When Protestants argue like Muslims 

Dead 💀🤣😂 he seems to like than more than Non Calvinist.

@YAJUN YUAN uh that’s not a parallel, way to miss the point of this video

@YAJUN YUAN that’s an incredibly simplistic if not outright ignorant take; and I’d believe a Muslim who used Koran and Hadith to argue their case much more consistently over a Muslim who denied the Hadith and argued for “Sola Koran”. A catholic who uses scripture and tradition to argue is saying “these are the words of scripture AND this is how these words have historically been interpreted for centuries” A Christian who denies tradition just like a Muslim who denies the hadith is basically fabricating things as they go along. And more often than not their interpretation in one area explicitly contradicts the very words of scripture in another.

My favorite ones are the ones who say the Catholic Church started Islam. So the pope sent a nun to seduce a certain Arabian to create Islam - so the story goes. What are the odds it worked the first time.

@YAJUN YUAN The Church Fathers believed in the real presence. This alone contradicts your entire point, because it shows that the Church Fathers believed in Apostolic tradition

He would know that from firsthand experience

That's because he and all Calvinist are the meanest, stone throwing. Judgmental, Pharasies on earth. They condemn everyone. Including. DR Martin L King. Billy Graham. Mother Teresa. It's truly amazing why they have any followers. Their followers are just as mean and judging. They refuse to admit its a sin to judge and condemn.

to be fair, White is generally a respectful person to everyone he speaks to.

You are thinking of Nicodemus.

When he speaks to Mormons…watch out!

Yes. He talks about wanting to bring Muslims, but you cannot evangelize any wolfs by offering them a sheep to bite.

It is not 'ultra-liberal' scholarship, it is just scholarship that goes where the facts lead. you are afraid of those who seek out facts and truth - you should stop dwelling in ignorance

lmao ok whatever you say

@Neil D No, they point to a single place - a lack of evidence about the historical Jesus and the conclusion that the Gospels and NT were written either long after his death or were written about a person who may have never existed.

@@antpassalacqua Such a sophisticated response.

@@trumpsupporter1016 That's not true at all. I attended Harvard, studied Philosophy and worked for the Unitarian Church there (I'm not a Unitarian myself). Broadly speaking, the "American Academy" are Cold Warring state-sponsored propagandists. There are some needles in that haystack, but they are hard to find. Assigning "good intentions" on people you will never meet is unwise, deceiving yourself and others.

@@tony1685 SDA isn't Christianity

@YAJUN YUAN Says who? Why do millerite cults even pretend they're legitimate? Why didn't the world end in 1844?

@YAJUN YUAN *isn’t, fixed it for you

@@tony1685 Of course we love scripture as Catholics. It’s non-Catholics who absolutely despise the study of scripture. That’s why none of them can name the last church father they’ve read was.

@@tony1685 Yes, yes, and yes

Which is actually a valid question if you think about it

@@Paper-Z Valid question but a man made standard. And you respond to say why does Jesus need to say he's God in the bible? What's the proof Mohammad talked with God? But they just want you to stay on defense and simplify "why go to Jesus if we can go straight to God" just like the Protestants do with Christianity "why go to Mary and the saints if we can go straight to Jesus"

@@CPATuttle But thinking about the first commandment and how grave breaking it is, shouldn't there be very significant reasons to risk breaking it Especially when consider things like Jesus praying to God, stating that the father is the only true God, saying my God and your God etc Breaking the first commandment, first for a reason, should scare the hell out of us

@@Paper-Z Are you looking for evidence Jesus is the messiah? What’s your religion?

@@CPATuttle not looking for evidence that Jesus is the Messiah Looking for substantial significant non ambiguous evidence that he is God 'Almighty'. When you consider all the prophets of old believed in a single non-complicated God, and Jesus himself seemed to also, and then weigh the significance of the first commandment, you have to be very careful and skeptical

to be fair, it's because protestants are much more into evangelism and apologetics than Catholics these days. The Catholic Church has been in a state of lull for a while.

Interesting. I often encounter the opposite problem. Most Muslims I see think that Catholicism is the only form of Christianity. They talk about specifically Catholic related things to criticise Christianity, like the Pope and whatnot.

@@someonetheperson2332 why would that be a problem then? Isnt good that you don't have to educate a grown adult about mere Christianity before getting into authentic Christianity?

@@crobeastness Well, I’m a Protestant, so I wouldn’t necessarily call Catholicism “authentic Christianity

@@someonetheperson2332 well ya it's older than protestantism by 1500 years and follow's Jesus' instructions therefore I say authentic. Anyway, the pope thing you mentioned. It could just be more ignorance in the part of the Muslim. Obviously they know about the pope because literally everyone does know that such a figure exists, but they are probably more familiar with protestant theology. Like if you went down a list of exclusive protestant beliefs and asked which people believe that stuff they would say Christians and if your follow up is which Christians, they would say "the ones who follow the pope".

James White is infallible

What??? Jimmy White is NEVER wrong… just ask him.

@@Danaluni59 Quote him if you spoke truly

Or that the church is just “the saved” and for over a millennium people were being saved by accident.

This just isn't at all true of protestant theology, especially that of the reformers themselves

@@UltraX34 it is true of both the deformers and Protestant theology. It’s just that some need to acknowledge a smaller “deviation” than others.

@@tony1685 Yeah tony that is precisely what happened. And when the true church finally re-emerged it decided to split itself into several thousands of different versions for lolz. Right after evil Roman Catholicism went on a killing spree of First Patriotic Baible-Baleevin’ Baptist Church of Rhodos. So glad it went into hiding only to reemerge stronger than ever in 19th century ‘Murica and gain our tithes (remember, at least 10% of pre-tax income. We ain’t saved by tha works but boy are you truly saved if you ain’t financin’ the pastor’s new car?)

Or there were "true believers" a.k.a. protestants in those times, but they never rose their voices till Luther

Your having a hard time refuting it, have you ever considered maybe it's actually true...The fact that your response is to reach out to a Roman Catholic apologist to disprove it shows your bias as of course a Roman Catholic apologist will ipso facto deny the truthfulness of the doctrine. I would suggest praying to the Holy Spirit (not saying you haven't maybe you have to some degree) and asking the Lord directly if it is true.

@@Adam-ue2ig I am doing my part in understanding the doctrine of total depravity and why the Church does not accept that view. I am not saying I cant refute it, I am just not as familiar with what it is and it will take me some time to do both understand it and consider the biblical basis for it. But I suggested this topic to Trent not so that I have a quick answer but because it would be helpful for Catholics who have not and are not prepared to understand and answer Calvinist/Reformed objections to the faith. Especially because it is becoming the dominant Protestant theology in my experience talking to people online.

@@elliott2389 from an outside perspective as someone not cradle Catholic I studied Catholicism for 13 years and arrived at the conclusion their claims to be "the one true church" are not warranted. Those that are just born Catholic probably never study Protestantism so they just assume whatever they have been told essentially is the truth. Some come out of that church after careful study while others seem unwilling to even investigate the other side as they have been told stay away don't even read their stuff etc as they are heretics and they may weaken your faith or whatever...but I find that to be intellectually dishonest and portrays a lack of confidence in one's own belief system if they think refuse to look at the other side because they basically fear their beliefs may not hold up well to scrutiny .

@@elliott2389 Obviously if you don't understand it and are not familiar with it then it follows you can't personally refute it (not sure why you would claim otherwise). Maybe you meant hypothetically you would be able to refute it in the future but again that just confirms my point of something like confirmation bias by presupposing it must not be true because the church says so your essentially going into it just looking to find a refutation instead of investigating it objectively as possible to find if it's true or not.

@@Adam-ue2ig yes, my first assumption is that it is false because (1) defenders of TULIP say it is in direct opposition to traditional Catholic doctrine and (2) the Church does not uphold that theology. It’s like saying don’t assume the world isn’t flat until you’ve weighed all the evidence and made up your mind yourself. No I rely on the Church to uphold the correct understanding of the faith just like I trust the consensus of the scientific community to accept well established scientific claims. That doesn’t mean I won’t investigate individual claims myself if need be but I am not treating truth as only true until I can prove it.

Ya, he’s kinda a border case. He does accept miracles and the supernatural though

But then, that would mean, Jesus Himself and the Apostles got it wrong in the First Century!

@@thomasjorge4734 Yeah I think the basic idea of liberal / progressive Christianity is that Jesus got it wrong.

@Christos Kyrios The entire point of Christianity is to Worship God, as He has Commanded us to do.

@@thomasjorge4734 The entire point is sin and redemption

thank you, I'd hardly argue James White is a 'protestant' for that matter

While that's ultimately what you would do to a learned scholar, tackling argument one by one has the function of teaching potential converts why we're right and they are wrong, and how evident it is! If we could always choose the right authorithy to follow, Satan wouldn't have had all the nations of the world to tempt Jesus with.

Most muslims think protestantism is the only form Christianity. One out of many examples I have is when I went on a Muslim video trying to evangelize passerby christians. One couple were catholic and talked about the communion. People in the comments section were like "they believe the bread and wine literally is Jesus? What will they think of next? I swear they keep making up new doctrines every generation."

@YAJUN YUAN oh yes he does!

Iraneus pointed people to the Church that was nearly within living memory of the Apostles, and would have every reason to be accurate. This does not reflect on the institution of the Church permanently. He also only does this after many times of telling people to go to scripture and apply reason.

Look none other than scripture

@@nightshade99 said Jesus….never. 😇

@@thedomesticmonk772 Incorrect; start learning the bible over men's opinions. Matthew 4:4 But Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man is not to live on bread only. Man is to live by every word that God speaks.’”

@@nightshade99 refuted as the only authority by Scripture itself. The Ethiopian eunuch is the Biblical proof that without an authority on Scripture it can be misinterpreted and twisted. Even he, an unbaptized person, had the wisdom to ask how he could really understand without instruction. Apostolic Tradition is the answer to clarifying Sacred Scripture.

@@ohseven4150 YOU: refuted as the only authority by Scripture itself. ME: Your statement didn't make any sense. YOU: The Ethiopian eunuch is the Biblical proof that......he could really understand without instruction. ME: Incorrect. Catholic officials sometimes refer to the case of the Ethiopian nobleman in which Philip asked if he understood what he was reading, and the reply, "Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?" and argue that every one must depend on an official interpreter. However, the Eunuch only had the prophecy of Isaiah in his hands which words could not be understood without a knowledge of what had happened at Calvary. (See Acts 8:29-35). Of course, in this formative period when the gospel message had not been fully revealed and the story of the cross had not been told, one would have to be guided to the fulfillment of this dark prophecy to know who it was that "was led like a sheep to slaughter; and just as a lamb dumb before its shearer, so did he not open his mouth." However, now that we have the inspired record of the exact literal fulfillment of the prophecy, we do not need an interpreter to tell us what it means. YOU: Apostolic Tradition is the answer to clarifying Sacred Scripture. ME: Incorrect. Catholic officials follow up this claim by stating that one can get the true meaning only from the Catholic Church but have no passages which mention an official interpreter and, thus, they try to support their claim through human logic and reasoning. Any time men do such, it amounts to nothing more than human philosophy rather than Scriptural proof. The Bible says, "Let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Rom. 3:4). It also warns, "See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8). The inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures. "For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand." (2 Cor. 1:13). "...How that, according to revelation the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words, as you reading may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:3-4) "Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is." (Eph. 5:17). There is no difference between the "private interpretation" argument and the one on understanding. The inspired writers taught that men can privately interpret or understand the Scriptures. The reasoning of the RCC is utterly ridiculous. They argue that when one makes a private interpretation of the Scriptures, he claims for himself a personal infallibility. When an individual reads and interprets the Bible, it no more makes him infallible than reading the facts about Abraham Lincoln makes him Abraham Lincoln. The individual with his own feelings and emotions does not constitute an infallible authority; the Word itself is the infallible authority. Infallibility gets from the printed page to the mind of the reader simply by the reader comprehending what he reads. Catholics raise tremendous opposition to private interpretation of the Bible; however, a study of the Holy Scriptures plainly reveals that God requires and expects man to make private interpretations of His Word. The powers and blessings of the Word of God comes only to those who privately interpret the Word. For example: "refreshing the soul" (Psalm 19:8), "giving understanding to the simple" (Psalm 119:130), "which is able to build you up" (Acts 20:32,) "a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12), "I write to you in order that you may not sin" (1 John 2:1), "that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). These things are not received and are not accomplished unless one makes a private interpretation of the Word, thus, showing that a private interpretation is required. Man must exercise his senses upon the Word of God that he might be able to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:14). Jesus expected the people of His day to privately interpret the Scriptures. He used such terms as "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), "have you not read?" (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), "is it not written in your law?" (John 10:34; Luke 10:26) which show that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., "You err, not knowing the Scriptures..." (Matt. 22:29), "...Thus making void the word of God through your tradition" (Mark 7:13). These things show that Jesus wanted and required a private interpretation of Scriptures. The common people readily heard and understood Christ's teaching without an infallible interpreter. Mark 12:37 says, "And the mass of the common people like to hear him." Jesus said, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones." (Matt. 11:25). In Matt. 13:51, Jesus said to His disciples, "Have ye understood all these things? They said to him, 'Yes'." If the common people could interpret Jesus's Word, and much of the New Testament is simply the Word which Jesus spoke to the people, so can we. Isaiah, prophesying of the New Testament Way, said, "A path and a way shall be there...and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein." (Isa. 35:8). God has endowed us with reason and the power to choose between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error. These are all set before us and the responsibility rests upon us to function as intelligent free agents. God will judge every man in accord with his response to His Holy Word. Jesus said, "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." (John 12:48). All these things show that a private interpretation is possible and necessary. After the church was established, the apostles and prophets likewise required that people make a private interpretation of Scripture (Acts 9:22; 18:28) and the people did that very thing (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15). When churches began to be established as result of the preaching of God's Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was now the official interpreter of the Scriptures. They did not direct the people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself.

catholic theology within catholic universities is becoming non-existent because most of these institutions are no longer true to the label - bishops are asleep, and very happy to be so - they don't realize they are mercenaries, not pastors, according to Jesus' oen words

If it isn’t in the Bible, you can’t make it binding on believers.

@@aGoyforJesus says who? Protestants lack any authority

@@aGoyforJesus But Jesus never gave his apostles any bible. Rather, he left a Church in which he domiciled the richness of his teachings. So, anyone who wanted to be Christian in the first century had no bible or letters to study, but must have to resort to the utterances of the apostles, which existed only as a deposit of Tradition. Don't forget we are talking about an oral culture here. Bible is simply a collection of the Church's living Tradition. So, what is known as bible today existed as separate letters of exhortation written for individual churches across Europe and the middle East. The New Testament is only a record of the first few decades of Christianity. Is it, therefore, reasonable to expect it contain every single thing the Church has ever believed and taught? How did we arrive at the current books in the Bible? Who chose these books out of other tens and hundreds of books making the rounds from the first centuries of the Church? What criterion was used in making the choice of books in the Bible? These and more are the relevant questions one must ask, instead of simply talking as though Jesus threw down the Bible from heaven after his ascension.

@@aGoyforJesus So you think Peter's first converts weren't bound for stuff like believing Jesus was of jewish origin???

@@aGoyforJesus you're talking like a protestant. Jesus literally made his apostles binding.

And even then making a realm like purgatory is like making a baptism for the dead out of one scripture or using water instead of wine for communion because "water *and* blood came out. And yes I did heavily imply Catholics argue and use scripture like Mormons. It's ok, Calvinists made up an entire theology on Romans 9 ;) EDIT: Pardon the snark, I am not implying Catholics and Mormons are on the same level of heresy. I am however jokingly saying much like how Trent thinks Protestants argue like Muslims, you Catholics argue like Mormons in regard to Purgatory. I apologize if I sounded rude. I do respect Trent, even when he sees us all as mini-John MacArthurs so I will respect his comments section. Again I am sorry for being cheeky.

Yes it is. It's Godhead, the Three that bear record in Heaven, and Jesus Christ's statement that He and His Father are one. There are also Old Testament verses that point to Jesus Christ as God the Son, as well as the infamous first part of John's Gospel. Even the name Elohim has a plurality to it. Kind of hints of why God in Genesis says "Let us make man in our own image." Purgatory however is not listed in the Bible. There is Abraham's bosom or Paradise, but that can't be mistaken for Purgatory.

There's way more implications for the Trinity than Purgatory. I noticed something with Catholics that Mormons do (and yes I am outright stating the two have similar ways of doing things not putting you on the same level but you act a lot like them in many ways), they will interpret things that Protestants see as metaphoric as literal. Every mention of Purgatory I've seen can/is taken metaphorically by Protestants, you Catholics take it literally. I use the Mormon comparison not as a club but because Mormons do the same thing. That's why Baptism for the dead exists, it wasn't just randomly made up by Joseph Smith his citation was 1 Corinthians 15:29. Do Catholics baptize their dead? Obviously not but the literal/metaphoric view is the same. Another Mormon thing is serving *water* instead of wine for communion. It's not just due to them being temperance focused. But because John 19:34 mentions water coming out of Jesus. EDIT: Elaborated a lot of things and again. I am not saying you Catholics are on the same level of heresy as Mormons, I am however saying much like how Protestants argue like Muslims you argue like Mormons.

@@galatian5 how do you interpret Matt 5:26? Why Jesus wants you to pay until the last penny in order you to get out? To get out from where? If it's paid in full when Jesus died on the cross, why Jesus still wants you to pay?

@@induklife9939 That's the point, it can't be repaid by us. A poor servant is not going to ever repay a richman's debt. A human is not going to be able to remove himself from hell. We can forgive others as Christ has forgiven us or we can try to pay off eternity, which we can't. It's like you owe me 5 dollars but I owe Christ a billion dollars. I will never pay Christ back, so let me just forgive your 5 dollar debt to me.

To add to the points others have given, if I accept your argument, how could you convince me not to just become an atheist?

@Eddard Tyrsson That is impossible

@Eddard Tyrsson eisogesis is reading INTO Scripture. That cant happen with Scripture itself. Its self contradicting

@Eddard Tyrsson Where do PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS WILL TELL YOU THAT THE APOSTLES FORGIVE SIN THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN

@Eddard Tyrsson HE HAS FORGIVEN US ALL OF OUR SINS

@@tony1685 Koran maKes it Klear?

@Christos Kyrios They have always felt this way and yet Jesus was a Jew. Lucifer believes in the Trinity. The point cannot be a one-to-one correspondance.

@@tony1685 Well sinners "created" the Bible, the only things not made by a sinner are Jesus and Mary's and Jesus' miracles, since only those two people in the post-Adam world are sinless. And the Eucharist is in the Bible, at the last supper the sacrament is performed the same way it's performed on every Mass!

@@tony1685 Mary's parents were sinners, God chose to concede Mary the grace of the immaculate conception, and as far as we know Mary alone had this grace. >Only a sinner needs a saviour No, not really, that's a disputable logical leap. All man only enter the Kindgom of Heaven through Jesus, she still needs an undeserved grace to access the beatific vision and the separation from earthly evil and suffering. Mariology is mostly biblical, but it's refined in tradition. The word in greek for the "giving thanks" is eucharistos. That word is as biblical as "baptism", it's just that we don't use the weird incomplete english phrase "giving thanks" when we refer to the sacrament of the Holy Communion. All aspects of the Catholic Eucharist are strictly objectively biblical!

@@tony1685 If you use this kind of language to caricature and lampoon your opponent's position, you might create some cute zingers, but you'll have egg on your face when an atheist does the same thing to you. All of Christianity can be caricatured by a motivated skeptic. The Bible is full of things that can easily be made to sound absurd. Hell, there's a talking snake in the first few pages, and you only need to read for a few days before you get to a talking donkey. How is that any different from a "godcookie"? Do you believe that a million or more slaves walked from Egypt to Israel, on foot, following a giant cloud that transforms into fire every night and leaves a trail of magic cookie dough on the ground to sustain them? And that opens up holes in the ground to swallow up the ones who offend him? And that makes water spray out of boulders that his chosen prophet beats with a stick? Do you believe in a virgin birth? A god-man dying for our sins only to rise from the dead and float up to heaven? You believe in a giant cosmic dictator in the sky, watching everything we do? You believe that people with leprosy and blindness were cured by scraps of clothing worn by the Apostles? Feel any impulse to say "now wait a minute"? Would you prefer I allow some nuance and treat your ancient tradition with more charity, rather than mocking it from the outset? Sounds fair to me, so why don't you talk about the Eucharist charitably? Could it be because you start from the presupposition that it's bogus, and then mock it in order to support that presupposition? Clearly there's a double standard somewhere in your thinking, but only you can know where. Anyway, if eating a godcookie is too much silliness for you, maybe you should reevaluate the rest of your beliefs, since they sound just as silly to an atheist. I'd know, as a recent convert who was raised without religion. I looked down on and mocked Christian beliefs my whole life until I was 27. I was never taught Christian doctrine or history, I was only taught about insulting caricatures of it. My education in Christianity was just a mockery of Christianity. Anyone would sneer at those grotesque strawmen of Christian faith. But now, after taking the time to study the history, I'm perfectly comfortable saying yes, eating a godcookie is sensible. And why not? What's wrong with eating a godcookie? Can you give a principled reason, apart from your own argument from incredulity (the same arguments I just showed that atheists use against ALL of Christianity), why we shouldn't eat godcookies? Maybe it sounds silly for someone to believe that a "godcookie" is a real thing. But what if you're wrong? What if the host really is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and our Lord himself really told us to eat it? Who are you to mock the means that God has chosen for us to participate in his son's sacrifice? You sound no different from the skeptics in John 6 who are so incredulous about the idea of Jesus "giving us his flesh to eat" that they abandon their Lord. If you really believe Jesus is the God of the universe, you should do what he tells you, not scoff and ask if it's really "sensible" to eat his flesh in the accidents of a wafer. Otherwise, you should apply the same degree of skepticism to everything _you_ believe, not draw an arbitrary line dividing the beliefs you happen to have been raised with from the beliefs of the ancient Christian Church (which clearly include the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, among many other Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran distinctives). And if you think the Eucharist is "performing blasphemy," how do you explain John 6 and the Last Supper narrative? How do you explain the Didache? How do you explain the writings of Irenaeus? Ignatius? Tertullian? "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." - Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1, AD 110 How do you explain the overwhelming evidence attesting to the ubiquity of the Eucharist among the earliest Christians? Did everyone just turn to blasphemy within a generation of the Apostles? What kind of God would promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against" a Church that's going to fall to _universal_ heresy within a generation? If you believe that the Church got it so spectacularly wrong, so fast, and for so long, shouldn't you have serious doubts about the divinity of the man who founded it? The good news is there is absolutely no evidence that the Church got it wrong. There's a very clear line between what Jesus taught about the Eucharist and what the Church did in the first century. The sacrament Ignatius is talking about, the Eucharist, is very clearly taught in the New Testament. Hardly any scholars deny that. The dispute is of a philosophical nature, and it concerns whether Jesus is _truly_ present in the Eucharist, i.e., via transsubstantiation, or is merely _sacramentally_ present in the Eucharist, i.e., as a kind of theologically significant symbol.

@@tony1685 By the way, doesn't it strike you as worrisome that you're so quick to insult and mock people? Your comments are so thick with sarcasm I can practically hear the tone of your voice just from reading text on a screen lol. If you really had the Holy Spirit, wouldn't it affect your behavior? Wouldn't you be charitable and kind to people, instead of childishly attacking them? For example, why mock the very word "Eucharist"? Do you even know what it means? The earliest Christian authors we know of use that term to refer to the sacrament. It is a far more ancient and well-attested part of Christianity than you are. Shouldn't you at least have some basic respect for it, instead of treating it like some kind of joke? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Everyone except your protestant denomination is wrong about the Eucharist. The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have been mistaken. Some fatal error in transmission resulted in billions of people misunderstanding Jesus' commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood. And let's say Jesus came back to Earth to correct us. Do you think he would solve this problem by insulting those billions of Christians, engaging in sarcastic namecalling and referring to the erroneous sacrament as the "yooooookrist"? Does that sound like something our Lord would do? So why are _you_ doing it? Your interlocutor wrote, "And the Eucharist is in the Bible..." and you responded, "sorry friend, not in the Christian Bible." What is that supposed to mean? Were you under the impression that Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, and many other Christians who practice the Eucharist have a different New Testament than your denomination? The passages concerning the Eucharist (what some protestant denominations have been calling the "Lord's Supper" for the last couple hundred years, in an effort to distance themselves from the historical Church - it's an English phrase that appears nowhere in the Apostolic or patristic fathers) are in the Gospels. I don't know what Bible you're reading, but I'm pretty sure if you're calling it a Christian Bible, it has the four Gospels in it. If you want to seriously dispute the traditional understanding of the Eucharist, you're going to have to explain what Jesus meant, if he didn't mean for us to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood as part of a sacrament, involving bread and wine, done in remembrance of the Lord. You can't just say "not in the Bible" and go running for the door, and expect anyone to follow you in your error. Explain how you're not in error. Explain how the Bible itself, that anthology of books you presumably claim as your "sole rule of faith," doesn't clearly contradict your position. Explain how your beliefs about the Eucharist aren't actually novel innovations completely unheard of anywhere in the Church for the first 15 centuries of its existence, as even many protestant historians acknowledge. Maybe you're right. I'm open to the possibility. But if you're not gonna give us a reason to believe you, besides vague admonitions like "do some research," then you're really just wasting your time and ours.

@@ToxicallyMasculinelol you're a pretty gifted expositor of your faith. I screenshotted a long reply of yours on baptism a few weeks ago. Just in case. I have a number of Protestant friends I'm hoping to be able to share these things with and who I hope will come to see the beauty and truth of Catholicism. What state do you reside in and kind of church you attend?

Next week: Protestants argue like Laveyan Satanists. 😂

@@gideonwiley8961 😂😂 Perhaps a turning point for me by then haha.

@@gideonwiley8961 not far off, given private interpretation of scripture

@@Qwerty-jy9mj dang the burn 🤣

Why? You're a protestant?

I'm not clear on how is it that baptists can be both baptists and Calvinists. Beyond denying baptismal regeneration, are there any other requirements?

@@Qwerty-jy9mj I would say denying covenant theology, 1689 federalism is similar to progressive dispensationalism, so that’s why baptist aren’t reformed, particular Baptist is a more accurate term.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Being a Calvinist and Reformed are not the same thing.

@@wordandwater9027 My head is spinning tbh, what's the difference between Calvinist and reformed? I thought it was just the name that they gave to themselves

@@Qwerty-jy9mj as a former Baptist who also claimed to be a calvanist (now catholic!) when Baptist claim to be reformed or calvanist, usually it means they hold to TULIP. (Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible election, and perseverance of the saints) they are not claiming Calvin's view on other issues of church government and view of the sacraments. John Piper would be an example (or at least was back in the early 2000s) and this view was the predominant view taught at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I went to school for my M.Div and graduated in 2014) Limited atonement is debatable in that circle at times, but the other points are usually held. Edit: add to the confusion, Reformed Baptist, is a separate denomination than The Southern Baptist Convention (Southern Baptist) and If I remember, John Piper was/is General Baptist (Maybe American Baptist) the way that "Baptist" understanding of the Church, each individual local Baptist church is an independent body, the "denomination" doesn't have any real authority over it. That's why southern Baptist is called "convention" instead of denomination.

The problem is that he knows Catholics have more conservative scholarship, so he's not steelmanning the case against him

I don’t think that’s what theologically liberal means

It's a form of straw-manning. Anyone can find fringe elements in most groups. If you run into that, make them show how the "liberal's" assertions are in line with authoritative Catholic sources (Scripture, Early Church Father's, Councils, Catechism, etc.)

@@sneakysnake2330 I'd agree that I didn't give a great definition, but I think the question is still interesting.

“Adding things to the Bible” is such a vague term that I have no clue what it means. I’ve never had someone who made that claim produce a catholic Bible and show me where things have been added to it. But I can definitely say that Protestants ignore vast swathes of scripture, and don’t actually read it and wrestle its meaning for themselves. Quoting Ephesians 2:8-9 is a great example of this given Ephesians 2:10

If you listen to their out-of-date opposition views, you realise its pride n empty faith. As if Catholic Church never had the explanations to their repeated unintellectual tradition.

Loving the anti-protestantism in these comments. Bloody hypocrites.

Do you have an example?

@@nightshade99 I did have but I can't seem to find it now. It was a "dialogue" with an Imam. Sorry but I am too unwell at the moment to spend all that much time looking for something. If you were familiar with James White's recent stuff you might be aware of it.

@@christopherquinn5899 I am familiar with it, that is why I am curious as to the sudden downgraded in your eyes. In my experience, he is perfectly correct when debating RCC dogma but falters when he tries to condone Calvinism.

How so?

The problem is that Catholics are never immune to this criticism being applied to them. They just pretend they're above it all.

They say he's a failed prophet who couldn't convince anyone and he caused more confusion, that's why according to them God took him before he was killed and he will have a second coming. On the contrary, they think Muhammad came to rectify those wrongs and is the perfect and ultimate prophet. This of course is a grave heresy for any Christian and that's why Muslim apologists don't straight say it when doing dawah to Christians, but it should be known and it should be outright rejected.

@@Dan_Capone In Islam you cannot disrespect Jesus since He is explicitly stated to be Messiah and a Messenger etc etc. The Quran makes the bold claim that Jesus predicted the coming of "Ahmad" (ie Mohammed) among other things for which we have no real evidence unless you're already convinced of the Quran. In Islam it is not that Jesus failed but rather that Jesus wasn't bringing a universal/forever covenant (and that Mohammed does do this as the final messenger). Clearly, however, Islam is filled with grave heresy no Christian should accept if he dare keep the name Chrsitian. Denying the Atonement, denying the crucifixion, denying the Divinity of Jesus, denying the Trinity, these are core teachings of Christianity denied by Islam which is possibly why Islam is considered a separate religion and not just an aberrant form of Christianity like Mormonism (who may deny some of these core teachings but not all of them).

@@1001011011010 Muslims insult Jesus all the time

@@tony1685 So very wrong. Catholicism accepts and follows His Commandments. Are followers made the brothers of Jesus? Did Jesus not make His followers His "family"? Is this considered being made "next to" Jesus? Is this "demoting" Jesus? No. On the contrary, God is so great that He is not in competition with His creatures. A masterful painter is not worried about competing with his beautiful paintings, rather they show his handiwork! God is so great, no creation could ever be worthy of worship due to Him Alone. There is no competition. So if He does all these things for those of us who sinned and were far from Him, not really His family, how much more for her who raised Him, bore Him, suckled Him, loved Him more than we can probably imagine (with a mother's love), the one called "full of grace" by the angel before being made the mother of the Christ. The way for the world to know Christ. Imagine how much the holiest person you know has helped bring people to Christ. Now imagine that all of these things came about through the cooperation of Mary, who willingly bore the Christ and had the great privilege of doing such a thing. Such devotion is to make us grow closer to Christ, who deigned to become man for our sakes. He humbled Himself so we may be made adopted children of God. No longer called mere servants, but children! Do you not consider these things and quiver at our unworthiness? Yet look what God has ordained in the depths of eternity! Does this not fill us with humility? May God have mercy on our souls. Yet now, even now, we still can turn to Him in the fullness of truth to which I invite you. I don't know what is pushing you to post such seemingly irrelevant attacks on Catholicism on posts about a rather different subject, on a video by a Catholic apologist. I don't know what it is, but I suspect you have some sort of strong feelings against the Church. My dear suggestion is to try to really understand the Chruch in fairness, and not from what Her enemies say, but from what Her defenders say, those who believe and not those who hate. You wouldn't want to learn about Christianity from a Muslim, would you? Think on these things and pray.

@@Dan_Capone im sorry , no muslim will every say that jesus pbuh as a failed prophet , his name is mentioned in quran 35 times , Quran glorifies all the prophets , unlike bible , reffering to david commiting adultery , lot had sex with his own daughters, The only thing we differe is that jesus pbuh was not killed by the jews, and you christians believe that he was killed.

Numbers 30 deals with these exact situations, so there are provisions in the Mosaic law that deal with vows of virginity and how a husband should respond to them. It’s also fitting that Mary would not have returned to an ordinary life after fulfilling the most sacred role of any mere human in history. The sacred should never be used for profane (ordinary) tasks, and we see this with how the Ark of the Covenant was treated. A lot more could be said, so if you’d like to read more, Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary is a fantastic work on the topic. -Kyle

Interesting. Can you explain your viewpoint?

What do you suppose this means?

@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don't know. We need some kind of committee that's able to explain this nonsense. In the mean time, I'm going to kiss a book that says that God literally blew his spirit into the c u next Tuesday of Mary, using that word in Arabic which I just hinted to. I didn't use that word, because it is utterly disrespectful towards Mary, the mother of God. How stupid is it, to kiss such a filthy book?

Do you think the plan of salvation including them means that they are saved? God’s plan of salvation includes everyone, it doesn’t mean God plans on saving those who reject his church

@@georgwagner937 You don't need to say it to be equally disrespectful. That committee that you wanted already happened, it's called the Second Vatican Council

@@Qwerty-jy9mj well, you are right. It was disrespectful, but I was joking. I would never kiss such a book. Because it is filthy and an abomination. But the pope did kiss such a book. And it breaks my heart.

For pre-V2 Catholic teaching you can see SSPX and other traditionalist, after V2 every thing become blurry.

The gold standard for evaluating Catholic teaching has got to be the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It cites the sources of church doctrine, which include not only scripture and the documents of Vatican II (themselves rich referential sources), but also no shortage of references to the Church Fathers, to St Thomas Aquinas, among other classical Catholic sources. It Was Written explicitly so that priests and scholars might have a concise reference book on what Catholicism is. No individual scholar or collegium could serve the purpose that the catechism was written to do.

Then why would you be a protestant?

@@TheThreatenedSwan I can't be a Catholic if I don't know what being a Catholic is. As the Catholics are happy to point out, if you aren't one of them you're basically a protestant (yes, I know about the complexity with the Orthodox). I believe in Jesus, his atoning sacrifice, his resurrection, and he is the Lord of my life. I believe that Scripture is a revelation given to us from God so that we might come to know and understand him. I believe Scripture is not in error because God does not err. Humans can be fallible in a way Scripture is not, so I take their words as secondary. Catholic teaching is, clearly, full of confusion. I can't ever get a consistent teaching out of Catholics that I discuss with or read. Consistency, though, is the key on all of this. For a group that is defined on many attributes in a way that protestants aren't, I literally can't know if I fit in. I can know that I'm Christian. Therefore, I won't confess to something I don't know. If I don't confess, I'm not Catholic. Therefore, I'm protestant by means of exclusion.

@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf You're taking all the assumptions of protestantism for granted. My point was if you're so confused by Catholicism, how can you be protestant? How do you know you are theologically orthodox? You're taking your tradition as the default, but no non-christian, or a hypothetical neutral observer, would read the Bible with no other knowledge and come to your beliefs. That's actually why the magisterium is necessary: to adjudicate what is an is not orthodox or in other words Matthew 18 15-18

Hmm Guess you don't know what 'being a Muslim' means Do some basic research

Do you think the bible can be an idol? So one can focus so much on worshipping the word of God they forget to worship God himself. Interesting take,

Wow! You really think Muslims worship the Quran? Says how much you know about Islam

@@Paper-Z Does not really matter what they worship as it is not Jesus Christ. And that is their biggest mistake.

@@juanisaac5172 What about just worshipping God 'the father' like all prophets did

@@Paper-Z Muslims do not worship God the Father. They worship the old Arabian moon god named Allah. Allah is a middle eastern god that was around that area. In Babylon Allah was known as Sin. Their symbol is the half moon crescent found in the book of Judges. The God of the Prophets was Jehova, the God of Abraham and Allah a false god.

"Jesus is God" #NotInTheBible

@@nadreb13 Only true God is Father.

“The Father is the only true God” (which is what Jesus said) is a completely different sentence to “Only the Father is the true God” (this is not what Jesus said). You are simply making Jesus say something which he didn’t.

@@felixosborne6234 My father your father My Lord your lord

@@bashirahmadnoori6750 It’s “my God and your God” actually

Nothing is more important than your destiny after death, it's obvious that every source of error that leads to damnation needs to be challenged

@@tafazzi-on-discord Whenever I hear Christians discuss among themselves, I get the feeling that they are the preeminent sources of error, The hubris that you guys present is even more unbelievable than the history of atrocities of the Christian Churches

@@trumpsupporter1016 Your feeling is wrong. Seek truth, even if it's hard to find. Convert brother, paradise is better than you can imagine.

@@tafazzi-on-discord Your arrogance is on overdrive. It God exists and is a loving God, then I'll be fine. I have both true Reason and true Faith - you have abandoned Reason and think you've found truth when all you have is a bunch of assertions.

@@trumpsupporter1016 I have not abandoned reason, since there is a loving God, you should know that He wants you to live in His Church. That's where the evidence points you to.

the significance of his catholicism only finds importance when he returns for matters like should he be re-baptized and re-confirmed, which of course we don't do because he received catholic sacraments and is a catholic.

Colloquially, when we say "remain Catholic" we mean "remain in orthodoxy". This is not a difficult thing to grasp.

@@atlinc.s6525 What happens if he leaves the Roman Catholic Church and marries outside the church? Is he living in mortal sin?

Don't know enough about him, but assuming baptized and confirmed Catholic but guilty of some combination of heresy, schism, or apostasy, he would need only confess that in the Sacrament of Reconciliation to be considered a Catholic in good standing.

@@tony1685 I agree with you 100 percent

Huh?

What are you saying? Lol.

He's not simply some scholar or self proclaimed pastor/teacher. Priests are theologically significant in Roman Catholicism. Significant enough that it's disingenuous to ignore what it means to have a preist deny these things.

@@Given119 where or when did priests proclaim doctrine? Are you deceived or trying to deceive me? Priests NEVER have the authority to define dogma and doctrine, and any priest who goes against what the Church teaches is a heretic. Martin Luther was a Catholic priest but then he started teaching against what the Church teaches therefore he is a heretic.

@@charbelyoussef604 nope. I'm pointing out the same thing White was. Even Trent touched on it. Rome harbors heretics and heresy. I'd argue it has for quite some time. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Why not?

He's coward, afraid that Jihadi John might show up at his doorstep so best to be nice to Muslim's and vent his anger at those who won't retaliate. I won't be surprised there will come a time when Americans would be bullied into Islamisation.

He is

@@mattjackson450 It doesn’t matter if I watched the entire video or not, the title itself makes it sound like protestants are the only ones who do this. It doesn’t matter if he said that Catholics are guilty of this too towards the end. Anyone who does not watch all the way to the end, or even if they do, are going to go away thinking that this is a “protestant issue“ based on remembering the title, and the bulk of Trent’s argument. Again, the title is misleading.

I love these butthurt heretics in the comment section.

It's not misleading, it does matter if you watched it, if someone else didn't watch it till the end then maybe they should before running their mouth

@@angelalemos9811 I know you want to defend Trent because you like him and because he’s Catholic. Regardless, we have spoken to Trent about the titles of his videos making it sound like this is something that only protestants do. The fact that he has made another video with a similar title, which insinuates the same thing, does make it misleading. Nothing in the title itself even implies that this is not limited to protestants. So it doesn’t matter that he addresses this later in the video. Yes, the title is misleading.

You are talking about Trent right?

@@salvadorhenriquez4091 Yes. This whole channel is silly. I'm not even sure why I keep on seeing these videos.

Seems to me you don't really know the definition of silliness. Either that or you aren't the brightest bulb

@@walterhoward5512 well it seems that you are interested because you also comment.