The notion that Purgatory would even be brought up in a debate about Justification is ridiculous because Purgatory has nothing to do with Justification or Salvation or the forgiveness of sins.
@@razoredge6130 Protestants can’t even agree on essentials. So that just gets whittled down to ‘Jesus’ but the oneness Pentecostals believe in Jesus too. Do you see the problem that begins to pose?
@@daviddabrowski01 To be fair, its not like Catholics are all on the same page. The pope condemns what Jimmy and Trent are doing in this video, and you don't see them willing to accept his teaching there.
I saw the announcement that Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn were doing a collab debate on twitter and thought, "I can't wait to see that!" If only you could do a 3x3 with Joe Heschmeyer and my apologetics fantasy draft would be complete!
Jimmy and Trent complemented each other nicely in this debate. Both have different tactics but it works well together. The Protestants lost this debate when Jimmy brought up purgatory and when they couldn’t provide a SINGLE Church Father that said you couldn’t lose your salvation. Well done guys!
@@ChristianHockenbury So that people will be made sinless by something? I’m still not quite grasping past the obvious agreements. Maybe I’ll ask what the whole disagreement was (as I haven’t watched the whole debate).
Hey Trent, I am raised protestant, leaning Catholic because of you. Every time i watch a discussion regarding Justification, I notice that the Protestant side always dances around the issue of Faith + Works when it is so simple to understand what you guys are saying and where you are coming from. The fact that you and Jimmy had to clarify about 10 times that initial justification is a gift that nobody can merit, but you need to work to hold onto it is baffling to me. That is so easy to understand, and they cannot use scripture to refute it without taking things out of context. I wish you could've had the youtuber How To Be Christian in this debate to bring his props in so that these guys could understand what you were trying to say.
@@hiswill-r122 the intellectual dishonesty really turns me away from guys like James White. He is obviously very intelligent but it’s almost obvious that he’s so bought into his side and built his life around tearing down Catholicism that no amount of evidence would ever convince him to leave reformed theology behind. That sort of behavior is what’s turned me away from Protestantism in recent months.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure" - St Paul. Remaining in salvation is through the power of God working in the believer's heart. Paul asked the question of the Galatians, "What you began by the Spirit, are you now going to finish by the flesh?" Whatever empowerment one has to maintain their faith in Christ is Divine Grace by the power of the Holy Spirit through the shed blood of Christ and His sacrifice. I am not Catholic or Calvinist, I am a Christian. I think that is what we are meant to call ourselves, since we are Christ's own possession, if indeed we are His. Trust in the Lord and He will direct your steps, amen.
@@jonathon_durno Well yes of course no one can work out their salvation unless the holy spirit is working in them, but the point here is that this still requires the operation of our will to cooperate with the grace of God in us. This is not some passive thing, we need to actually do the things we are called to do and make a choice, and mortify the members of our flesh that are evil. This is made pretty clear in scripture.
I was born and raised in the Protestant tradition but had never been baptized before rejecting the faith. It wasn’t until I cooperated with a call to be baptized in the Catholic Church that my faith and the understanding of my faith grew exponentially. Following my baptism I have experienced an insatiable appetite to learn more about my Catholic faith. I am far better formed now than ever I was as a non baptized Christian. My son had the same experience with his baptism into a Protestant faith. He has experienced the same passion to discern the truth no matter where it leads him and is discerning now a call to orthodoxy. Baptism is such an incredible sacrament. It grieves me that some Christians would render it void of the immensity of grace in which it imparts.
This is an excellent example of just how huge the differences are between different Protestant denominations. I find it interesting that they paired an Anglican with a Baptist. There were many points the two seemed to strongly disagree with each other. Trent and Jimmy, on the other hand, were a well-oiled machine.
God is demonstrating the disharmony, incoherency & error that is protestantism for us in real time. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. 🙏
@@chad_hominem This is one of the most naive comments I've seen, lol. Anglicans aren't even protestants, RCC likes to pretend they are, and Sam seems like a fake Baptist, he's a reformed Calvinist that doesn't believe in infant baptism. This was basically 2 v 1 v 1, and all the RCC stans pretending like it was a good debate because they're all forced to agree with the same theology and therefor the RCC is correct because it says its correct.
@@onpilgrimagethroughthescri343 Don't know where you got that from but it seems slanderous to imply those things about Jimmy and Trent. Also arians argued they were right but I'm sure you'd say they were wrong and not true believers since they denied the divinity of Christ, yet they caused discourse,debates, and arguing. Maybe he wants heretical groups like arians to mislead true believers which causes discourse. Perhaps protestantism is just incoherent and causes issues because you have an infallible book but reject the infallible interpreter of that book and you go your own seperate ways interpreting how you please, which creates numerous denominations.
@@teeemm9456 Anglicans would disagree, and idk why protestants constantly say "RCC", there is simply the "Catholic Church." Now there are different rites within like the latin rite or byzantine rite or maronite rite, etc. There is one universal church that has The Holy See contained in Rome. Also it was a good debate because there were points where Jimmy and Trent made clear cut and concise arguments often based on direct quotes from scripture or early church fathers that demonstrated their arguments and points, so no its not just "they are right cause they say they are", it is because they just have more persuasive arguments that support their point.
The challenge to name a Father who taught eternal security was pretty rough. They knew they couldn't. They were left asserting the fathers didn't teach on the matter? Oof.
I watched James White debate eternal security against Trent Horn last May thinking White would easily win. His bad attempt to read it into the church fathers was so embarrassing that I had to rethink my whole understanding of justification. Eternal Security is impossible to honestly defend
@@sivad1025 : I run a Bible Study, and as we go through the New Testament epistles I like to point out all the places where the real possibility of losing salvation is taught or implied. I would be exaggerating if I said it is on every page. But every other page? Maybe.
@@actsapologist1991 ya, if Calvinism is true and our salvation is decided for us and can’t be taken away, there’s pretty much zero point to our Earthly lives.
@@Seanain_O_hEarchai also the Lord’s Prayer would be obsolete, as asking God to “forgive us our trespasses” would just be hollow repetitious ritual. Also, by a lot of Protestant logic, it would be “denying” the one perfect sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for our sins. “I see you’re asking God to forgive your sins. That must mean you don’t believe Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was once for all sin and perfect!” We’ve all encountered the exact same Protestant logic on other topics.
There's really no getting around Jimmy and Trent. They articulate historical Christian doctrine and what Christians have always believed for 2000 years in such a clear, intelligible and charitable manner
Christians have had varied beliefs for 2000 years. It's so odd for Catholics to claim that what you believe is the same and consistent for 2000 years. The more i look into the history, it evolved and changed, A LOT. Just reading the church fathers, there was variation and difference among them. There is also quite a bit of modern protestant belief in some church fathers, only CAtholics become suddenly and bizarrely blind deaf and dumb when it's pointed out.
I think this debate was very telling. Not only is the catholic position vastly superior to that of the imitation denominations, its charitable in that it seeks to build external understanding of its doctrine not simply attack the other person’s position. Literally everything Protestants think is a false gospel can be found in other Protestant groups at one time or another. They cant condemn us without condemning themselves no matter how bad they want to. The main take away from this debate is the same attitude i get from them every single day. “Its all about what i want.” They dont like Anglicans baptizing babies like catholics unless you’re one of those Protestants and then they get mad at you for not fairly representing Protestantism. So you back off afraid of cancelling a brother just because of a minor issue. The points Jimmy made in cross examination are like a death nail to protestants. He makes it virtually impossible for the Protestant to mischaracterize his position into the cartoon villain version of the catholic church that all Protestants believe in to one degree or another. Literally we can use other Protestant theologies as body shields in so many ways they cannot. I converted last year after being an anticatholic obsessed with apologetics. My idea of what the catholic church taught was wrong on almost every single level. Its one thing to know what they teach after learning what catholic doctrine from catholic sources and another to deny it so you can hold onto useless arguments against a church that doesnt exist and clingking to bad information from the enemies accusers only.
@@ChrisSadowski-pp1np Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their Reformed Churches affirm Infant Baptism. Will you condemn these men and their churches for preaching a false gospel on this doctrine?
@@ChrisSadowski-pp1np Sure is…. It would take a while to give you a comprehensive list of passages but i’ll give you one passage for each, a comment, and see what you think. Or pick one and ill give you the full list…. Would that be cool? If not i’d check out catholic answers youtube page or just google catholic answers: purgatory in the bible, marian doctrines in scripture etc…. Literally any topic you can think of and youll get scripture back. They even have an AI that you can debate and ask questions of. Back when i was a protestant i called them….. jimmy akin was the first catholic i ever spoke to!
How can you love Christ when you know the history and source of your religion based on the lust and rebellion of Henry VIII? Deep inside people know. What a horrible thought of going to hell having that regret in your soul for all eternity.
"Faith alone" I think has become a bit of a buzzterm - it's super common for this debate to be framed as "faith alone vs faith and works", as if Catholics are some sort of Pelagians/semi-Pelagians believing Christ's sacrifice was somehow incomplete, insufficient or unnecessary entirely. It's namely the lower church neo-Protestants/Reformed/evangelicals that try to get Catholics in a "gotcha" on this, and combined with Catholicism's infamously bad catechesis (as opposed to evangelicalism's good catechesis of bad theology), it's no wonder why this happens. In reality, these debates should be a cooperative effort between Catholics and Protestants to get down to the nature of what justification actually is and what "faith" and "faith alone" actually means (and I don't mean to incriminate all Protestants on this, since the more classical ones like Lutherans generally have a more cooperative spirit, though in justification dialogues Protestants are generally almost always the ones to engage in "gotcha games")
Agreed in most respects except that it hasn't been my experience that evanglicalism has "good catechesis of bad theology". No disrespect there; Catholics are notoriously terrible at this as you said, but I just think its a universal issue that most people don't care to know what their religion teaches. Of those who do care, most have about a 6th grade understanding of it. Have not had coherent or consistent answers from any low church protestants on much of anything. That's why you study and debate the best teachings and teachers of each tradition, not the average or the worst.
I am 100% with you on "In reality, these debates should be a cooperative effort between Catholics and Protestants to get down to the nature of what justification actually is and what "faith" and "faith alone" actually means" however the part about protestants being engaged in 'gotcha games" I think is disingenuous. America has a high influence and historic protestant track record so yes most conversations come from protestantism as the starting point and default. That frames the language of the conversation in this particular subset of the globe and parts of Europe so I would ant to be fair there. We gotta stop tearing down the conversation before it begins.
@@sharingthegospel8570 I'm not offended by protestants inadvertently making protestant assumptions or using vocabulary in a protestant way. I do think that in addition to doing that, they do frequently try to play gotcha, as evidenced by the fact that many of the so-called "gotchas" that they use against Catholics also apply to protestant groups, or even invalidate their own positions. That has been my experience when having in-person conversations. Some internet apologists are a bit higher quality than those I have interacted with personally. To preempt the likely protestant objection - I have no doubt that some Catholics attempt to do the same, but unfortunately there are specific denominations and groups that seem to engage in this more than others. As I said, it's much more interesting and productive to deal honestly with real beliefs, rather than playing word games or owning people, and both Catholics and protestants should remember that.
@@userca_ sure I can agree with your conclusions here "both Catholics and protestants should remember that." Its different from the OP but I think in the right spirit!!
I didn’t know that dr Boyce is with RTB . I’m a catholic but Hugh Ross is one of my favorite Christian pastors when it comes to science . He was one of the guys whose site helped me get through my days as an atheist . God bless all these guys
I'm a protestant and before watching this I already think it's not evenly matched. Trent + Akin would merit the opposition to be Gavin Ortlund + Misterious other good protestant apologist that I'm unaware of (not James White)
James White is the best Catholic apologist out there. I set out to debunk Catholicism last year and started with two White debates to get a surface understanding. He did so badly that it kickstarted my conversion!
@@SonOfThineHandmaidBS … your average local parish priest doesn’t stand a chance against even me … and I’m nothing special at all. I speak from experience … lots and lots of experience. Usually it goes something like this: Me: Priest: “That’s out of context” Me: Priest: “Yeah but that doesn’t mean what it says!” Me: “Nice to know we agree on what it says”. Priest: “Yes, but the holy infallible extra-super cathedral position of the one true church says those words don’t mean what almost literally every dictionary in the world says they mean. Plus we get to just make up stuff anytime we like and pretend it has the same authority as scripture.” And then I start laughing at how people can delude themselves.
@@sivad1025wow same exact thing happened to me 2 years ago. I was confirmed last year…. Finding out everything JW teaches about catholicism was wrong actually gave me a pretty good catechesis for catholicism. He gets so many of their doctrines wrong that it’s a mountain of study to do. Once youve cleared the mountain m, yoire a junior catholic apologist. Also you understand calvinism even better as well. Seeing where they go wrong with catholic theology leads to the clear errors they teach. Its like a mirror, calvinism makes catholicism more obvious and catholicism makes calvinism even less likely. Thats why they always lose….. i think it boils down to calvin struggling with a dualistic mindset. For him something is either or, it can never be both or more than what he perceives on any given subject. His black and white lens just doesnt work with something so colorful as theology.
To be fair, I didn't actually *create* his slides. He emailed them to me, and I played them for him, since he wasn't confident of his ability to do so from his computer. I was happy to do it!
Y'all did great! Actually popped up on my feed yesterday. Surprised Trent didn't bring up Clement of Rome quote that we are justified by our works and not our words. Again, I think the reality of mortal sins of omission means that certain works are necessary to maintain salvation, as Trent notes in reference to a scholar commenting on Clement of Rome.
Thanks! I didn't bring up that citation because they would have probably dismissed it as Clement using justified in the sense of "vindicated", proven right rather than being made righteous
@@TheCounselofTrent Maybe. But it would've gone along nicely with the point you made about Clement viewing works as necessary to maintain salvation we already have: "Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." Another "cleave" quote reminiscent of the need to remain/abide in Christ: "… Let us cleave then to His blessing, and consider what are the means of possessing it. Let us think over the things which have taken place from the beginning. For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? (Jam 2:21)…" Definitely did not believe in "eternal security": "…Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight…." I understand yall got limited time though. Yall did very well, both of you. Btw, would love it if yall would take your conferences on the road, out to DFW area.
Two camps in Anglicanism: Calvinism and Arminianism. Most of Anglicanism is a blend. The extremes break into Puritan/Congregationalist on the Calvinist side and Methodism on the Arminian side - both are breaks with the Anglican Church. But there’s a wide range of “acceptable” before bouncing out of the Anglican theology
@@DPK5201that‘s quite the meaningless statement. There’s a lot Protestants don’t know about Catholics, but more importantly, don’t know about Catholicism. It would seem more useful to be familiar with the theological arguments out there than to know what every individual specifically chooses to adopt in their own personal heresy potluck. It only helps to know a person’s specific position insofar as it helps to narrow the focus of discussion *if and when* you meet that person, in order to bring them back to the fullness of the faith.
“Faith alone” seriously hurts my head with how incoherent it is, from the Protestant perspective. Catholics and LDS are correct in their perspective on this topic. 💯
After becoming Catholic after having been Protestant for 10 years I compare the two as such: Catholicism is like going to a five star Michelin gourmet restaurant 7 nights a week feasting on the most delicious and highest quality food and Protestantism is like Popeyes or McDonald’s. It has some good things but it pales in comparison to the full experience of a 5 star gourmet meal. The fine wine, the perfectly prepared steak, the delicious dessert 🍮. And wonderful service and ambiance. It’s the feast we all long for ❤
So good to see Jimmy and Trent do this together. They both remain so respectful even when Samuel had to clarify like 5 times. Love these guys, they are really bringing together apologetics and evangelizing. God bless you!
We got one person of each color talking and disagreeing like gentlemen, showing charity towards each other while still holding and advancing their ground and the topic is eternal life in God. That’s something so lovely to see.
Does scripture reveal that God has started numerous different Christian Churches that teaches differently interpret differently understand differently explain things differently and disagree with each other is this what Christianity is truly all about ?🤔
When you have to dip into gnosticism and a rejection of the flesh (even though Jesus brought his human body directly to heaven in the ascension) to avoid any agreement on the doctrine of purgatory, you've gone fully off the deep end. To James White's credit, at least he refused to answer the question. Jimmy's been RED HOT on these cross examinations recently
Reform Protestants please listen. Just like many here , I was a staunch calvinist a couple of decades ago and I knew and preached all the same anti Catholic rhetoric, the goto verses and 5 "sola" theology. However I started to read a little more thoroughly than the few fav' part verses and started looking for supporting cross references. Sadly, the more I studied Scripture with an open mind, the more contradictions I found. Then I discovered ex Calvinist websites like Dr David anders, and converts like Jimmy Akin, Steve Ray and the reverend Tim Staples to name a few. After watching many videos of them as well as reformed pastors like JM, White, Winger and others, the 5 Solas just folded like a deck of cards. I came to realise that nothing in the history of Christianity would ever have come to fruition by individuals "alone" if everyone believed Salvation could be achieved by mere faith. Only within a community of believers relying on scripture, the love of God, inspired leadership and the support and love for each other, could we bring about His Kingdom on Earth not alone, but in the context of community, as Paul says, being "co-labourers with Christ." if we ALL must face a post mortem final judgment, it made no sense to claim you have been saved and will never need saving again (7x,77?) Matt 16 27 Rom 2 6 Rev 20 12 Yes, nothing could undermine Protestantism's foundation doctrines than Jesus own parable of the True Vine. When Jesus says IF you love me, IF you remain in me, IF you deny me, If you keep my commandments, There is no hint of coercion or denial of freewill in such 1595 conditional conjunctions in over 1400 verses. Think!! We are here not merely to save our own souls but to bring forth God's Kingdom on Earth which cannot be achieved by mere faith nor alone, but in the context of COMMUNITY (as many branches attached to the True Vine) Moreover, as a loving parent I could never treat my 15 children and grandchildren according to the obscenities preached by Calvin in The INSTITUTES of the Christian Religion, bk. 3, ch. 21, para. 5. Read it and weep!
Apa khabar Dr Nesan, mightily proud of a Malaysian in this debate. I pray you open your heart to the moving of the Holy Spirit........navigating you across the Tiber
@@JESUS_Saves3747 Protestant here. Catholic AND Lutheran response would be something along the lines that it's faith working through love. Grace through faith through love with sacraments as a means of grace.
@@rickduka "Luther's phrase 'faith alone' is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. ... So it is that, in the letter to the Galatians, in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification, that St. Paul speaks of 'faith that works through love' (Benedict XVI, General Audience, Nov. 19, 2008 [quoting Gal. 5:6)).
True, but to be fair protestants “own” catholics all the time. Just look at ray comfort’s channel, where he talks to catholics that know nothing about the faith. Its just refreshing to see protestants not have some kind of unfair advantage when debating against catholicism.
To me, the perseverance of the saints is an answer to the terrifying prospect that like Judas, we can deny our Lord, we can commit sins or go back to evil sins as enumerated by Paul, or as in second Peter, “What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them,” The dog returns to its own vomit,” and “A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire” And instead of going to the fount of mercy I.e confession, this false inverted piety is invented. As the lazy servant in the parable of the talents was terrified that he may lose what his master gave him, so he buried it. He buried the gift for fear of loss and so perseverance of the saints is saying, “Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter, so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back” so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back
A succinct way of phrasing this is that Lutheranism falls into the sin of "presumption", which is a false and unwarranted assumption of something (e.g. salvation). Aquinas describes presumption as one of the 2 vices opposing the virtue of hope. Interestingly, he considers the idea that presumption is a sin opposed to fear, as you say, but ultimately he rejects it and instead positions it opposite to hope. The other sin against hope is despair. It is very normal for poorly formed christians to oscillate between despair and presumption, as Luther did. First, looking at your sin and your life, you despair of salvation (which is a sin of pride, thinking that your sins and concupiscence are stronger than God's gift of grace). Next, you overcorrect the other direction by assuming your salvation because any consideration of yourself will necessarily convince you that you are damned. A well-formed Christian avoids these extremes, and instead has a joyful hope in their salvation, cultivated by a deep love for God and a confidence in his grace. To some, this will not be attractive because it does not allow the type of certainty that other ideologies provide (divine or absolute certainty as opposed to moral certainty). But divine certainty is an unwarranted and unscriptural assumption, even if it is a balm. Aquinas' short article on presumption, which seems to very accurately describe most of protestantism, can be read here: www.newadvent.org/summa/3021.htm
@@daviddabrowski01He struggled with it to the point he dissolved the sacerdotal system and replaced the apostolic paradigm instituted by Christ so he could be covered with imputed righteousness in "the great exchange". This could be compared to "burying his talent" as you said. Luther's entire program of salvation reaches its final conclusion in Calvin when the ramifications of such place Christ in Hell to suffer during the atonement - Book II, Chapter 16 of Calvin's institute's states: "Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death". These "reformers" were so rabid in their hatred for the Church that they committed themselves to blasphemy.
I’ve always viewed the doctrine of eternal security as being, ironically, a doctrine rooted in insecurity. What need is there to trust in God when your theology says you don’t have to? Of course, they’ll say they do trust in God, but how can you when you presume upon your salvation? “Who hopes for what one sees?”
I don't know why debaters are frequently more charitable with Jimmy than he is with them. Sam's questioning of Jimmy was polite and almost too deferential. Jimmy at the 59 minute mark takes a completely different approach. He asks Sam a question. Inaccurately puts Sam's answer into his own words. When Sam says, "that's not what I am saying," Jimmy gets agitated.
@@caratacus6204 I was referring to how the Anglican church started. It started when King Henry VIII threw a temper tantrum after the Pope denied his demands for an annulment to his second wife, Catherine of Aragon (the Pope had already given him one annulment for his previous marriage). So he threw the Catholic church out of England and established a new church so that he could be the Supreme Head of it and give himself as many annulments as he wanted.
This was a great debate. I loved how Jimmy started the debate explaining how we agree. Totally cut through a lot of the stupid polemics and semantics in order to focus on the specific differences.
I would love it if Trent could have a 1 on 1 discussion with Boyce talking about church father's, the Reformation, dogmas of the church ect... he seems sympathetic to most catholic teaching but definitely not all.
As a Catholic, I wish Jimmy wouldn’t water down purgatory so much. It is more than merely the cleansing of our concupiscent desires. It is also the suffering of the temporal punishments of sin (as Catholic Answers says on its website). I don’t think we do Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox any favors when we engage in this deforestation of Purgatory.
Mate, we need Protestants to see that SOME form of purgation is a doctrinal necessity. Even the most minor form of purgation destroys their theology in this area. Once that concession is made, then there is the possibility to expound on the full Catholic doctrine.
I dont think he is purposefully watering it down I think he is trying to prove that catholic doctrine does not fit into the category of false gospel that some protestants put it in. So he is just finding common ground first. It is actually very wise. It is getting people curious enough to attempt to understand what they dont understand about catholicism and then they realize that the Church has been slandered.
@@faithbasso1389 Yes, the purgatory subject seem interesting to me. I wonder where was Lazarus when Jesus resurrected him after being dead for 4 days. Like, How long of a period does it take to go through the process before one goes to heaven/hell. Why Jesus didn’t mention the process after death to the disciples when he was trying to define in simple terms what being dead meant? Did Jesus pulled Lazarus out of heaven/purgatory to bring him back to this horrible world? 🤔😓
The answer from Dr Boyce is that he cannot cite anyone from the Patristic era who taught once saved always saved. A simple “no” should have been his answer rather than trying to dance around the answer. If Yes, he should have cited who taught such. St Augustine, a Catholic Bishop, did not.
I can listen to all kinds of debates between Catholics and Protestants or any other religious group,and I have to admit that there’s so much explanations between debater’s and after listening to all their explanations it always seems to lead me directly to the part in the gospel when Jesus tells the Jews.Unless you eat my Body And Drink My Blood you shall have No Life In You,What life And Who’s Life Is Jesus Talking About.For me as an unlearned person it seems clearer than daylight that Jesus is talking about the life of God that he Jesus has fulfilled in his human body that defeated all kinds of sins and evils throughout his entire life and consummated it in the crucifix dying an immaculate death,this is what leads to humility,charity towards our neighbor,poverty of spirit and detachment from things of the world,knowledge of wisdom to purify heart and body to God,recourse to Jesus to find him in the temple,excepting and believing in the new life of water and the spirit in baptism,fidelity to Jesus through marriage wether your single or married though the sacrament of marriage,understanding of the immense enormous in numerous things that the scriptures and traditions teaches,the elevating ones self to seek the light of the Holy mount,the preparation of one’s self to receive Jesus Body and Blood worthily,prayer and watching along with sorrowful ness for sins,mortification of the sinful senses of the body,contempt of the world,patience endurance courage and strength to bare burdens and heavy ladens of trials and test,joining our God and lord Jesus Christ on the cross to crucify the sins of this life.All these things leads to and fulfills what is of Faith Hope and the Charity Of God, I don’t know if this makes any sense but I encourage people to look into it?🤔
Yes. He wasn't sure how to screen share and run the slideshow, so I offered to do it for him. Unfortunately, something weird then happened and I then had technical problems that prevented me from sharing my own slide show.
I may have missed it, but listening to this debate I find it somewhat disappointed that the key issues of temporal and eternal debt were not brought up at all. For instance, Jimmy's argument for the ongoing need for purgatory is the fact that we're in need of cleansing for remaining disordered desires. But that's not at all what Roman Catholics are committed to defending. The Council of Trent adopts the theology of satisfaction that undergirds practices like private masses for the living and the dead, prayers, suffrages, etcetera. Thus, one finds a clear affirmation that the satisfactions imposed on those who have fallen after Baptism are “not only for the preservation of a new life and a medicine of infirmity, but also for the avenging and punishing of past sins.” Anathemas are pronounced in canons 12 and 15 of the same session upon anyone who says that God “pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt” or anyone who denies that there “remains often a temporal punishment to be discharged after the eternal punishment as by virtue of the keys been removed.” In canon 30 of session VI, the Council condemns anyone who says that justification intrinsically blots out all eternal and temporal debt (which is to be discharged either here or in purgatory). Discussions on venial sins and the need for proportional punishment surely prepared the ground for the dogmatization of purgatory by the Second Council of Lyon. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is more explicit, distinguishing between the medicinal/sanctifying purpose of penance and its punitive function: "St. Bernard also observes that sin produces two effects: a stain on the soul and a wound; that the stain is removed through the mercy of God, while to heal the wound inflicted by sin the remedy of penance is most necessary. When a wound has been healed, some scars remain which demand attention; likewise, with regard to the soul, after the guilt of sin is forgiven, some of its effects remain, from which the soul requires to be cleansed...*Finally,* the punishment which the sinner endures disarms the vengeance of God and averts the punishments decreed against us. Thus the Apostle says: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged; but whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. If all this is explained to the faithful, it must have great influence in exciting them to perform works of penance. " This is why, the Catechism goes on to teach, one can satisfy for another with respect only to the *punitive* function of expiating temporal debt *and not* for the medicinal function: "This, however, is not true in reference to all the advantages to be derived from satisfaction. For works of satisfaction are also medicinal, and are so many remedies prescribed to the penitent to heal the depraved affections of the soul. It is clear that those who do not satisfy for themselves can have no share in this fruit of penance. " (cont...)
So the *central* issue is this: when we are united to Christ, does God *fully* and *completely* absolve us of *all* sin or not? That is, is it possible to be united to Christ and yet *not fully* share in Christ's merits (since the merits of Christ, if one fully shares in them, absolves all sin--as it does in Baptism). That's really at the heart of the matter.
It seems like the Catholic guys dont really have to show up. Just listen to the scripture passages that deal with the topic used by both sides, then listen to the protestant apologists force it say what its clearly not saying, then play the scripture passages again. All objective peoples, seeking obedience to the Lord, would show up to mass tomorrow.
Very interesting discussion. both sides did well. It may have been a little unfair to have the Protestant side debate Trent and especially, Jimmy. Jimmy's been doing this for 30 years and has dealt with all of the opposing viewpoints. One can even see where he is setting up the other side, although I didn't get the impression that they were picking up on it. He is pretty much in control and is the one doing the questioning on the whole -always a good debating technique.
238:95 Again, the inspired answer is to the question "what must I do to be saved?", not "How do I get saved and then what do I do after that?". This is another place that it's clear someone's tradition has become infallible to them and it forces out the plain, clear meaning of the text. If you asked, "What do I do to not crash the plane and die?" and I said "Push the the red button then the green button." What would you do to not crash the plane and die?
This is truly one of the most important things that a person understands. You get this wrong, you go to the Lake of Fire. And it's unfortunate that most Roman Catholics and many if not most Protestants get this wrong.
Protestant theology has typically been presented in a wishy-washy manner. The most common form of their view of justification through imputed righteousness sounds like some sort of divine trickery (tricking the divine, not the other way around). Its been explained to me like this. “When I die and go before God, because I believe in Jesus, nothing more must be done to me. God does not see me. He only sees Jesus, and so he lets me in as though he’s letting Jesus in…” That probably isn’t what all protestants believe, but its what most of the vocal anti-catholic hardcore protestants I’ve come across believe when I ask them about justification. Some have even gone as far as to tell me that the dead faith described in James 2 is a “saving faith” which is deeply troubling. Its as though they think their sheer belief that Jesus is there and can save them means that God will be tricked on their day of judgement and allow impurity into heaven with no transformative experience required. And I’ve asked the specific question “what if someone believes in Jesus Christ, but commits mass murder and isn’t repentant of it?” And I’ve literally been told that those people are saved. Or I’ll hear some argument that those people never /really/ believed in God in the first place. So that then takes a side door into the “formed faith” idea, which I would agree with, but its just a very strange way of putting it.
DEBATE NIGHT: Two nuclear bombs vs. two coughing babies! The other two gentlemen are wonderful, of course, and bright in their own right, but I can't imagine a tougher intellectual opponent than Akin and Horn combined. That being said, thank you for organizing and sharing this wonderful debate!!!
@@JESUS_Saves3747 Of course it was! Catholics believe that the merits of Jesus's sacrifice were so superabundant that everyone can be saved! So I'm not sure why you think we belittle His suffering. That's why we look to the crucifix whenever we're at Mass and commemorate His death and resurrection. We also believe that we should honor Christ by believing in what the entire Bible has to say about justification, rather than believing what 16th-century traditions of men say about justification.
The Laws of God is Good as long as one adheres and obeys it there’s no problem with anyone who obeys it,but as soon as one breaks the law of God then he or she must go to confession to be reconciled to and forgiven by God through the sacrament of confession that’s the indescribable mercy of God yeah 👍
It is indeed a pity our Anglican brothers don't reflect on the reason why they reject the pope, is because King Henry wished to divorce his legitimate wife to marry someone else! Sadly the Anglican church has inactted quite a few novel teachings including women priestesses! Whereto next?
