Protestantism's Most Unhistorical Doctrine 

Glory to God

Which Mass? One of the two with the Pope? Another Mass during the events? Or one of the Churches open most of the day giving regular Masses throughout?

Thank God!

Does it matter? @@kevind.k7512

Just a “thought” how many are born blind or go blind as children. Must they visit Portugal on an auspicious day?

Enjoy🎉

I hear you. I'm always awaiting his new videos, too.

@@cristinamz2137 Me too, but then he talked about predestined, and lost me: more reading to do plus speak to my confessor.

Praying for you brother, as I did the same, from being baptized in the presbyterian church to becoming a Roman Catholic in 2015! Welcome Home, brother! Praying for you!

God bless you in your quest to become Catholic! Enjoy plumbing the depths of the Catholic Faith. I was born into a Protestant family and longed to become Catholic throughout my adult life. Converted several years ago, and I’ve never looked back. Welcome home! Praying for you and your journey!

Welcome home brother, may you continue to find all the treasures of the Catholic faith. Look into the eucharistic miracles since this is the year of the eucharistic revival

​@@UnbrokenBelieverRahab was a harlot and God made her a heroine, so what's your point?

​@@ironymatt Great point, I was just writing about her 2day, & how there's all kinds of scripture proving God worked with Pagans, like King Nebuchadnezzar for example, but God always used Pagan kingdoms to punish Israel to, & in the NT Jesus tells Pontius Pilate in John 19:11; u only have this power because it was given to u from above. I'm a former Protestant believer, so all I do now is write articles like these to show my family that Catholic church is true... But that's a great point

Praise God! Welcome home brother

_"...and become catholic."_ Because worshiping human sacrifice is insufficient. Cannibalism must be worshiped too.

​@@twitherspoon8954 As if Protestants don't believe in this "human sacrifice" too. "Cannibalism" is what most of the early Christians believed, btw.

​@@twitherspoon8954you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity

@@jackdaw6359 _"...you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."

This made me chuckle 😅

😂😂 I laughed out loud

Still smiling😊

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs oh because I enjoy getting a good nights sleep, not being kept awake by Trent's theological challenges to my faith lol. It's nice to just sit back and watch him dismantle other doctrines. *just to note: I'm a protestant on a Catholic Apologetics page, obviously I am here because I am open to hearing the Catholic side of things, and I enjoy the charitable dialogues

Really? This gentleman completely denies everything Luther stood for in “On the Bondage of the Will”.

I read this in Jason Maher's voice. -Kyle

Oh heck yes. I typed it in with his voice in my head. 😅

​@@TheCounselofTrent Why did the APOSTLES refer to the Communion. Meal of believers in Christ as "gatherings for THE BREAKING IOF BREAD" n NOT "gatherings for THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS"? It was only in later years that rc-approved church fathers came up with the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.....that d rc chirch then ENFORCES that DOCTRINE merely coz it "SUPPORTED" by "d church fathers"... BUT why are the teachings of d later church fathers MORE IMPORTANT to d Roman catholic faith... than the TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES is to rc??? Why expect Christianity to REJECT BIBLICAL DOCTRINES just coz they hv NOT BN DOCUMENTED BY ROME to be from £d church fathers"???... Were there not CHURCH FATHERs MISSING from d Roman catholic ROLL???

Definitely, Ignatius of Antioch is the Church Father that Protestants fear the most, in my experience. He is an apostolic father and as such is incredibly early, was a direct student of John the Apostle and knew Peter personally, and his writings are so blatantly Catholic that they can’t really be reasoned around. Pax Christi.

I guess what is more important. The revealed Words of God from the source in the Bible or studies of early church leaders. We are to test Scripture with Scripture and thus test teaching of any church leader with scripture. Please cite the area that Ignatius taught that Protestants disagree with and cite the verses you KNOW to be directly cited by Ignatius as support for his theology

​@@nathangraham2189I would rather believe in Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneus, Saint Polycarp and the other early Church Fathers. Rather than believe in Martin Luther, John Calvin, Albert Zwingli, King Henry the VIII, John Knox and MANY other Reformers.

Don’t forget Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland and millions of other puffed up “preachers.”

@@danielkim672 The Bible tells us that the Church is the foundation of Truth, and Paul commanded all they taught in written word and in oral tradition was to be followed, so tell us which verse justifies your privileged understanding.

_"...who tirelessly defends our Church amid constant anti-Catholic vitriol..."_ Should cannibalism and human sacrifice be condemned or worshiped?

@@twitherspoon8954It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice.

@@Mach15-20 _"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."

@@Mach15-20 _"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_ Jesus: "Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

@@twitherspoon8954 Jesus real blood and flesh is eaten under the appearance and taste of bread, not flesh and blood. And human sacrifice is when humans offer an Innocent human being against their will to a false God. That’s not what happened in Jesus case, on the contrary Jesus willingly died for us as a pleasing sacrifice to God.

Your comments are of much greater value in my view Fr, Ad majorem Dei gloriam!

Man I see you everywhere Father 🤣

@@matthewoburke7202 keep an eye out! The conspiracies are true. Jesuits are hiding everywhere! Hahaha I've even got things going on, like Gospel reflection videos etc

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible jo?peace;

@@lufhopespeacefully2037 It does, Just not explicitly.

I appreciate your honesty. The biggest problem within Fundamentalism and Baptist as a whole is a lack of good teaching of doctrine and theology. When you don’t have a true understanding and foundation in what you profess anyone who is willing to give an answer will sound correct. I apologize for that they failed you and I strongly recommend that you do as the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, TEST all things. Don’t take my word don’t take Trent’s word go test what is being said, and just ask yourself one question, who should I believe God or man? Good luck and God bless.

yea like "sola scriptura" cant be right huh? those crazy Baptists, who warn that once u start accepting traditions or additions to scripture, ANYTHING can happen! and so it has, from the catholic heresies of praying to the dead, indulgences, killing those who taught against their church (real christians huh?) to mormons and all their additional books and their "prophets" revelations and on and on and on. and both teach that gettin wet and calling is baptism, washes away sins...but thats not enough either! i will pray for u friend, the Jesus u have run into in the Catholic church is a weak one. has to be sacrificed daily in the mass, and he didnt quite do enough, so now u gotta "persevere" and since Trent says not everyone has been gifted with perseverance, u still come up short. its enough to cause schizophrenia

Welcome home!

I'm sorry you were in a dead church, but thanks to the King James bible I was led away from the seducing Catholic spirit. I admit there is something compelling about Catholicism, but this "Catholic awakening" on the internet is not validation of it being the true church. Anywhere you look in the bible in just about any case the majority is in apostasy. Matthew 7 is clear about the gate being narrow. Over one billion people is not a narrow gate. I just want you to put this in perspective; you are leaving the heritage of bible believers who were burned at the stake for the word of God and joining the heritage of those that burned them at the stake. I'd feel guilty if that was my heritage. I'm praying for you.

Friend, why not Orthodox?

Plenty of Muslims die for their god, maybe you should start listening to them then. Edit: Since my last comment, I have changed my mind and my anti-catholicism, and am in RCIA with hopes to join the Catholic Church next Easter Vigil.

@@EmberBright2077 Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John. Seven of his Epistles are extant. Πολύκαρπος attests to him as well. It’s not merely his martyrdom that is compelling. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.

​@@EmberBright2077 Guess you changed your tune now. 😂😂. Just some lighthearted jabs don't worry. Welcome to the fullness of the truth :)).

@@shubhabrataray1313 Thanks 👍

Iconography wasn't official until the 8th century

Iconography wasn’t a controversy until the 8th century. It was only when Islam came to play in its oppression and insistence that they began to question such a practice. Now, I would like to point out that councils are ONLY held to handle controversial topics! This is true of all of them: where the church held an opinion until people started to be led astray. This is where I have my issue: St. Peter said in his letters that “the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” At the second council of Nicaea we see that the church agreed unanimously that iconography was good! So my question is this: the church leaders, all set in place by God, before any large schism save for the ethiopian orthodox, all agreed that icons were a good thing. If the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, all with free access to the spirit, are determining such an important doctrine, how is it that the spirit was so absent that he did not help the church? Why is it that the pillar and bulwark of truth did not uphold truth? Why did the spirit not convict them? How did both God and his church fail so clearly? Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer that begs the least questions is that they were justified in their judgment, and to reject their dogma and and set beliefs would be to reject the church, and thus declare them anathema. Reject the entire church and you’ll have a great time, I think.

Welcome home!

I have a masters degree in astrology..same branch..amen

I would like to have my masters in theology.

​@@johnpro2847your comment makes no sense, amen.

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;

@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Guess you missed that part in the Bible when Jesus was baptized and all three interacted with the world at once. Or in Acts when it says that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

Where you Calvinist?

See my comment above--I don't think this is a good reason to become a Roman Catholic.

@@huntsman528 My grandpa was a Presbyterian pastor and I currently go to a Presbyterian church, but Calvinism has never made sense to me so I don't think i can really claim to have ever been Calvinist

@@anglicanaesthetics I don't either. One, I'm not Catholic. Two, I said this "in part" has contributed to the collapse of my protestant faith. I no longer believe in either Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide which puts me on a super small island of Protestants. Every protestant I know of who has been on said island has gone on to Catholicism. Catholics have a comprehensive interpretation of sacred tradition and the church's role in salvation that is utterly lacking in protestantism.

Very interesting. When I was a Calvinist I never had any assurance, whatsoever, but that's because I considered myself unrepentant. Aside from that, though, I think Calvinistic readings of Scripture are entirely sound and consistent, and am surprised it's even possible to dismantle Calvinism in a debate. Just curious, what was so effective about Horn's approach (I might try it against some Calvinists, myself)?

Most protestants don't believe in eternal security it's a Presbyterian belief

Quoting Chinese Art of War does not bode well

I think that scriptures are in line with the perseverance of the Saints. I think John is the most explicit, besides saying that those that went away were never from us there are passages like Jn 2:23-25 (they are trusting jesus but Jesus is not trusting them) and 6:64-66 (where Jesus is saying they are following just for foor before it). Then there are passages like Jn 15:16 where Jesus is saying he chose his disciples (i don't think Judas proves this wrong when concidered in context i think he was the son of perdition, the one stealing money isn't somebody that is really a christian unless you think it is a mark of true salvation... Just like God chose Moses before, does not know what he is dooing?), Jn 10:27-30 saying nobody can take them out of his hand where he says it is the same as beeing in the hand of the father and passages like Ap 13:8, 17:8 where the names are in the book of life from before the foundation of the world. What do you make of these passages?

Welcome HOME!

In the last two months I have been debating Free Gracers. It is tough since they tend to be very prideful. They are the total opposite of Lordship Salvationists. Both equally arrogant.

Do you understand the parable of the sower? Tell me do you have a corruptible seed? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-K0ofylYquzM.html

Thanks for the invite! Let me get your best contact info and I’ll pass it off to Trent while he checks his schedule. -Kyle

I love 1 John 1...especially: ‭1 John 1:5-7 ESV‬ [5] This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. [6] If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. [7] But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. We have to walk in the Light! If we say we are when we're not, we are liars!

That’s a non-argument, or else I could say the same for the droves of people leaving the Catholic Church.

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs yeah I feel like it is also that Just the possibility that you could indeed be mistaken about any given experience of the Holy Spirit And not even in the “we live in a simulation” way, but just in the fact that basically none of those experiences are externally verifiable in any way I say “basically none” and not “none” because the . Agnostic part 😅

⁠@@1776iscoolseeing how over the last few decades a good many Catholics lost the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist “weapon”’s comment would still be operative. I don’t think he is saying there is something magical about the Eucharist; just that it makes Christian belief coherent. After all, it is the summit of the Catholic experience.

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs well I’m not sure what you mean 100% by seek peace fully but , I will go to my local Catholic parish this Sunday and pay attention

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs what if I die right now 😭

The Prodigal Son is the northern kingdom of Israel. What are these 2 Houses of Israel? A brief look at Biblical History After Moses led the 12 Tribes of Israel (the generations that came from the 12 Children of Jacob) out of Egypt, God appeared to “His People - Israel” and gave them Commandments and led them to the Land of Israel. At this time there was no King over Israel, and God Himself reigned King over His People. After Moses’ death, Joshua acted as “Judge” over Israel and many others were appointed after Joshua(Book of Judges) for a span of around 450 years(Acts 13:20). When Samuel was acting as Judge over Israel, the people asked for a King to rule over them, to much displeasure from Samuel & God Himself(1Sam 8:5-8). After Saul’s reign, David was appointed as King and he ruled over all 12 Tribes of Israel/Jacob (2Sam 5:3-5). After David, Solomon was anointed King and when Solomon was old, his many wives made him sin against God (1Kin 11:4-7). As punishment, Solomon’s servant Jeroboam received 10 tribes to rule over, and the rest were ruled by Solomon’s son, Rehoboam (1Kin 11:30,31/ 1Kin 12:16,17). Rehoboam ruled over the Tribe of Judah & Benjamin, collectively called the “House of Judah” (1Kin 12:23). From this point onwards in the Books of 1st & 2nd Kings, Jeroboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Israel” in the north of the land while Rehoboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Judah” in the south of the land. After much rebellion against God, and not giving ear to the Prophets, The House of Israel was taken captive to Assyria(2Kin 17:6,18,23). The Majority of them were scattered among the nations(Hos 8:8, Jer 31:10). Even though, The House of Judah, was much better than The House of Israel, they also disobeyed God and was taken captive to Babylon(Dan 1:1,2). But God let them return back to their land after 70 yrs in exile(Jer 29:10, Ezr 2:1, Neh 7:6). The people who are called Jews today, are mostly, the descendants of the House of Judah. And the House of Israel has been dispersed among nations according to all of the prophecies of Scripture. These descendants are worshiping there own gods without knowing who they are, living in countries around the world(Deut 28:64, Neh 1:8,9, Eze 12:15). And God has said that He will bring back these people from the ends of the Earth. These 2 Houses are specifically mentioned throughout the Scriptures 1Kin 12:21, 2Kin 23:27, Isa 5:7, Jer 3:18, 5:11, 11:10,17, 12:14, 13:11, 31:27, 31:31, 33:14, Eze 9:9, Hos 11:12, Mic 1:5, Zec 8:13, Heb 8:8 The scattering of His People was prophesied before it happened Lev 26:33, Deut 4:27, 28:63-68, 32:26, Jer 9:16, Ezek 20:23, 22:15, God has promised to bring back the scattered and rebuild His people Deut 30:1-5, Isaiah 11:10-13, 27:12, 43:5-7, Jer 3:12-15, Amos 9:9, Ezek 11:17, Ezek 37 These 2 houses will become one people Eze 37:16-19, Jer 3:18, 50:4, Hos 1:11 Yeshua was sent for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel Mat 15:24, John 11:52 Yeshua will rule over these 2 Houses forever Luk 1:33 (The House of Jacob is the “House of Judah” & the “House of Israel”, together) Everyone including the Apostles knew about the scattered John 7:35, 1Pet 1:1, James 1:1, Acts 21:21 So what does the Division of Israel have to do with the Parable of the Prodigal Son? I believe that the correct interpretation of this Parable can only be understood by someone after studying what happened to Israel, and what was prophesied about them throughout the Scriptures. consider the following explanation. (My Interpretation is added in underlined font) Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man(Father God) had two sons(The two Houses of Israel - Hos 1:10,11): Luk 15:12 And the younger of them(The House of Israel/Ephraim - Jer 31:20) said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. (God blessed them abundantly with their inheritance - Eze 35:15) Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. (The House of Israel sinned against God, doing all that they pleased, and was finally exiled - 2Kin 17:18) Luk 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. (In Exile, the house of Israel got scattered among the nations - Deut 4:27) Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. (Among the nations they have become slaves to other God’s - Deut 4:28) Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. (They fell to the depths of uncleanness - Hos 9:3) Luk 15:17-19 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. (They will finally understand their error and return to the Father - Jer 31:16-19) Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. (The Father showed His ways through Yeshua, to whomever was in error - John 14:24) Luk 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. (The House of Israel is coming back to him with repentance - Acts 5:31) Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: (The Father accepts the repenting House of Israel, and gives them back their rightful position - Hos 14) Luk 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: (Yeshua was sent for the Lost of the House of Israel - Mat 15:24) Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. (Through Yeshua the House of Israel is alive again through a renewed covenant - Heb 8:10) Luk 15:25-28 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. (The House of Judah has a hard time accepting that the Father could accept the children that had disobeyed Him - Acts 11:3&18 , as the House of Judah did not keep company with other Nations - Acts 10:28) Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: (The House of Judah, for the most part, have always been obedient to God - Hos 11:12) Luk 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. (The House of Israel, on the other hand has always been in harlotry with other gods - Jer 3:6) Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. (The House of Israel, unlike Judah, was given a bill of divorce and put away by God, Almighty resulting in their exile and scattering- Jer 3:8) Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (God will accept the repenting House of Israel, making his brother, The House of Judah, jealous - Rom 11:11)

I mean I'm a Protestant and I do believe you can lose your salvation, so I probably just see it the same way you do.

@EmberBright2077 thanks. I've never really understood the idea of "once saved, always saved." But I know some denominations believe that. So I was just curious.

The actions of the Prodigal Son when he fell away prove that he was not repenting or placing his trust in Christ, and I believe that one has to have faith (which shows trust and obedience) in Christ to go to Heaven. We believe the same thing on this one.

*cough cough* Orthodox *cough cough*

@@EmberBright2077 no one is asking you for your ouch......ooch.......you may keep your ouch ooch.....

@@MaranglikPeterTo-Rot-dm4nc ?

As a Protestant, my biggest problem with Eternal Security is that it undermines God's character. The argument goes, "God can save whomever he wants. He wants the elect to be saved. Ergo, the elect cannot lose Salvation." But its fundamental premise is wrong. God doesn't arbitrarily want the elect to be saved. God has saved the elect whom he foreknows will cooperate with grace. The implication of TULIP is that God's salvation is unjust and forced upon people who reject it and denied from people who love God.

@@sivad1025 This. TULIP renders God a moral monster and tyrant who purposefully made millions of people to send them to Hell, with NO chance or capacity on their part at all to repent or avoid this fate. It’s insane.

@@nathangraham2189 I get Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace individually. They both seem superficially reasonable. But together, they really do compell you into the position you describe since you can't accept that the dammed resisted grace. It's shocking to me that Calvinists who have actually thought through these things aren't bothered by it

@ThoskaBrah Listen, I'm no Aquinas expert--I'm not even Catholic--so I'm not exactly going to have the best researched opinion. I lean towards Molinism as that makes the most sense to me in light of natural reason. But I'm open to change. That said, I find your assertion that Aquinas denies the role of cooperation with grace to be hard to believe. I was under the impression that Aquinas believes in a dual nature of God's sovereignty and man's freedom to respond to grace. I thought that was more or less the Catholic position even though the church hasn't formally defined any one theory. The catechism says, "When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." That doesn't sound unconditional to me. That sounds like God's sovreign election is conditioned upon our cooperation

Same here!

Out of curiosity, why are you still protestant? In the last two months, I had sola fide and sola scriptura completely dismantled which has really left my Protestantism hanging by a thread.

Protestant here. I agree with you. What background did you come from?

​@UnbrokenBeliever It's just a bad argument to begin with. There are too many passages that indicate that believers can leave the faith. Historic belief helps support this, but is not necessary based on scripture.

@@UnbrokenBeliever First off, why does it have to be in the Bible to be true? Peter spoke infallibly in Acts even though he didn't write acts. John says many things were taught by Jesus and not written down. Paul says to hold onto the TRADITIONS passed down by the apostles. So where on earth do you get this notion that it has to be written in one of 27 books to be apostolic and true? Second, Hebrews 10 is clear that there "is no longer any sacrifice left for our sins" if "we go on sinning deliberately." And James 5 is clear that someone can wander away from the truth and come _back_ through intercession and confession and be saved from death. These two passages are very, very clear that you can sincerely believe in Jesus and compromise your faith and cause death to your soul through deliberate sin. The reason church history is important is because it shows that the Protestant proof-texts were never understood in the way Protestants interpreted them 1600 years later.

@@sivad1025 where does Paul instruct believers to pass on traditions of the Apostles? Acts is part of the Bible. Books by people taught directly by Christ is so different than teachings of men elected by men. 27 books is because that is all we have. If the Apostles wrote more books, we'd have more. Popes are not inspired however and they not apostles.

"no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" Yet we have free will and can leave. God doesn't force us to love him. He doesn't force us to persevere. This is the whole point of the parable of the vine. A branch ATTACHED to Jesus Christ is 100% SAVED! Yet through unrepentant sin, can be cut off, bundled and thrown into the fire.

Rip voixe text. XD Bless you brother!

Once saved always saved isn't found in Scripture, so rejecting the error of the doctrine doesn't imply that sola scriptura is wrong. Sola scriptura simply means that when you have both Scripture and Tradition, Scripture is the norm that norms Tradition. In other words Tradition is everywhere and always subject to Scripture and the proper role of Tradition is to provide explanations of Scripture for the people as Paul clearly states in 2 Timothy 3. Scripture defines itself as "God breathed" whereas Tradition cannot make that same claim. At least not honestly. Sola scriptura basically means you cannot make stuff up and put it on par with Scripture.

@@pete3397 I'm not claiming the falsehood of once saved always saved proves or even implies sola scriptura is false. I made no appeal to tradition. Tradition had nothing to do with my rejection of the doctrine. I bring up sola scriptura because I came to reject once saved always saved based purely on scripture, long before I knew much of anything about the Catholic Church or had any concept of looking to tradition for any reason.

@@timrichardson4018 Got you.

​@@pete3397Scripture is one part of Tradition. That's why Scripture AND Traditiin along with the teaching authority of the Church work together and are important to look to for the fullness of the truth.

@@littleone1656 They do work together, but Tradition cannot supplant Scripture, nor can it be equal with Scripture. Scripture always norms Tradition and never the other way around. Tradition is valuable, it just needs to be recognized as not on par with Scripture. That is the actual meaning of sola scriptura: Scripture is the default, Tradition is the support.

You have NOT done his commandments but broken them all. That's what you don't understand. Jesus Christ paid it all! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M4_pgXjq5X4.html

No room in that for “faith without works is dead” is there?

@@Danaluni59 You have FORGOTTEN the works of God. That ye believe on HIM whom he hath sent. Do you EVEN remember HIS NAME brethren? Tell Me the truth, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lrAjMMM-R4M.html

Ita a two edge sword tough, many calvinist live in doubt and anxiety cuz they don't know if they are elect or may be even predestinatined to hell. Just like jansenism

"The elect are completely assured of their salvation and I might be one of them"

I'm not even Calvinist, but even I can see this is a terrible strawman. They see election as God's grace, as in, they don't deserve it and can't earn it. It's the *complete opposite* of arrogance.

But what about you bruh? Are you one of the elect and sure you're going straight to heaven?

Catholics can be arrogant about their salvation, because they outperformed the unsaved. They *merited* salvation, whereas the unsaved did not. A Calvinist cannot be arrogant, because they did nothing to deserve it. It’s utterly and completely God’s Grace.

thank you so much for your support! -Vanessa

I just want you to know that I’m screen-shotting this and sending it to Thursday. -Kyle

@@TheCounselofTrent hahaha approved

Well, I admire your inner strength. It takes some courage to unlearn some things :)

That's because Trent sometimes caricatures all protestants as Calvinists. Also saying Protestant in the youtube title is more clickbait than Calvinist

😂

It's basically Satan slipping in the arrogance of presumption through a temptation to fear. 😈 "As long as you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

I think the cheap grace sinner’s prayer fire insurance claim is the most dangerous. You have to first THINK you’re “saved” before you can STAY “saved!”

@@john-paulgies4313 I'm very thankful for the Sacrament of Confession. Each and every Confession gives sanctifying grace, purifies the soul and helps to sin no more... Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth. Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors. Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church. John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence"). 2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins. 2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance. James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness. Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 - these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins. Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today. Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist). 1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses. 1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But wemust confess our sins to one another. Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution. 2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin). Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other. Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse. Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly. 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness. Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).

​@@mrjeffjobYou dont know what you are saying. Grace is paid for by the priceless powerful blood of the Lamb. Trying to buy salvation is a MOCKERY of the Cross. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M4_pgXjq5X4.html

@@mrjeffjoba Baptist minister friend of mine calls that “greasy” grace.

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;

Yeah, I wonder why that's thr case. I was having a discussion with a Reformed guy who basically said Clement sounded "so Protestant." I said there was nothing Pope St. Clement was saying which was contrary to the. Catholic faith.

I live in Tennessee, southern baptists tend not to have any clue when the Baptist church was founded and when it split into their denomination, let alone anything that happened across the ocean 2000 years ago. It’s very frustrating because they talk about the Church “adding stuff” all the time, but they have 0 historical consciousness so they never have any idea when, where, or what was “added”.

Catholics seriously don't know what protestantism is

@bennyv4444 It's the same in southern MD. We have a lot of pentacostal influence here as well.

Except for the ones that do. More often historic Protestants tend to be well educated in Church history. Off the top of my head,you can look up Gavin Ortlund, The Other Paul, Barely Protestant, Gospel Simplicity, or Jordan Cooper for some representation from that side of the fence.

@EmberBright2077 Yep I've listened to all of them debate catholics. Jordan cooper got crushed by jimmybakin and gavin got defeated by trent horn in a couple debates as well. They get trashed... gavins debate with trent horn on sola scriptura was a wash. Gavins entire argument failed in his opening statements when he said personal interpretation of scripture is a higher authority than scripture. Suan sunna also made a 3 or 4 hour video evicerating his argument against icon veneration. Historical protestants are in a pretty rough boat as well... the mainline churches have almost all fallen into heresy and if you try to restore it to luther and Calvin's day then you have to deal with how many of them believed in the Marian doctrines. Perpetual virginity, assumption, theotokos, etc. No current protestants hold the historical views on Mary that the reformers held. If you look up some of the off the wall comments that luther made over the years I can't imagine anyone still follows his teachings. Between throwing his excrement at the walls, imagining jewish conspiracies to ruin the church, his disdain for Hebrews, corinthians, James, revelation, and the deuterocanon makes me wonder how he ever assumed sola scriptura.

Study proto- Protestantism, like the Waldensians, Voudois and Albegenes. Catholics want you to think that Martin Luther completely invented something, but bible believing Christians have always been around being persecuted by the "mother church."

Read Ignatius of Antioch. He is a first generation disciple of the Apostles and describes the role of bishops and the importance of being in communion with them.

@@kyler9323 Thank you!

@@cassiemae7834 I'm trying to help you out too

Kyler’s recommendation is really good. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and knew John the apostle and wrote several letters(7?) while being taken to Rome to be martyred in 107ad. A modern source for the early Church being Catholic is Joe Heschmeyer who works for Catholic Answers. He is a RU-vidr and also has written some very fine books. Your desire for truth is admirable and a sign of grace

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;...;;;

So you believe Jesus lied in John 10:27-30?

@@Justas399 do you think that I think that Jesus is a liar and therefore a sinner? Of course He didn't lie. No need to be inflammatory my friend. I have a different interpretation:)

@@jethrokingsley8903 I'm just pointing out that if a person can lose their salvation then John 10:27-30 is false. Christ lied.

@Justas399 no it just means your interpretation is wrong and needs to be revised. Why not take all of what the Lord had to say instead of proof texting. Also consider that no one until the reformation interpreted that passage the way you do😉

@@rickydettmer2003 where is the infallible official interpretation by your church on these passages that proves I’m wrong? I would like to see it.

@nathonoppy - that's called intellectual assent without Spiritual ascent! Sad for him!

Wow. Perceptive. Well said.

Well there is. Grave is always open gor us. Thats why God gave us sacraments. The banwuet and the gift is always open. All you need to do is partake. The good shepherd can lead you to warer but he cant force stupid and headstrong sheep to drink😅 (unless he forcibly drags your mouth and tortures you)

I’m a Protestant who’s still where you were. Perseverance makes sense to me. The golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30 speaks of the entire act of redeeming people from beginning to end as an act of God. If a truly saved person fails to reach glorification then God failed. The language of salvation used throughout the NT is so final. Adoption, resurrection, becoming a partaker of eternal life. It doesn’t sound like probation.

@@hettinga359 I hear you, Rom 8 was a big proof text for me too. Catholics believe that text of course - there is a people (the elect) that God has chosen from eternity past to be saved and those he foreknew, he predestined, called, justified, and ultimately glorified. That’s all true (I mean Paul said it, so…)!! Here’s the rub: there’s no contradiction between saying that God saves the elect all the way from foreknowledge to glorification AND saying that there is ANOTHER group of people who are once justified and later forfeit that grace of justification. Romans 8 and similar passages speak about the elect but don’t make the claim that ONLY the elect EVER come into a state of justification. That is the piece that Calvin seems to have inserted that wasn’t believed for the first 1500 years (outside of possibly those people in that Augustine quote in the video that he rejected). We all believe in perseverance of the ELECT, the question is whether ONLY the elect ever are SAINTS. As for the language being final, you’re right! Once someone has been believed and been baptized into Christ and thereby justified, he/she is God’s adopted son/daughter. So when we speak of people forfeiting justification, they aren’t losing their *sonship* so much as they’re losing their *inheritance* which is why Hebrews warns us not to be like Esau and give up our inheritance (salvation) in exchange for a single meal (in the context, sexual immorality - i.e. mortal sin) - Hebrews 12:6

@@blakewolford8903 thanks, have to chew on that

I don't see why it couldn't just be a doctrinal development, like the excuse Catholics will use whenever they can't find historical backing for their beliefs.

@@EmberBright2077 I think the difference is that this doctrine wasn’t just something that hadn’t been fleshed out yet, it was something actively rejected by practically everyone until Calvin. So this wouldn’t be development, this would be reversal of what was (at least nearly) universally held prior

The fruit of Sola Scriptura was and is, chaos and confusion. It's only grown exponentially since the day of Father Luther, Father Zwingli and the Catholic lawyer named Calvin. They all disagreed with each other, these 'reformers' yet Sola gave none the right to say the other was wrong.

Protestantism is as dependent on how any given pastor on any given day reinterprets scripture to suit whatever premise or position he is attempting to presume on any given Sunday.

@@Danaluni59 For some. For others it depends on whether the pastor agrees with the Church of Self.

Proof enough that it would be possible for Christians to fall away? Well then, give two or three examples of any Christian who allegedly fell away from the Bible.

Tautologies make for an empty theology, that’s my response. “Saved people are saved” is a tautology, and as such is completely meaningless.

@@nathangraham2189 Tautologies are 2 different words that mean the same thing ….words like choose & select are tautologies….not saved and saved…

@@Mattissaved Um no, they are not. A tautology is a term of logic: it’s a statement that is always necessarily true in every world, such as “when it’s raining, it is raining.” As such; they are statements that cannot convey any meaningful information about the world. As with my example herein, they are perfectly capable of having the same word within the statement. When broken down into symbolic logic they would indeed have the same symbolic value in both parts of the statement, such as “where A is, A is”. Similarly, the statement “those people who are saved, are saved people” would be a tautology. Pax Christi.

Protestant logic can’t be faulty, because if it’s faulty, it wasn’t actual Protestant logic. See?