actually. I have in my possession a 218 page Roman Catholic approved book called, Mary, the Hope of the World, by Rev. James Alberione, SSP, STD. Google it. It is both heartbreaking and disgusting!

You have worded perfectly how every conversation I've had with Catholics about this has felt.

@@buckshot9521 there are a few exceptions I've met (like 2)

If you take Christs words at face value, the only prayer you should ever say is the our father. “Pray then like this…” Luke is even more clear “when you pray, say: …” You wouldn’t be allowed to say any other prayer. If we were to take your interpretation of this, we could also not pray to either Christ or the Holy Spirit. Are we only allowed to pray to the Father?

I am sure they had an answer just none you were satisfied with.

This is what it looks like when you interact with one little portion of the video

@@uzomaobasi3767 This is also what it looks like when you grasp at straws and place little games w/ words to cope. It doesn't matter if you change a word here or there. Origen got beyond crystal clear when he said that prayer in it's fullness should only be offered to God.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 “change a word here or there” lmao alright.

Why pray at all when God already knows your needs?

@@BrianGondo Why do you talk with a friend when you already know who they are?

@@stephenbailey9969 why ask your friends to pray for you when you can do it yourself?

@@BrianGondo Because Jesus told us to and Jesus did it himself.

@@BrianGondo Yes, we should all go to the Source. Praying for people around us together, however, is a matter of love, encouragement, and fellowship. Jesus people are not called to stand alone, but to join together in community. All together calling on the name of the Lord Jesus.

I will look into it. But would like to ask: how paganism and veneration are linked?

According to Bulgakov pagan practices were not revealed to Israel because the Lord wanted to impress upon them a strict monotheism. When Christ came the deifying grace of God was poured out and these practices became sanctified in the church. He writes, "Sometimes veneration of saints is seen as approaching the pagan cult of heroes or demigods, even to be equivalent to pagan polytheism. The parallel is not at all as far-fetched as it seems however. Paganism, with all its superstitions and delusions, could have contained important premonitions, foreshadowings, which for divine reasons remained unknown to the Old Testament church....Only after the coming of Christ could the unbridgeable chasm, as well as the closeness, between Christ and those who belong to Jesus Christ become clear. The dogmatic basis for the veneration of saints lies precisely in this link." (pgs. 68-69) @@IG88AAA

We are all part of Christ's church. Simply pointing out that a church father was not in favour of a pet Catholic doctrine is not an attack. It's a brotherly disagreement. Some perspective would be great, on your part.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 when will RC (not all) eyes be opened to see that it’s not being in a certain denomination that saves you? There’s so much arrogance and triumphalism from some quarters sadly.

@@scottie8365 Yes there is. There does seem to be provision in the catechism that we are disenfranchised brethren, but w/ valid baptisms. Not all Catholics know this though. We're kind of lumped in w/ atheists and muslims, which is unfortunate, but we're still recognized officially. There can be triumphalism on the protestant side against Catholics too. Not from Gavin, or in his threads, but on other channels that are as anti Catholic, as some Catholics can be anti protestant.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 I’ve even seen to the extremes that people are saying others aren’t saved. From both sides but moreso the RC one I would say. And that to me is very dangerous,you could then be denying the power and work of The Holy Spirit. I’ve just read a piece on purgatory today and plenary indulgences that sent me to an article a few years back where the then Pope was handed plenary indulgences out through Twitter,I kid you not! And in the article the then Pope,2013 I believe it was,was directing the youths on World Youth Day to Mary,the article was jam packed with mentions of her and hardly if anything about Jesus. Jesus is the only mediator we need,no one comes to the Father but through him and if we sin we have an advocate in him. The more I look into RC the more dangerous it looks in some cases.

Good stuff. Appreciate the commentary.