Special: Roman Catholicism, Losing Salvation, and Church History 

So do you teach and believe God has predetermined every soul which goes to heaven or hell? A yes or no is fine. Just looking for clarity.

​@@regenerated4lifethese are elders who hold offices in the church. They are very busy.

@@regenerated4life ministries. Other podcasts. going out into the world for the Gospel. Going to abortion clinics. Prepping for legislation. they have families too.

​@@regenerated4lifethey don't owe you a response.

The main impetus for the fall of man was the proposition of self qualification. This is why every perversion of the Doctrine of Salvation centers around man's unwillingness to set aside the fallacy that in him is the ability to contribute to his own qualification.

Psalms 119:104 (KJV) Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Psalms 119:128 (KJV) Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. You joined a cult where the leader calls himself the vicker of christ and lives in a castle and you chant vain babblings and eat flesh and blood that a man in a dress gives to you after you tell him everything you did that was wrong. You need to get saved

@@johnf817 I've already been saved my friend! By my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I proclaim his life death and resurrection, until he comes again. For by faith I was saved! Ephesians 2:8 and by Romans 10:9!

@@johnf817 If Catholics are not saved, how is it, Protestants are?

@@johnf817 And you listen to a man-made theology from some monk in 1600, who somehow conveniently discovered "true" Christianity. A cult invented by people who went from the pew to preaching in the pulpit. A cult that plays rock music together in skinny jeans and jumps around like sacrilegious imbeciles, while the other half stays at home and swears their faith alone is enough.

@@DavidValle-ej8esdo you call your church leaders father ?

Josh is brilliant

That is great, couldnt have said it better myself😂

I’m not catholic and dont believe in purgatory, but this kind of thinking is… counterproductive to our faith. Please research more

@@Orthodoxology how do you get to Heaven?

Josh is smarter than most RCs

No offense friend. But if you convert from the Holy Catholic church to Mormonism it shows your Catholic doctrine was lacking. There are responses to all of these claims; these two men are very intelligent and biblically literate and they say things with such conviction it seems irrefutable but it simply is not.

​@@reginaldmudford9722hardly holy with those in charge

@@reginaldmudford9722yes it’s easy to pick off nominal Catholics or those who may have a more thorough understanding but have been hurt by the church or may fall into the arguments and claims presented by the media. Same was it’s easy for Protestants to start deconstructing their faith and thereby lose it (I mean I suppose if they once believe but deconstruct and become atheists, then it only makes sense their salvation is lost) if they aren’t too knowledgeable about their faith

​@@reginaldmudford9722 First of all...the catholic "church" is just a big unholy cult! Don't fall for the devil's tricks!

@@reginaldmudford9722There are responses for every claim out there, but that doesn’t make it true now does it?

Hey Sister...I am reading Martin Lloyd Jones Book called "Romans: An Exposition on Chapter 8:5-17 The Sons of God." I am only 2 chapters in...but its incredible. He was saying Natural man hates Reformed Theology because they hate God. God could not have possibly "Elected" man to Salvation by Foreknowledge (Fore-Loved) it must mean foreseen according to them, because how could God possibly not give everyone a chance. Its not possible to their understanding. Like Leighton Flowers...they must re-explain the clear meaning of the text, just like Trent Horn here. These cults...its soo clear that they simply have not been Born Again. The Holy Spirit brings all truth....and we are not saved without the Holy Spirit. Its MLJ's whole exposition in Chapter 2. God Bless you Dear Sister...💕✝️🌷

​@@michellecheriekjv4115while you are correct, I recommend just reading the Bible, and avoid the words of men/commentaries as they pretty much all contain bizarre false teachings. Go with the words of God instead.

It's good to cross sides. I disagree with William Lane Craig's Molonism but his videos are still awesome

You're not a Calvinist "yet". Lol.

@@theclown3967 well I'm open to what the Bible reveals through the Holy Spirit. Right now I'm not for it, but I certainly am NOT into argument mode with my other brothers and sisters in Christ. Just a difference of opinion at the moment. But I like a lot of what Dr.White and Jeff Durbin bring to the table and their apologetics work they do. @theclown3967 ...It's always good to hear good banter from other branches of Protestantism lol.

Awesome! Good work!

@@jonathanvickers3881 thanks! Working on the next one now 😃

Catholic Christian here as well, even though Apologia studios are Protestant Christians, I like how Apologia reaches Mormons (LDS) and Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's).

@@Alex-yd9pf And Catholics. You guys are lost too.

Do you understand anything when going to Latin mass?

@@JanSobieskiIII I do yes. But we also have hand missals with the translations. I use that mainly for the epistle and gospel readings.

@@Beloved78 lolzzz

I would prefer a conversation. Dr W gets too loud. “Because the Church says so,” is a part of Roman Catholicism. Even the Bible says there is so much more information than can be contained in the Bible. Maybe you could just explain what you believe and why you believe it without getting tearing others down.

@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 21:25 [25] “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” True, but rome can not identify even one.

James white can’t have a conversation when dealing with Catholicism. He gets loud and arrogant and his defense is basically I’m older and therefore smarter

@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 20:30-31 [30] “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Tell us once more why John states he wrote His account. 😀

@@cindiloowhoo1166 See, if you actually studied the scriptures instead of proof texting to twist the scriptures you would have known the context. This is why rome has never defined one thing Jesus or the apostles said, did or taught that is not in the scriptures.

Debates are pointless.

The whole truth is not found within the catholic church...cult.

I’ve been searching for the Truth too, honestly and humbly looking into what Catholics believe. What is keeping me grounded is the question, “What if I’m wrong?” Even Catholic teaching does not say I MUST pray to Mary or the Saint or Angels to be saved. Catholic teaching does not say I must venerate statues and icons. Catholic teaching says you must believe and confess that Jesus is Lord and you must be baptized and you must have an ongoing lifestyle of repentance of sins to go to heaven after you die. We all basically agree with this. So as a Protestant, what if I’m wrong? I still go to Heaven after I die, even according to Catholics. But if Catholics are wrong about praying to Mary and Saints and Angels and venerating statues and icons, they’re breaking the first commandment that states you shall not worship any other God than Yahweh. If you are not faithful to God, it could cost your eternal soul. You may end up spending an eternity in hell over this

@@TJMcCarty The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ”

@@meathammer4230 The Catechism also says: “838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” So since Vatican II they believe you can be saved if you believe in Jesus and have been baptized. That’s my understanding at least. The ultimate authority is Jesus, and Jesus says in John chapter 6 over and over that if you believe in Jesus, you will receive eternal life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple. The Catholic Church preaches a different gospel. I do hope God will be merciful towards a lot of Catholics who genuinely believe in Jesus though

@@meathammer4230I would push back some on what you’re saying here. My understanding is what you are saying falls under feeneyism, where Fr. Feeney taught no Protestants can be saved and was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. I am a Protestant btw and believe the RCC has issues.

Jay Dyer is too much of a grifter, he goes to religion to religion

@@BentleyBud-wb9ft are you okay?

@@BentleyBud-wb9ft so would you say Trent Horn is good cause Jay destroyed him

It would be edifying for sure.

Jay Dyer is just a Internet troll. Everyone should just ignore him. He is not worth engaging with.

There is no reason for any Christian to follow an evil 16th century French lawyer.

HE NOT A REAL DR LOL

You could very well apply this verse to the reformers...

​@@reginaldmudford9722no cause we actually read the Bible, not rely on others to tell us what it says

The Reformers literally said "my will be done" and that is not exaggerating. Martin Luther isn't who you think he is, go listen to the thorough presentation of Lloyd Joungh on Martin Luther. It is truly insane what Luther said in his sermons and writings. We Catholics come in the name of God and we respect God. But Luther said that the Epistle of James was sh** no exageration, he said that, and if it wasn't for the other Reformers it would no longer be in your Bible do you realize what I am saying??? He also threw out the book of Revelation, he did not respect the word of God. He married a nun, and in his letters to her he was complaining about how he wasn't getting aroused by prostitutes anymore. It is ridiculous. Please do your research, don't be complaisant in ignorance my friend, the Holy Spirit is giving you a hint right now. Lloyd de Jongh on Martin Luther, go watch it is crazy.

@@workinpromo Wow! Really?! What's wrong with people? I put up a scripture and wrote at the end that "God does speak to us through His Holy Spirit". What does that and the scripture have to do with all names you called and what they are about? What they said and didnt say. What they did and didnt do. Are they Jesus? Did they die for us? Am I worshipping a denomination or humans? The word of God is eternal and life and it will alway have its way to our heart. So why not stop being a Catholic and be a Christian? Why not stop being a divider and be one with the body of Christ. "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another"~ John 13:35. Shalom.

Both Martin Luther and the catholic cult are corrupt. What's your point? Just because Luther didn't get everything right doesn't mean that catholicism is true 😂🤣🤣 If you don't see this simple truth you are utterly blind to the truth.

Early next year he’ll be debating James White

The problem with debating any devout Catholic is they reject the Bible as the only, or even the supreme source of truth. Trent believes, as most faithful Catholics do, that the Bible, as it is interpreted by the magisterium, is the truth. It’s Bible + Tradition - and the Bible can only be understood with the help of a priest or the Magesterium. They believe if we read it outside of what the church teaches about it, it’s just above our heads and we can’t understand it. So trying to debate that Catholicism is unbiblical with someone who requires the authority of the Catholic Church to even read the Bible is not going to go anywhere.

@@BentleyBud-wb9ft how is saying this useful or edifying? You could have commented calmly and said that you think Trent won, but instead you say Trent “crushed” James White. Cool your jets men.

​@@Me-hf4iibut what makes the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith? It never says that in the Bible, thus making it a doctrine found outside of the Bible.

@@BentleyBud-wb9ftlol in what world ?

Yes! Memorizing large sections, not just snippets! I have had my faith transformed by memorizing Hebrews, and now working through Romans. It's still a bit tentative, but I'm getting it nailed down a little better with each pass.

Yes, make sure not to miss that Paul says we all will be judged by our works on final judgment day and only those who persevere in doing good will inherit eternal life and be justified (Romans 2:4-13). Also that Paul says we are united to Christ in baptism we are no longer slaves to sin in Romans chapter 6, and that the way we meet the righteous requirements of Christ’s law in ourselves by walking in the Spirit and not the flesh (ie doing good by the Holy Spirit and not sinning) (Romans 8:4), but if we Christians cease walking in the Spirit we will die eternal death (Romans 8:13). Those are important parts to believe, as Paul doesn’t waste breath regardless of what Calvinists tell you!

​@@IAmisMasterhow do you explain our salvation being from entirely from grace and apart from our own good works?

@@jaihummel5057 The Bible never says our salvation is apart from “good works.” It says our salvation is apart from works of the Law (of Moses, like circumcision) and works prior to initial salvation, just like Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, etc. all correctly interpreted. I’m sorry you rely on Reformation heretics 1500 years removed from Christ instead of native ancient Greek early church writers to help you interpret Paul. Salvation is by grace because it has nothing to do with our past before having faith, repentance and being born again at baptism. “Grace” biblically is the favor AND power of God, not mere mercy for past sins as Calvinism/Lutheranisn heretically says. Jesus is said to have grown grace (Greek charis) with God and men (Luke 2:52), and Paul says grace is the power of God to overcome his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). The Calvinist false definition which pretends grace means “undeserved favor even though we sin every day” is heretical since implying Jesus needed that kind of grace and not simply the power of God to do what is right. All the good works a Christian does that justify on final judgment day are done by the power of the Holy Spirit, so they are all by grace.

@IAmisMaster You just affirmed Protestantism. Paul states that we can only receive the Spirit and therefore walk in the Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:14).

Rules are important to God. See exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. He gave His followers tons of rules, and Judaism was the true religion. Jesus told the Jews to follow the rules of the Pharisees, since they sat in the seat of Moses and had the legislative power to bind and loose doctrine. So one would expect Christ's church to have this authority considering Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His apostles.

I start RCIA this Sunday, this comment made me LOL!

Copeium

Awwwww, the old “I was going to leave Islam, but this video renewed my faith” claim. Very original

As a 35+MIA yrs revert, Amen. Thanks be to God, and "Dr." James White for showing me (without i even asking or seeking) in such a short time, how lost "Dr." White is - Lord have Mercy, Christ have mercy.

@@essafats5728 What's the Gospel?

Can you show me the quotes from Tertullian. Transubstantiation is a later explanation of the Real Presence. I haven't found a churchbfather yet who rejected the Real Presence.

@@chemnitzfan654 I promise I will get that to you; been pretty distracted. I must say this though. The basis of your question is misguided. You assume the doctrine (whatever it was called) in apostolic and early church history was and is Biblical. Therefore you read into those ECF quotes what you already believe. I have never read a church father from the second or third century who quoted or paraphrased Last Supper references who believed in a "magical" transformation of the Communion bread and wine into the LITERAL (though invisible) body and blood of Christ. Every time my church holds a Communion service, the proper passages are quoted; "This is my body..." , etc. but we don't believe the elements transform into the body and blood of the Lord. I will get back to you...God bless

@davidvanriper60 Every church father I've read who speaks about the Lord's Supper holds to the Real Presence.

@@chemnitzfan654 “Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he REPRESENTS his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14) “He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’ - meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the FIGURE of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.”-(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37) Nothing here indicates Tertullian believed in the REAL presence of the body of Christ during Communion service.

@IG88AAA Hi. Your statement contradicts itself. Imputed righteousness comes by faith via the Holy Spirit. The real division between RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and Protestant beliefs is where in the sequence of events does works/imputed righteousness come into play? The Bible says they come AFTER we are justified by faith, not during or before. RCC says they happen at the same time. Here is what James said two verses before the one you quoted, in 2:22: “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was COMPLETED by works.” What he is saying is that faith without a completion of works, (what Protestants commonly call a byproduct of works) is dead, as he later says in 2:26. Faith alone without works is not faith that saves - it’s not real.

Christian Hi, thanks for your reply. Your first paragraph begs the question. I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith. (Romans 4:3) The question is are we also imputed righteousness by works? To say we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” is saying the justification by works is the same one as by faith, otherwise it would make no sense to say it is not by faith alone. Your second paragraph is incorrect on the catholic teaching of justification. We are initially justified by faith through grace in baptism. No works necessary. After which we can increase in justification by works. Things such as sunday worship, reading the bible, and helping others. Increased justification is analogous to growing in righteousness. I reject the idea that the faith James was talking about wasn’t real. He said faith without works is dead, and faith without works is like a body without a spirit. The faith is there. It is it’s being alone, without works, that is the problem. If the faith wasn’t there, why did James tell the hypothetical man that he does well? If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?

You want to READ ROMANS 4. James 2 starts talking to saved brethren about RESPECT OF PERSONS. Not about getting saved. Second he notes of you KEEP WHOLE LAW BUT OFFEND IN ONE POINT YOU ARE GUILTY OF ALL! So you cannot keep the law you break it ALL everyday. He uses example of Abraham like Romans 4. What is the difference? If Abraham were justified by works He hath WHEREOF to glory BUT NOT BEFORE GOD! That is key difference. Men see your works. Works have NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. By Grace are ye SAVED through faith and not of yourself it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast. Understand difference now??

@@IG88AAA I think the main issue here is our differing definitions for the words "imputed righteousness”, "works”, "faith" and “justification”. Firstly what I hope we can both agree on is that justification simply means to be justified in the eyes of God. Just if I'd never sinned. Pardoned for my transgressions. Therefore your first statement, “I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith.” is worded so that it doesn’t make sense. In Romans 4:3 Paul is simply making the claim that it was faith which justified Abraham in the sight of God. But faith being reckoned as righteousness is not the same thing as faith imputing righteousness. Being reckoned righteousness is the exact same thing as justification. We understand this by reading just a few verses down in Romans 4:6-8. Paul quoting David, describes justification. Imputed righteousness is different, and comes after justification. Paul talks about this in chapters 6 and 8 of Romans. This is literal freedom from sin (6:6), sin losing its dominion over us (6:14), and the explanation for how that is a literal reality and not figurative language, which is that the Holy Spirit indwells us and we are alive because of HIS righteousness inside of us (8:9-11). After explaining that we are freed from sin in the first half of chapter 6, Paul then explains the subject of our own good works in the second half: now that we have already been set free from sin, as a byproduct, we become slaves of righteousness, we yield our bodies to righteousness, and have “fruits unto holiness” (6:18-22). In other words, we live a life of good works (fruits) as a byproduct of 1. Being justified by faith, and 2. Being imputed righteousness/indwelt by God. What is important to understand is that when James talks about “works”, this is the equivalent of Paul talking about “fruits unto holiness” (sanctification if you don’t use KJV) or “fruits of the Spirit". When Paul uses the word “works” he is referring to works of the Law, always with negative implications, because the Jews believed holding all the commands of the Law is what saved you. We know James cannot be talking about the OT Law when he says works, because that would mean he is affirming that Jewish traditions must be combined with faith in Christ, as Paul perilously warns his readers to reject (for example a Christian must also be circumsized to be saved). If this was the case James would not even be a Christian. So we understand that James must be talking about something different, and is sharing Paul’s definition of works as simply being fruits. Where James says "faith”, Paul talks about our relationship with Christ, and here the two saints are talking about completely different things. Faith for Paul is not an assent to a doctrinal belief, as it is for James. When James says faith without works is dead, the equivalent would be Paul saying that a relationship to Christ without works is dead, in other words it's not a real relationship or connection to God. Someone who is indwelt by Christ will naturally produce good works. This is what I meant when I said dead faith is not real faith. I’m not saying the belief in something is absent, I mean it is not "real" faith because it lacks the works (fruits) that Paul says must come after justification and the indwelling of the Spirit, in order to prove that someone has a genuine relationship with Christ. This is real saving faith. “If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?” The issue is works are not necessary for saving faith. That’s the whole point! Saving faith is necessary for works, it’s not the other way around. Saving faith is faith that has produced the indwelling Spirit, so that we too can say with Paul, “it is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me.” Justification by faith >> indwelling of the Spirit >> good works (fruits). This is the order according to the Apostle. If Christ lives in us, our works will be the greatest works. I can try to reverse the order and place good works first, which is what I think you’re saying. If I do that the works would no longer be fruits. I therefore cannot be justified by faith alone, because I am also trying to be justified by works. There’s nothing wrong with doing works before truly being saved, but one must understand it’s not the works that contribute to their justification and therefore sanctification, which in total is salvation - it is faith alone. As for what you said about RCC, question: is it possible to be justified by grace through faith alone without water baptism? When Paul talks about being baptized into Christ in Romans 6, he doesn’t talk about water. He just uses the word baptized, which simply means immersion, and Paul says we must be immersed into Christ so that we can be immersed into His death and rise again (figuratively) into a new life of holiness. Sorry this reply was way too long! Hope this wasn’t too confusing.

Christian Thanks again for your reply. I agree, we need to know what each other means by the terms we use. I tried to sidestep confusion by using imputed righteousness. The last Protestant I talked to said imputed righteousness is justification, and is the same as being justified before God. This was due to his use of only the KJV. I see it did not help. Imputed righteousness and reckoned righteousness are the same, when I was using it. Reckoned is translated to imputed in the RSV translation compared to the KJV per my Bible app. I would also say that righteousness is also infused. We are not merely called righteous, we are made righteous. All this to say I think we agree what justification is, but I do not think imputed righteousness is distinct from justification. We agree on what James and Paul both mean by works, and by faith. We still are at a crossroads on my question. James and Paul both quote “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” So I think it is fair to understand that in this context, faith and justification is meant the same by both of them. So, since reckoned righteousness is the justification that comes from faith, and James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone, why should we not understand the justification by works and faith as the same justification? To be clear, I do not mean that we need works to be initially justified, but justification of works can be understood as increasing in justification from God when we are in Christ and He indwealt in us. Put another way, growing in righteousness. This leads to understanding how works contribute to our salvation, by which I mean final salvation. I want to be very clear, I and the Church do not mean works are necessary to be saved or justified initially. As perfect evidence that we do not believe we can merit initial justification by good works - we baptize babies. What good works could baby do? Water baptism is necessary. There are extreme circumstances which it is not, someone dies before having a chance to and they would have given the chance, and baptism by blood, by which we mean martyrdom before receiving baptism. This is because God is not unreasonable and can work outside His ordinary means. When you take the context of baptism throughout the OT prophecies and NT, it can only be water baptism to be meant in Romans 6. One example is Acts 10 “While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭10‬:‭44‬, ‭47‬ ‭RSV-C‬‬ If baptism means immersion of spirit, why did Peter still say they needed baptism? I believe this undercuts the idea that baptism in the NT could mean anything but water baptism. Another is Christs baptism. He came up from the water and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. What better example for the reception of the Holy Spirit?

I often wonder how much Catholics know about catholic doctrine, or how much they believe it. Seeing as over 50% of Americans consider themselves Christian but polls also show only about 4% of Americans have a Biblical worldview.

Catholics are more like Pharisees, with an Egyptian Isis sub-cult. Progressives are like Sadducees and Hellenists. NAR is like the Jewish Zealots. Mormons are like polytheists of the Jupiter cult or Hellenists of the Zeus cult, only, with terminology usurped from Christianity and some theology borrowed from Gnosticism. JWs are like the Arians.

There’s 3 different kinds of romanists Sedevacantists are romanists who don’t hold anything past 1970s Trad Caths who are in a complicated Roman position And Romanist who are pro Vatican 2

You can not assume that a person that calls themself catholic beleives what RC teaches. Or even knows it.

This is totally anecdotal but, in my estimation yes. Many Catholics love God, read their Bible and develop their own "doctrines", as it were that end up being contrary to Catholic theology.

😄

You’re both wrong. Obviously, it’s pronounced, “Augustine.”

For some reason my mind goes to Aug gust Steen first and then Aug gust tin....but definitely cute...☺️

How does the Calvinist explain Joshua saying, "Choose you this day whom you will serve?" Or 2Peter 3:9 saying, "The Lord is not...willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance?" Knowing full well that most are on the broad road leading to destruction. Or Jeremiah 19:5 where God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” Or Revelation 22:17 where it says, " Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who WISHES take the free gift of the water of life." Or Deuteronomy 30:10 where it says, " I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live?"

​@@Mike-qt7jpread the Potter's Freedom by Dr. James White....he addresses the Big 3 verses. But quickly look at the beginning of every Epistle to see whom it's addressed to. Look at the beginning of Chapter 3 and see who it's talking too. Not everyone in the world. 📖💥 God Bless

He either misrepresented Catholicism inadvertently, or you misunderstood.

@IG88AAA no sir, Catholic doctrine effectively teaches that God's grace is insufficient for our salvation. In Roman theology, you must merit salvation through good works. More specifically, you need your own merit, the merit of past saints, and the merit of Christ. The Roman church anathematized the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. My family member was speaking true Roman doctrine according to Vatican II. There was no misunderstanding.

Thanks for responding. Can you cite where this is taught?

@@IG88AAA Council of Trent, Session 6, Canons 9, 14, 20, 24, 30, and 32 are all very potent examples.

@@IG88AAAI don’t know where the citations would be, but my grandparents have been Catholic their whole lives and he is 87 and he told me the exact same thing. I honestly was very upset and we had an argument (although I tried very hard to keep from escalating it) and the more questions I asked the more I realized that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, it’s essentially Paganism with Christian vocabulary. I tried to ask him if he meant that through salvation you bear good fruits that prove your salvation, but he insisted that you couldn’t be saved by grace and faith alone, and that you could only be saved through faith and works. When I quoted the scripture that refutes that he said that without the Catholic Church to guide you you couldn’t properly interpret scriptures. So no, Catholics genuinely believe that Christ’s grace is not sufficient.

And even sin having more power than God?

The immaculate conception isn’t believed because “she had to have no sin to have Jesus” although some Catholics might try to use this as their argument. It’s actually believed because it’s seen as “fitting” that God would keep her from sin since she’s containing God in her womb like a new arc of the covenant. He didn’t HAVE to preserve her from sin, yet did. Also she’s seen as the new Eve so if Jesus, the new Adam, is free from sin, then the belief is that well then so is the new Eve because it’s fitting. I think lots of Catholics think this too because of the Marian apparitions, one of which she announced herself as the “immaculate conception” I think to st. Bernadette? Could be wrong on that part cuz I don’t remember a ton about the apparitions.

To complement what the brother said, I'm a Catholic who makes the argument for the necessity rather than just fittingness of the Immaculate conception. Not to say God could be stained, but that if Mary was not immaculate there would be a defensive violence made in the process of receiving his human nature from Mary and this would indeed be unfitting. Moreover, the Virgin Mary by receiving the grace of immaculate conception, she is in debt to God so to say because she was graced, it was not her earning it. Thus giving the liberty to her Son Jesus Christ of not being in a sort of debt of grace like her, unless he simply made a defensive violence by mere divine power which again would be unfitting. Why not more immaculate conceptions before Mary ? Because only Mary needed it, it's the smallest number and most fitting as she is the new Eve.

Amen!

St Paul almost definitely wrote this prior to the gospels being written and dispersed to all Christians. Words are still words if they are passed by mouth.

I’m sure James and Trent will give details later on. That’s next year so we have a while

You online Catholic bros really are tiresome. Your piety is as deep as the online drama allows.

James White did lose the debate but it's a sad example of how winning a debate doesn't mean your position is correct. James White is defending the true position. He lost the debate because of his Baptist theology. The reformed paedobaptist view of the covenant is the only way to actually give weight and meaning to the warning, falling away passages, etc without falling into the RC/Arminian view. James White really danced around this issue and hurt his witness of the truth by doing this, and yes lost the debate since this was the most foundational point he needed to answer and didn't (couldn't).

@@leahunverferth8247 Could you expound on this a little bit more for me sister/brother? I'd like to learn a bit more information on what you mean about your statement. I'm lacking in knowledge regarding this topic, thank you!

@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved. Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology. This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link

@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved. Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology. This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link

Did you listen to this?

@@irvingfr33 yes indeed I did. I also prefer watching Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin debate Mr White. Have you seen those? 😉

@@jessidiaz1891 not yet! Thanks! I actually do want to see that.

So what other authority do you accept and why/on what grounds? And what a silly belief for Augustine to hold regarding Mary! But then, we're all wonky somewhere, aren't we? "Sacred tradition"? I don't think you should be calling it that...

@@jessebryant9233 I accept Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as expounded by Christ’s Church. Which was the view of the vast majority of Christians until the Protestant Reformation and still is for the majority of Christians today.

@@jessebryant9233 And you can call Augustine silly for his views but that just goes to show that your version of Christianity was foreign to him and unknown to the rest of the Church.

@@bman5257 "Christ's Church"? WHY do you call it "Sacred Tradition"? Because the Church says that's what it is? Is "vast majority" your ultimate standard? That's how your argue for your position? Still is the "majority of Christians today"? No it isn't... But then, what does it mean to be a "Christian"?

@@bman5257 Didn't call Augustine "silly"...

But do you have any educated Catholics well versed in their faith that could perhaps educate you and not believe the caricatures presented

​@@EJ-gx9hl Catholicism is a cult that defeats itself with and without any well versed catholics to "defend" it.

What if it’s God’s institution? Christ built a church and it is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is biblical. His church is also called the kingdom of heaven, the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ. You really want to reject this institution?? That is the same as saying you want Jesus as your king, but don’t want His kingdom. You want to follow Him, but don’t want to be part of His body. Please reconsider this idea.

@@IG88AAA reconsider the RC church? No!

Chloe No I was saying you need to reconsider the need for the church established by Christ. Your opinion that the church you belong to doesn’t matter is antibiblical.

@@IG88AAA we believers are the church. How could I be separate from being the church? I was stating that organized religion and religious people like to make up their own interpretations, and try to make people believe and follow them. Follow God. Sheesh. Why is it you seem to be having issues understanding?

Chloe Your presupposition that “believers are the church” is unbiblical. Christs church has authority and is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not some abstract amalgamation of individual people. So to say you reject Christs actual church that is an institution with authority and a hierarchy is unchristian.

Can you site some examples of these strawmen arguments or lies? My intuition tells me you are using strawmen and lies to say James White is. I am not a Calvinist, but can read through the council of Trent and examine the religious practices of the Catholic Church to see how idolatrous and un rooted in apostolic tradition it actually is (Mary is sinless/, a perpetual virgin, veneration of images, the extra Biblical invention of purgatory, council of Trent session 6 cannon 9 and 11, transubstantiation, etc)

Welcome home, you saw through the little white lies!

I'm sure we would all appreciate some examples.

@@alexglase765 “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” ― Fulton J. Sheen

@alexglase765 I could give tons of them..... catholics made up Marian dogmas in the midevil period, that we don't believe Christ's sacrifice is enough to save, that Christ's sacrifice was not once and for all, that we have to work to get to heaven, that we worship the saints, that we have a man centered religion, that we preach a gospel not found in scripture, that we need to go to a priest to have our sins forgiven, that we don't believe faith has anything to do with salvation, that we believe water baptism saves a man even if he has no faith, that we hold to a doctrine called sola ecclesia where scripture doesn't matter only the church. He said catholics usurped the church sometime after agustine, he said the pope could just willy nilly change any or all of our doctrines with a wave of his hand. He said the catholics are the liberal church, yet almost all the Supreme Court justices are catholics and conservative. In fact almost every catholic politician in America is republican. He said the catholic church is dying out yet we've added 2 million new members over the last 10 years in just the USA alone. The same cannot be said for calvinists and reformed baptists. In fact there are only about 16k RBs in 400 total congregations in the USA. It is an extremely unpopular denomination boasting some of the most easily refuted theology around. Herrs' nice list of former calvinist Christian apologists. Sam Shamoun, Scott Hahn, Leighton Flowers, Warren McGrew, Steve Ray, Michael Brown, Michael Lofton, Keith Coward, and recently Tyler Vela didn't just deconvert from calvinism, he left the faith entirely. The question is, are there any other denominations that are losing their apologists left and right like that? The biggest question is why are they all leaving? Just check any of them out and they'll give you a bevy of reasons why calvinism is false. Why is is dwindling, and why you should steer clear of guys like James White. Have you seen the video James White destroys James white from how to be christian? I'll post a link as a reply hope it doesn't get deleted and you watch it.

This isn't true but go off I guess

Lol

The RCC is hemorrhaging members. Mass attendance is low. In my area RCC churches are closing.

Facts

Not worth it

They to scared

@@BentleyBud-wb9ft than why won’t they? They are definitely invited.

Why would you bring a spoon to a gun fight?

Gavin Ortlund on his channel Truth United lays out the evidence against the Bodily Assumption. Have you watched the videos honestly? He summarizes numerous studies. Have you ever looked at Dr. Stephan Shoemaker, or Luigi as he cites them? I have, a decade ago. When you are making the historical claim, you have the burden of proof. Even more so when you claim it is necessary for salvation. Scripture teaches John chapter 6. John Gill in his book the cause of God and truth gives a historical defense of Reformed predestination. Have you read it? Apologia church doesn't claim that believing that perservance of the saints is a necessary doctrine for salvation. So it's apples and oranges. we have the Apostles writing, Rome doesn't have a single word from the Lord Jesus or any Apostle that isn't written in Scripture.

@@bruhmingo I don’t think you understand the Catholic Church’s view on dogma and the Church Fathers. Individual Church Fathers are not infallible. However since they are pious Christians living in the early centuries of the Church they are a non-infallible testimony to which books the Church regarded as scripture, and which doctrines the Scriptures neglected to be taught in Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptrues are infallible because they are inspired, and the Church in its magisterium is infallible. Even if the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Synods are not invested with infallibility by Protestants, the fact these pious early Christians so disagree with Protestantism and read Scripture so differently is a testament to Protestantism being disconnected from the faith passed on by the apostles.

The assumption is nowhere to be found until 5th century or at worst until 1950

@@duckymomo7935 😂not until 1950, I wonder what people did when they got to the 4th glorious mystery of the Rosary in 1949?

@@duckymomo7935 Give me one passage where somebody unambiguously states a saved person can not lose their salvation before Calvin in the 1500s. Please don’t cite an ambiguous Bible verse that you think teaches it so that we can go in a circle with our different interpretations. I’m giving you 1500 years to give me one unambiguous statement. I can find you statement after statement of people denying this Protestant doctrine for 1500 years, but you can not do the same with people denying the assumption.

Moronic statement

First off… the Roman Catholic Church is NOT a full 2,000 year old, lol. I don’t care what the men in goofy robes tell you. Secondly, couldn’t the Jewish leaders have said the same thing about the early Christians? “We’re defending the faith of our ancestors, we’ve been around for thousands of years, while you guys just started this Christianity thing after that Jesus guy was here a few decades ago. How could you guys possibly be right?” Would their argument automatically have credence because they’d been around longer?

@@bensnow2688 so what happened in the 1500yrs gap before PROTEST-anism was created? Jesus Christ, son of the living God, did not save any human souls meanwhile? Did Lucifer reign and rule earth for 1500yrs then?

@getrit3007 I thought I was going to watch a debate. I didn't see sources being pulled up just mockery. That's all.

Where did you get the idea that this was a debate?

@bobloblaw2958 they weren't saying in response to Trent Horn just using his picture I guess.

Well, if one actually reads the description...

Sorry that your expectations were wrong? What do you wanna hear…

Christ didn’t found the modern Roman Catholic Church.

@@CCiPencil so where is the original Jesus-Christ founded church in this modern day?

@@essafats5728 We, Christians, have a set of books that were inspired by God. It’s called the Bible, in the Bible is the New Testament. I would highly recommend you read it, it tells you what the Church is, who Jesus is and what the Gospel of Christ is. Or you could continue worshiping your queen in heaven, Mary, and see if she tells you.

@@CCiPencil may the Good God have mercy on ur ignorant blackened PROTEST-ant unbiblical worshipping soul. Peace Be With You.

Yep.. If these guys are so sure of eternal security.. They should be in a position to prove that God the Almighty have approved their position of faith. And if so, they should be able to enumerate thousands of protestant saints who attained salvation. Right? Can they do that? never heard of any protestant saint..

“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭11‬:‭17‬-‭22‬ ‭RSV-C‬‬ If you do not continue in His kindness, you will be cut off. He already cut off the unfaithful Jews.

@IG88AAA thank you for the good teaching. I agree that all Christians should work out their salvation with fear and trembling. But neither do I doubt my salvation in the least. I have put my faith in the Son of the Living God, and I will doubt my salvation when I doubt His faithfulness or the strength of the Blood of His Covenant which I am under.

I can understand that, my only objection was when it sounded like you would remain saved if you lost faith.

Nope, the reformed appeal to Scripture. The reformed agreed with Augustine where he disagrees with Rome, but not everything he ever taught.

Catholicism didn’t form for another two centuries after Augustine, and Roman Catholicism didn’t form until another four centuries after that. In the 1960s-70s, there was a common trope about how Russians always tried to take credit for every invention and idea. Roman Catholics are actually like that.

Way off the mark, my friend. I think it's actually better if you read from the actual sources like Calvin, Luther, the early church fathers, Augustine, the different councils, etc... before you claim to know what you're talking about. Rather than just listen to what someone told you or some preconceived notion because you read some article, read from the actual men who lived through the times. It may radically change your mind. Scripture Alone, is the authoritative source for all true believers. Not Calvin or any other.

Augustine isn’t Roman…

@@caseycockerham3925 to say that Augustine was a full on Roman Catholic is absolutely absurd

It's not a what.